HAMMER: Roberts And Kavanaugh’s Death Penalty Betrayal Again Shows Why Conservatives Never Win The L

[roamer_1]

When the government kills someone as a punishment for a crime, it does so on our behalf and in our name.  If the government kills an innocent person without having done everything possible to make sure the person was in fact guilty, then the government has murdered, and has murdered on our behalf and in our name.  That makes us complicit in that murder.

No. Of course there is due diligence, but not 'everything possible'. That is a ridiculous and impossible standard.
There will always be injustice, and there will always be mistakes... To be so verklempt as to cause systemic paralysis serves no purpose and is horrendously costly.

[Bill Cipher]

Quit being a snowflake.  You insult the intelligence of everyone on this forum with your ridiculous view on the death penalty.

Again I'll ask you...name one person in America that was innocent that's been put to death in this country?

What have you done personally to try and change the law?  If we're so complicit as you so falsely claim...what are you doing to try and suspend the death penalty like the courts did in the 70's?

So you're trying to tell us that you'd be fine with Tim McVeigh...Ted Bundy...Richard Ramierez...Eileen Wurnous....child rapists...people who kill a 7-11 clerk for $30 bucks so they can get high living out the rest of their life at tax payer expense?

There's no reason you can ever think of where the death penalty would be justified?

Because he knew he truly was sending an innocent man to his death.

Innocents who have been wrongfully executed (murdered): 

https://stories.avvo.com/crime/murder/8-people-who-were-executed-and-later-found-innocent.html

[Bill Cipher]

No. Of course there is due diligence, but not 'everything possible'. That is a ridiculous and impossible standard.
There will always be injustice, and there will always be mistakes... To be so verklempt as to cause systemic paralysis serves no purpose and is horrendously costly.

“Good enough for government work” should never be the standard by which the government’s decision to kill someone should be measured.

I’m sorry that you feel otherwise. 

And the fact that the system can never be “good enough” is precisely why the death penalty should be abolished, because applied often enough and it will inevitably result in the killing of an innocent person whose innocence could have been proven. 

https://stories.avvo.com/crime/murder/8-people-who-were-executed-and-later-found-innocent.html

[txradioguy]

Innocents who have been wrongfully executed (murdered): 

https://stories.avvo.com/crime/murder/8-people-who-were-executed-and-later-found-innocent.html

Find something credible. Not an anti-death penalty website.

[Bill Cipher]

Find something credible. Not an anti-death penalty website.

Credibility is in the eye of the reader.  You disbelieve; fair enough.  Others can judge for themselves. 

The blood of innocents has been spilt in your, and my, name. 

[roamer_1]

“Good enough for government work” should never be the standard by which the government’s decision to kill someone should be measured.

I’m sorry that you feel otherwise. 

And the fact that the system can never be “good enough” is precisely why the death penalty should be abolished, because applied often enough and it will inevitably result in the killing of an innocent person whose innocence could have been proven. 

https://stories.avvo.com/crime/murder/8-people-who-were-executed-and-later-found-innocent.html

In fact I DO think otherwise, just as a matter of living in reality. No system is foolproof.

That is no reason to forego a system. The standard is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. What is required of the system is due process in order to obtain a conviction according to that standard. That error will occur is just part of any given system. Doesn't matter if the system has met its requirement.

I can see a life sentence if the case is weak - if there is in fact 'reasonable doubt' (though then, there should not be a conviction at all). I can see some relief for crimes of passion and crimes lacking motive. I can definitely see relief for crimes in self defense.

But in cases where premeditation can be proven, and the act can be proven - He killed someone on purpose - kill him back.

[jpsb]

Yep. In the words of Ron White, "If you kill someone, we'll kill you back..."

Pretty simple to me.

 

[roamer_1]

Credibility is in the eye of the reader.  You disbelieve; fair enough.  Others can judge for themselves. 

The blood of innocents has been spilt in your, and my, name.

Unintended collateral damage. Grievous though it is, I can live with that. Restore the man's name, take care of his widow, and do better next time.

If you are so worried about innocents being killed, turn your attention to the millions and millions of babies being intentionally slaughtered in the womb, with malice aforethought,  rather than being worried about a hat-full of people wrongfully (but unintentionally) convicted and sentenced to die.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

It is if the person killed was innocent, and a full review of the evidence would have demonstrated that fact. 

It is a fact that the government has murdered many people this way.  And we are all complicit in those murders.

Non sequiter from your liberal playbook.

No one ever claimed Moore was innocent of the crime, which is the topic in this thread.

Go try again.

It amusing to see you flail.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Your twisted view on the death penalty is one of the big reasons our justice system so so screwed up.

Lawyers play the system and tie up the courts with frivolous motions and every desperate motion they can file to keep a brutal murderer from meeting his fate....even when said brutal thug has said "stop the appeals I want to die".

How do you square your bleeding heart Liberal view of the Death Penalty with those on death row that say "I did that crime...and I deserve to die for it"?

I guess in your mind that changes it from murder to the more accepted leftist act of "assisted suicide" right?


Leviticus 24:19-21 "Anyone who injures their neighbor is to be injured in the same manner: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The one who has inflicted the injury must suffer the same injury." 


I'm not complicit in anything.  My conscience is clear.

to back up the bleeding heart nature of liberals using the legal system, take a look at this graphic show the blue states is mostly where the lawyers reside.

NO. LAWYERS PER CAPITA BY STATE (2017)

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

In fact I DO think otherwise, just as a matter of living in reality. No system is foolproof.

That is no reason to forego a system. The standard is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. What is required of the system is due process in order to obtain a conviction according to that standard. That error will occur is just part of any given system. Doesn't matter if the system has met its requirement.

I can see a life sentence if the case is weak - if there is in fact 'reasonable doubt' (though then, there should not be a conviction at all). I can see some relief for crimes of passion and crimes lacking motive. I can definitely see relief for crimes in self defense.

But in cases where premeditation can be proven, and the act can be proven - He killed someone on purpose - kill him back.

I believe in the death penalty when there is absolutely no doubt of guilt. There has to be a higher standard of guilt than in non-capital punishment cases.

[Smokin Joe]

I believe in the death penalty when there is absolutely no doubt of guilt. There has to be a higher standard of guilt than in non-capital punishment cases.

I think the standard should be equally high in all cases. Beyond a reasonable doubt.

What must be guaranteed is that the evidence is sound, that analyses are correct, the testimony true, Brady Material is not withheld, and that the accused has a good attorney.

[Sighlass]

Some folks will claim that the Death Penalty holds little sway in preventing future crime... as it stands now, I understand this....

Old King Solomon understood this 3000 years ago...

Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. -- Ecclesiastes 8:11

20 years later after 5 appeals, people have forgotten what the scum bag did to deserve death... This needs changed... and the lawyer/court glut needs to be ironed out... too many appeals with little call for it... a man caught on camera seen murdering someone should not take forever to string him up...

--------------------------------

To me the term "reasonable doubt" is just fine... any attempt to up the sensitivity on that is just asking for a lot of hung juries in even clear cut cases.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Do you think that a judge imposes a sentence based on cost to the taxpayers?? 

Oh, for heaven's sake @libertybele please go back and re-read my post.  I was answering a specific statement made by another poster.  Your response completely overlooks that and goes off the deep end.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Unintended collateral damage. Grievous though it is, I can live with that. Restore the man's name, take care of his widow, and do better next time.

This is chilling. 

Won't you please tell me again the story about how conservatives respecting all life is a cornerstone of their political philosophy.

[sneakypete]

 
Alas, Chief Justice John Roberts was a Republican judicial nominee.   

@mystery-ak

I don't always get it right,but I sure nailed it when I pegged Roberts as a One World Government tool immediately after Boy Jorge nominated him. He is about as independent as a dog on a chain.

BTW,since Roberts was nominated and promoted by the Bush Crime Family,does that mean he is still considered to be an actual Republican?

[roamer_1]

This is chilling. 

Won't you please tell me again the story about how conservatives respecting all life is a cornerstone of their political philosophy.

No, what is chilling is a murderer convicted, and getting paroled in 8 years.

[edpc]

No, what is chilling is a murderer convicted, and getting paroled in 8 years.

Worse yet, getting ‘treated’ in a mental hospital for a few years, deemed to be a non-threat, then released. Later, that person commits more heinous crimes. See Edmund Kemper.

[Restored]

When a murderer is spared execution, how many more people does he get to kill before we do something? We don't execute people for revenge. We execute them because they are a threat to those around them.  Without execution, there is no real punishment to dissuade them from killing again.

[Jazzhead]

Or maybe the time has just come to admit that the death penalty is a barbarity that doesn’t belong in a civilized society.

I tend to agree, and while there's merit to the argument that the death penalty, in some cases, represents "justice",  the corruptions and various imperfections of our criminal justice system make the likelihood high that innocent people have been executed.    I think it's a perfectly respectable "conservative" position to support doing away with the death penalty, not least of which is that it is consistent with a moral view that favors the protection of life.   

Indeed, yesterday's WSJ had a long feature article about growing conservative opposition to the death penalty.   That view isn't shared, yet, by a majority of conservatives, but it is growing, and for good reason.   

[LMAO]

This is chilling. 

Won't you please tell me again the story about how conservatives respecting all life is a cornerstone of their political philosophy.

@Right_in_Virginia

Sometimes I read things and wonder if the person really believes what they’ve typed or are just trolling for a response

[txradioguy]

Won't you please tell me again the story about how conservatives respecting all life is a cornerstone of their political philosophy.

One of the ways you protect life...one of the ways you show that you respect the living...it to harshly punish those that wantonly and willingly take another person's life.

[Right_in_Virginia]

@Right_in_Virginia

Sometimes I read things and wonder if the person really believes what they’ve typed or are just trolling for a response

Well, that would be for @roamer_1 to answer.  I'm not going to try and guess.   

[roamer_1]

@Right_in_Virginia

Sometimes I read things and wonder if the person really believes what they’ve typed or are just trolling for a response

Of course I believe it.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@Right_in_Virginia

Sometimes I read things and wonder if the person really believes what they’ve typed or are just trolling for a response

it is trolling and he/she/it is not very good at it.