APP - Ask me about social conservatism
- Thread starter DamnYankee
- Start date
W
WinterBorn
Guest
From: http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-pen...eath-penalty-and-innocence/page.do?id=1101086
"Since 1973, over 130 people have been released from death rows throughout the country due to evidence of their wrongful convictions. In 2003 alone, 10 wrongfully convicted defendants were released from death row."
That is a possibility. In cases where new evidence shows they killed the wrong person the courts refuse to take up the case, and the police say the case is closed. Guilty people who deserve to be punished remain free, and an innocent was killed. It isn't just people being released, there is the reality of posthumous exoneration.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
From your link:
There have been 267 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States.
My stance on the issue, as stated previously:
So show me how many innocents have been executed when there was "physical scientific proof" showing that the guy was guilty.
I too would support a death penalty if magicaly it could be proven deserved. Since such is not and never will be the case (any more than your standard) I can not support the actual death penalty.
http://www.albanylawreview.org/articles/07 Acker.pdf
W
WinterBorn
Guest
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
It's not magic; it's physical scientific proof.
There is no perfect proof and you know it.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Again:
W
WinterBorn
Guest
When the gov't executes innocent people, the fact that more guilty were executed is completely irrelevant. Unless you can show that there is a 100% foolproof way to determine guilt, and that the death penalty will be handed out fairly, it should not be used.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Is this Threedee? Why is it you dips have such a hard time keeping an identity? Insecurity is the only reasonable answer.
My parables and thought experiments were well received and still read throughout cyberspace. None of the threads were ad homs as they were about an ideology that has taken over the minds of impressible in the same manner all ideologies and empty trends do. The ability to capture an ideology with a small parable is a ability one should be proud of. Never were I 'pawned' to use the immature term thrown around by the immature. Statements require ostensible proof, you never provide any. See below for another confirmation of my take on libertarians.
"The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple: freedom, though a good thing, is simply not the only good thing in life. Simple physical security, which even a prisoner can possess, is not freedom, but one cannot live without it. Prosperity is connected to freedom, in that it makes us free to consume, but it is not the same thing, in that one can be rich but as unfree as a Victorian tycoon's wife. A family is in fact one of the least free things imaginable, as the emotional satisfactions of it derive from relations that we are either born into without choice or, once they are chosen, entail obligations that we cannot walk away from with ease or justice. But security, prosperity, and family are in fact the bulk of happiness for most real people and the principal issues that concern governments." Robert Locke The American Conservative -- Marxism of the Right
"There isn't much point arguing about the word "libertarian." It would make about as much sense to argue with an unreconstructed Stalinist about the word "democracy" -- recall that they called what they'd constructed "peoples' democracies." The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called "libertarian" here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. If they want to call that "libertarian," fine; after all, Stalin called his system "democratic." But why bother arguing about it?" Noam Chomsky
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
You and Chomsky are both wrong, Midcan. All good things stem from freedom, and hence it is the only good thing in life. Libertarians are not exclusively interested in freedom, but as you seem to have noticed, they seem to care a great deal more about it than the rest of us. Chomsky failed the second he referenced Stalin, which is a dishonest ad hom, which is highly ironic. Political parables do not contain any substance, which is why you prefer to use them.
I invite you to begin another Libertarianism in a Nutshell thread, opening with a parable, and get torn to pieces once again.
I invite you to begin another Libertarianism in a Nutshell thread, opening with a parable, and get torn to pieces once again.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Really now? Libertarians in particular are the most knowledgeable and educated members of this site, and recently OWNED the debate contest we held here. Care to provide some evidence for your assertion?
Lowaicue
英語在香港
You cannot stand for or against freedom unless you define a)what you mean by freedom and b) what is understood by freedom.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
I think the insertion of relativism into the equation (such as the need to "define" it) is what allows tyrants to restrict freedom.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/sc-dc-0330-court-prosecutors-20110329,0,4120668.story
Further proof that there should be no death penalty.
Further proof that there should be no death penalty.
Why debate an ideology that exists only in the minds of the contented classes in America, classes whose major presumption is politics exists as it does for them, their lives and ideas. You are aware no government, nor society, has ever or could ever run based on libertarian politics?
But while this will go over your head, I'll give you a Wittgensteinian example of a debate with a libertarian believer. But I will do it from a slightly modified naming. I am a toothfairian and I believe in toothfairydom. Toothfairydom is the basis of our beliefs, it is the solution to a better, more productive and promising life. Now your job is to counter my belief in toothfairianism. See if you can before I answer why you can't.