Y.J. - you are astounding me- I agree to everything you said in that post, does that mean perhaps that I have to worry about being senile? :lol::lol: Have a good day.
New Mexico Abolishes Death Penalty.
- Thread starter SirJosephPorter
- Start date
Y.J. - you are astounding me- I agree to everything you said in that post, does that mean perhaps that I have to worry about being senile? :lol::lol: Have a good day.
The OJ Prosecution I thought had a great case. It all came down to jury selection. True enough... lots of money levels the playing field. The jury simply let him go. A video of him killing them would not have convicted him.
I am one of those rare individuals who oppose BOTH the death penalty and abortion,
Yukon Jack, it is dishonest to say that you oppose death penalty and then say in the next breath that you support it in some instances. What you are saying is that you support death penalty in some instances. Now me, I oppose death penalty, no exceptions.
Contrary to some opinion expressed here earlier, the death penalty in itself is far cheaper than life in prison. It is the twenty-thirty years of appeal after appeal at taxpayers' expense that makes death penalty expensive.
That is nonsense, Yukon Jack. Death penalty may be cheaper than life in prison in countries like Saudi Arabia, North Korea etc. I assume there as soon as (or shortly after) death sentence is handed down, the prisoner is marched off to the gallows and executed. Some Islamic countries (like Taliban ruled Afghanistan) even make a public entertainment out of it; they put on a show for the benefit of their population when they execute somebody. It works very quickly in a dictatorship, there are no civil rights, no fundamental rights, no human rights, so the prisoner is executed at the whim of the dictator (or at the whim of the Fundamentalist clergy).
However, you cannot do that in a democracy. Even a convicted prisoner must be accorded the due process of law. In general that means several appeals. Even if it is decided that there should only be one appeal, there are many organizations in USA (such as ACLU) which oppose death penalty. They have some smart and innovative lawyers. You can depend upon them to continue the appeal process long after the one appeal is exhausted.
You cannot stop the appeals process. In a democracy, death penalty will always be an expensive proposition. Unless you want to go back to the good old days of no civil rights, no fundamentals rights, no right to appeal. As soon as the prisoner is convicted, a clergy is brought in, he performs the last rights, the prisoner is taken to the gallows and shot or electrocuted or whatever.
Short of that death penalty will always remain an expensive process. Bodies opposed to death penalty will use every resource available to delay the execution and drag out the appeals process (whether the criminal wants it or not).
Yukon Jack, it is dishonest to say that you oppose death penalty and then say in the next breath that you support it in some instances. What you are saying is that you support death penalty in some instances. Now me, I oppose death penalty, no exceptions.
Contrary to some opinion expressed here earlier, the death penalty in itself is far cheaper than life in prison. It is the twenty-thirty years of appeal after appeal at taxpayers' expense that makes death penalty expensive.
That is nonsense, Yukon Jack. Death penalty may be cheaper than life in prison in countries like Saudi Arabia, North Korea etc. I assume there as soon as (or shortly after) death sentence is handed down, the prisoner is marched off to the gallows and executed. Some Islamic countries (like Taliban ruled Afghanistan) even make a public entertainment out of it; they put on a show for the benefit of their population when they execute somebody. It works very quickly in a dictatorship, there are no civil rights, no fundamental rights, no human rights, so the prisoner is executed at the whim of the dictator (or at the whim of the Fundamentalist clergy).
However, you cannot do that in a democracy. Even a convicted prisoner must be accorded the due process of law. In general that means several appeals. Even if it is decided that there should only be one appeal, there are many organizations in USA (such as ACLU) which oppose death penalty. They have some smart and innovative lawyers. You can depend upon them to continue the appeal process long after the one appeal is exhausted.
You cannot stop the appeals process. In a democracy, death penalty will always be an expensive proposition. Unless you want to go back to the good old days of no civil rights, no fundamentals rights, no right to appeal. As soon as the prisoner is convicted, a clergy is brought in, he performs the last rights, the prisoner is taken to the gallows and shot or electrocuted or whatever.
Short of that death penalty will always remain an expensive process. Bodies opposed to death penalty will use every resource available to delay the execution and drag out the appeals process (whether the criminal wants it or not).
It's all a moot point now with O.J. He managed to get about 13 years out of it, now he will die in prison whereas if he'd have been convicted on the murder charges, he may have been eligible for parole by about age 87. But then again O.J. isn't the brightest candle on the cake.
"Yukon Jack, it is dishonest to say that you oppose death penalty and then say in the next breath that you support it in some instances."- NOT AT ALL- I could say that I oppose spanking children, but then when one of them murders his mother or my mother, I could have a change of heart. Y.J. just meant generally speaking. Y.J. is making a lot of sense these days- don't distract him.
The OJ Prosecution I thought had a great case.
Perhaps they did, EagelSmack, but the very public spectacle of glove not fitting did a lot of damage. Didn’t the prosecution know that the glove did not fit? They should not have introduced it in the evidence in the first place.
Perhaps they did, EagelSmack, but the very public spectacle of glove not fitting did a lot of damage. Didn’t the prosecution know that the glove did not fit? They should not have introduced it in the evidence in the first place.
I could say that I oppose spanking children, but then when one of them murders his mother or my mother, I could have a change of heart.
JLM, that is not at all the same thing. What you are saying is that you oppose spanking children (incidentally so do I, I never laid a finger on my son when he was a kid), but may change your mind in future. I can understand that.
What Yukon is saying is that he is opposed to death penalty, but he is not waiting until future to change his mind, he already has changed his mind and supports death penalty in some instances.
Then why not just say that he supports death penalty in some rare instances? Why claim that he is opposed to death penalty when in fact he is not? Is that because his Church’s position is to oppose the death penalty, and he does not want to give the impression that he goes against the teaching of the Pope (who is opposed to death penalty, no exceptions)?
JLM, that is not at all the same thing. What you are saying is that you oppose spanking children (incidentally so do I, I never laid a finger on my son when he was a kid), but may change your mind in future. I can understand that.
What Yukon is saying is that he is opposed to death penalty, but he is not waiting until future to change his mind, he already has changed his mind and supports death penalty in some instances.
Then why not just say that he supports death penalty in some rare instances? Why claim that he is opposed to death penalty when in fact he is not? Is that because his Church’s position is to oppose the death penalty, and he does not want to give the impression that he goes against the teaching of the Pope (who is opposed to death penalty, no exceptions)?
I tell you... I can take a tight leather glove and put it on... then struggle with it as a show to show it doesn't fit.
Didn't they coach OJ on putting on that glove? It was no accident that it didn't fit.
Even the blood all over the house and car. Geez he was so guilty!
The jury had made up their mind LONG before they went to the jury room.
I tell you... I can take a tight leather glove and put it on... then struggle with it as a show to show it doesn't fit.
Didn't they coach OJ on putting on that glove? It was no accident that it didn't fit.
Perhaps so, EagelSmack. But that performance looked quite convincing. When I saw that on TV I began to have my doubts as to whether an all black jury would convict him.
Didn't they coach OJ on putting on that glove? It was no accident that it didn't fit.
Perhaps so, EagelSmack. But that performance looked quite convincing. When I saw that on TV I began to have my doubts as to whether an all black jury would convict him.
"Yukon Jack, it is dishonest to say that you oppose death penalty and then say in the next breath that you support it in some instances. What you are saying is that you support death penalty in some instances. Now me, I oppose death penalty, no exceptions."
SirJosephPorter, if this world was as unforgivingly and unconditionally "black and white" as the stand you claim to hold on the death penalty, judges would not need days, weeks sometimes months to pronounce sentence upon conviction, from shoplifting to robbery.
Each and every case has its own merit and extenuating circumctances.
When a convicted murderer is guilty without any doubt, supported by any and all evidence including fingerprints, witnesses, DNA and confession of the perpetrator (indeed, the wish of the perpetrator), the death penalty should definitely be a viable option. And in that case, there would not have to be any prolonged and unnecessary dragging out the appeals procedure, rights of accused, notwithstanding.
I am opposed to death penalty whenever there is a chance of human error or whenever the history of the murderer, psychiatric opinion and other circumstances might indicate that there is a chance for rehabilitation and redemption.
Which brings me to the other part of my post, which you ignored: Abortion. I think I am giving a far better chance to any convicted murderer, in spite of my stand that you, no doubt consider dishonest and wishy-washy, as opposed your principled and solid view, than you would give an innocent new life, provided of course that your view on abortion is just as no-nonsense principled and honest as it is on the matter of capital punishment.
SirJosephPorter, if this world was as unforgivingly and unconditionally "black and white" as the stand you claim to hold on the death penalty, judges would not need days, weeks sometimes months to pronounce sentence upon conviction, from shoplifting to robbery.
Each and every case has its own merit and extenuating circumctances.
When a convicted murderer is guilty without any doubt, supported by any and all evidence including fingerprints, witnesses, DNA and confession of the perpetrator (indeed, the wish of the perpetrator), the death penalty should definitely be a viable option. And in that case, there would not have to be any prolonged and unnecessary dragging out the appeals procedure, rights of accused, notwithstanding.
I am opposed to death penalty whenever there is a chance of human error or whenever the history of the murderer, psychiatric opinion and other circumstances might indicate that there is a chance for rehabilitation and redemption.
Which brings me to the other part of my post, which you ignored: Abortion. I think I am giving a far better chance to any convicted murderer, in spite of my stand that you, no doubt consider dishonest and wishy-washy, as opposed your principled and solid view, than you would give an innocent new life, provided of course that your view on abortion is just as no-nonsense principled and honest as it is on the matter of capital punishment.
SirJosephPorter, if this world was as unforgivingly and unconditionally "black and white" as the stand you claim to hold on the death penalty, judges would not need days, weeks sometimes months to pronounce sentence upon conviction, from shoplifting to robbery.
It is black and white in Canada, Yukon Jack. Judges don’t even have to think for a minute before ruling out the death penalty. Canada does not permit death penalty, no exceptions. It is a very principled stand, and I fully agree.
I am opposed to death penalty whenever there is a chance of human error or whenever the history of the murderer, psychiatric opinion and other circumstances might indicate that there is a chance for rehabilitation and redemption.
I understand that Yukon Jack (I don’t agree with it, but I understand). My problem is you saying that you oppose death penalty. You do support death penalty in some circumstances. Then why not just say so, why claim that you oppose death penalty.
If you support death penalty, then the question would arise, when do you support it. Then what you say would apply. However, if you say you oppose death penalty, that means you oppose death penalty, end of story.
So my problem is with your hypocritical stance, saying that you oppose death penalty on one hand and in the same breath proclaim that you support it in some cases. Why not just say that you support death penalty, but only in a few cases?
It is black and white in Canada, Yukon Jack. Judges don’t even have to think for a minute before ruling out the death penalty. Canada does not permit death penalty, no exceptions. It is a very principled stand, and I fully agree.
I am opposed to death penalty whenever there is a chance of human error or whenever the history of the murderer, psychiatric opinion and other circumstances might indicate that there is a chance for rehabilitation and redemption.
I understand that Yukon Jack (I don’t agree with it, but I understand). My problem is you saying that you oppose death penalty. You do support death penalty in some circumstances. Then why not just say so, why claim that you oppose death penalty.
If you support death penalty, then the question would arise, when do you support it. Then what you say would apply. However, if you say you oppose death penalty, that means you oppose death penalty, end of story.
So my problem is with your hypocritical stance, saying that you oppose death penalty on one hand and in the same breath proclaim that you support it in some cases. Why not just say that you support death penalty, but only in a few cases?
I think I am giving a far better chance to any convicted murderer, in spite of my stand that you, no doubt consider dishonest and wishy-washy, as opposed your principled and solid view, than you would give an innocent new life, provided of course that your view on abortion is just as no-nonsense principled and honest as it is on the matter of capital punishment.
Yukon Jack, my stand on abortion is very principled. Scientist and biologists tell us that they don’t know when life begins, the definitely don’t say that life begins at conception. Since scientists don’t tell us that fetus from the moment of conception is the same as a human being, I take the principled view that a woman has the right to do with her body as she wishes.
It is a very principled stand, and it is not going to change unless and until scientists tell me that human life begins at conception. What the Pope and Fundamentalist preachers say is worthless, as far as I am concerned.
Yukon Jack, my stand on abortion is very principled. Scientist and biologists tell us that they don’t know when life begins, the definitely don’t say that life begins at conception. Since scientists don’t tell us that fetus from the moment of conception is the same as a human being, I take the principled view that a woman has the right to do with her body as she wishes.
It is a very principled stand, and it is not going to change unless and until scientists tell me that human life begins at conception. What the Pope and Fundamentalist preachers say is worthless, as far as I am concerned.
You confuse what scientists have to say about 'human life' with what law has to say about individual rights. Because there is no denying, from a scientific view, that a fetus is both human, and alive. Plain and simple.
That is not what the scientists say, karrie. Scientific view is that life is a continuum, and it is very difficult to say where life begins and where it ends.
Before conception, the sperm that takes part in conception is very much alive. So life precedes conception. On the other hand, even after a person dies, the cells in the body do not die, they can stay alive indefinitely in a Petri dish.
But the societies all over the world are pretty much in agreement, when the brain or the heart ceases to function, we consider the person to be dead. Also, there is a universal agreement that at the moment of birth it is a human being.
However, there is no such agreement when humen life begins in the womb, scientists just don’t know. If the fetus is considered human at conception, then the sperm which fertilized the egg also must be considered human.
If that is the case, masturbation should be considered the worst form of genocide, much worse than anything Hitler did. The whole thing is nonsense. We just don’t know when human life begins, that is what the scientists say. We don’t even know when life begins, it is a continuum.
So unless and until scientists tell me that fetus is a human being at conception (and that sperm isn’t a human being), I remain prochoice.
SirJosephPorter, you have the great talent to quote someone and yet take the words out of context. When I used the example of judges need time to determine the proper sentence upon conviction I used it only as an example to illustrate that each and every case is different and said so elsewhere in my post. You, very conveniently, ignored that I never mentioned MURDER.
I know fully well that the law in Canada leaves the judge no choice in sentencing in the matter of murder. However, it does not change the fact that each case is different. Thus, some who was convicted for first degree murder will be free after 25 years (albeit on parole for the rest of his life) while some others will be a financial burden for the rest of their life.
Thus, there are those murderers who have hope to turn their life around and there are those who don't.
Obviously, you are happy and willing to pay for their keep, while I am not. I just wish that when it comes to paying the bill for the life-time incarceration, they would separate who is and who is not willing to be part of your "principled" stand.
Your masterful spin of words is truly taking one's breath away. I made it perfectly clear when I am willing to make an exception in my stand of opposing tha death penalty.
OK, I support the death penalty only in few cases: as I described. You call me hypocritical, but you obviously grabbed that word out of thin air when you looked in the mirror.
Tell me, would you be just as "principled" and sing the same tired and politically correct old song if we lived in a country with the death penalty on the books and you or one of your loved ones were convicted of murder?
As far as abortion is concerned, we have been thru all that before. I am sure your so-called scientists are one and all raging atheists. Would they go with their pregnant wives for an ultra-sound test? Would they deny what they see there? Yes, they would. They know that if they said otherwise their ill-deserved grant from the liberal establishment would dry up faster than a desert lizard's belly. In view of the fact that their "consensus" that you blindly subscribe to is no less bribed, worthless and paid-for opinion than those announciated by the Church, leaves your argument rather hollow.
I know fully well that the law in Canada leaves the judge no choice in sentencing in the matter of murder. However, it does not change the fact that each case is different. Thus, some who was convicted for first degree murder will be free after 25 years (albeit on parole for the rest of his life) while some others will be a financial burden for the rest of their life.
Thus, there are those murderers who have hope to turn their life around and there are those who don't.
Obviously, you are happy and willing to pay for their keep, while I am not. I just wish that when it comes to paying the bill for the life-time incarceration, they would separate who is and who is not willing to be part of your "principled" stand.
Your masterful spin of words is truly taking one's breath away. I made it perfectly clear when I am willing to make an exception in my stand of opposing tha death penalty.
OK, I support the death penalty only in few cases: as I described. You call me hypocritical, but you obviously grabbed that word out of thin air when you looked in the mirror.
Tell me, would you be just as "principled" and sing the same tired and politically correct old song if we lived in a country with the death penalty on the books and you or one of your loved ones were convicted of murder?
As far as abortion is concerned, we have been thru all that before. I am sure your so-called scientists are one and all raging atheists. Would they go with their pregnant wives for an ultra-sound test? Would they deny what they see there? Yes, they would. They know that if they said otherwise their ill-deserved grant from the liberal establishment would dry up faster than a desert lizard's belly. In view of the fact that their "consensus" that you blindly subscribe to is no less bribed, worthless and paid-for opinion than those announciated by the Church, leaves your argument rather hollow.
From the thread "Abortion not immoral" Re # 78
From this thread Re# 158
You can't have it both way and now want to say you are pro-abortion "only if" and "anti" death penalty as a "rare individual".
You are someone who is trying to pass a fast one by us all and it is not working so go have your cake and eat it too somewhere else as I don't buy this story.
You are either
Pro-Abortion
Anti-Abortion
Pro-Capitol Punisment
Anti-Capitol Punishment
Can cannot be a little of both.. :angryfire:
From this thread Re# 158
You can't have it both way and now want to say you are pro-abortion "only if" and "anti" death penalty as a "rare individual".
You are someone who is trying to pass a fast one by us all and it is not working so go have your cake and eat it too somewhere else as I don't buy this story.
You are either
Pro-Abortion
Anti-Abortion
Pro-Capitol Punisment
Anti-Capitol Punishment
Can cannot be a little of both.. :angryfire:
SirJosephPorter said:
"If the fetus is considered human at conception, then the sperm which fertilized the egg also must be considered human".
Perfect logic!
So, if the baby that was born, i.e. out of the womb at the time at exit is considered human, then the same baby who was still in the womb 10 seconds earlier, must also be considered human.
It takes a raging atheist and fellow pseodo-scientists to say otherwise.
"If the fetus is considered human at conception, then the sperm which fertilized the egg also must be considered human".
Perfect logic!
So, if the baby that was born, i.e. out of the womb at the time at exit is considered human, then the same baby who was still in the womb 10 seconds earlier, must also be considered human.
It takes a raging atheist and fellow pseodo-scientists to say otherwise.
Well said, Sir Francis, I couldn’t have said it better myself. Those who support death penalty normally say that they support death penalty in some circumstances (for mass murderers, serial killers etc.).
But for some reason, Yukon Jack insists that he is opposed to death penalty. Then he goes on t say under what condition he supports it. Sounds hypocritical to me.
OK, I support the death penalty only in few cases: as I described.
Yukon Jack, now we are getting somewhere. Why not just admit that you support death penalty (under some circumstances). Why the charade of claiming that you oppose death penalty?
Tell me, would you be just as "principled" and sing the same tired and politically correct old song if we lived in a country with the death penalty on the books and you or one of your loved ones were convicted of murder?
Sorry, Yukon Jack, I never answer hypothetical questions.
Obviously, you are happy and willing to pay for their keep, while I am not. I just wish that when it comes to paying the bill for the life-time incarceration, they would separate who is and who is not willing to be part of your "principled" stand.
Sorry, but it doesn’t’ work that way. We get to vote for the leaders of our choice, we don’t get to (individually) decide where public funds are spent. There are ways that Harper spends money that I don’t approve of. That doesn’t mean that I can withhold money from my taxes.
I am sure there are at least a few pacifists in Canada. Can they withhold portion of their taxes so that it won’t be spent on defense? Or Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe in blood transfusion. Are they allowed to withhold portion of their taxes so that it won’t be spent in maintaining blood banks?
Same way, you individually don’t get to decide where public money is spent, except by voting at the election.
Yukon Jack, now we are getting somewhere. Why not just admit that you support death penalty (under some circumstances). Why the charade of claiming that you oppose death penalty?
Tell me, would you be just as "principled" and sing the same tired and politically correct old song if we lived in a country with the death penalty on the books and you or one of your loved ones were convicted of murder?
Sorry, Yukon Jack, I never answer hypothetical questions.
Obviously, you are happy and willing to pay for their keep, while I am not. I just wish that when it comes to paying the bill for the life-time incarceration, they would separate who is and who is not willing to be part of your "principled" stand.
Sorry, but it doesn’t’ work that way. We get to vote for the leaders of our choice, we don’t get to (individually) decide where public funds are spent. There are ways that Harper spends money that I don’t approve of. That doesn’t mean that I can withhold money from my taxes.
I am sure there are at least a few pacifists in Canada. Can they withhold portion of their taxes so that it won’t be spent on defense? Or Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe in blood transfusion. Are they allowed to withhold portion of their taxes so that it won’t be spent in maintaining blood banks?
Same way, you individually don’t get to decide where public money is spent, except by voting at the election.