|
Post by fretslider on Jul 14, 2011 15:11:32 GMT -5
After a while sitting on that thin fence is really going to hurt. Belief out of a kind of fear is cowardly to say the least. As Mr T say's, get some nuts!!! thankfully, both are something i need not worry about. Is that the word from your god?
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jul 14, 2011 15:13:50 GMT -5
My position is civilised and more than tenable, whereas you remain rooted in neolithic times. However, to cheer you up here's some news about your 'civilised friends' in China.... China is equipping its courts with mobile execution vans as it shifts away from the communist system's traditional bullet in the head, towards use of lethal injection. Intermediate Courts of the southern province of Yunnan were issued with 18 new execution vans on February 28 and a court official said some have already been used. i'm sure that it must be nice to be able to convince yourself so easily. i imagine that you led the charge as a kid to sneak downstairs and catch santa on christmas eve. obviously, china does executions properly. there are very few who languish in prison for ten years between sentence and execution Santa? You and your irrational beliefs! Sounds like China is your kind of place, I'm amazed you haven't moved there.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jul 15, 2011 1:02:03 GMT -5
it is always quite comical to see an anti running with the "execution is murder" lunacy. making such a patently false statement totally discredits EVERYTHING they say. obviously, by definition, there is NO way to link execution and murder. murder is ONLY the UNLAWFUL killing of another. how they come up with the lunatical idea that executions violate the murder statute is an hallucination that they only know This argument is nothing short of lunacy. You are choosing your morals according to the law? (Now, I know you are not actually, but you are arguing the case as if you were). The Death Penalty is lawful in Texas (for example) but if it is carried out in an unfair (arbitrary, for example) manner then it violates ethics, and perhaps even its own laws, making it unlawful.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jul 15, 2011 1:15:27 GMT -5
it happens often enough that people are found not to have committed crimes after they have been found 'guilty' - sometimes years later with someones life having been wasted unecessarily incarcerated. i'm afraid i don't have faith in the justice system, where it mostly depends on how good ones brief is, as to the verdict. too many cockups occur and one execution for a crime not committed it one too many. it is a barbaric and inhuman system that puts people to death and it should be abolished. no hon, as i have said before, to oppose the death penalty means nothing except you believe the life of an individual who has voluntarily chosen to rape and murder a five year old child is of equal value to that child's life. that is an untenable position on its face. the simple FACT is that there has not been a single, nada, zip, zilch, none, factually innocent individual executed in the u.s. since 1976. what occurred before then has no relevance to anything whatsoever. the fact that there have been 17 dna exonnerations from death row since 1983 conclusively PROVES that no innocent could EVER be executed in the future. Too optimistic. Not objective in the least! Whether one agrees with the DP in principle or not, the fact that there have been DNA exonnerations means the whole system is riddled with flaws. You imagine - because it suits you - that people haven't been wrongly convicted but Willingham -- whether he is guilty as charged or not -- was killed without his evidence being properly examined. He was convicted on false evidence. The system is broken. Fact.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jul 15, 2011 1:29:32 GMT -5
I don't see why not. In fact, I think that's exactly what the article is doing. The debate about whether a DP is inherently barbaric or not is clearly divisive and boils down to opinion, but no one should sanction arbitrary or racist execution - forgive the pun - of capital punishment. Even the most pro-DP advocate wouldn't want that. If you prove that's how it works and that's how it always has worked, then you can make a case for stopping it altogether. -------------- Lin, You say the anti-DP lobby exaggerates the innocent people sentenced unjustly to death.... Surely one innocent person is gruesome enough? Remember the women jailed (on Roy Meadow's bad testimony) for murdering their children? Aren't you glad that the UK didn't have the DP when you think of them? I see from Fret's link that there's a film just released about Cameron Todd Willingham. Executed in 2004, his judgment of guilty was declared ''unsustainable'' in 2009: Trial by Fire ~ Did Texas execute an innocent man? --by David Grann at the New Yorker. He pleaded innocence at every single stage. Turns out that he may have been telling the truth. And this isn't a one off, is it. It's utterly immoral to write these cases off as ''casualties of war''. I mean... killing innocent people in the name of the battle against killing innocent people... it's actually ludicrous. And, yes, war is barbaric. antis like to trot out willingham, and it is as abjectly stupid as their imbecility with roger coleman. there is not the slightest doubt that willingham was guilty of murdering his kids. the ONLY thing these moronic nutjobs have is the fact that it has been discovered that a few indicators previously thought to be only present in arson fires, can sometimes be found in normal fires. that in NO way creates an iota of doubt as to willingham's guilt. in the first place, it is his actions before, during, and after the fire that conclusively PROVE beyond all doubt that he was guilty. the fact that he had tried to murder the one kid before it was born, the fact that he just watched his kids burn, and that after the fire, instead of having ANY concern about the kids, all he cared about was his dartboard, combined with the overwhelming mountain of other evidence, that leaves NO doubt whatsoever as to his guilt, in the mind of anyone with an iq above forty and the ability to use it Incorrect. The ONLY evidence against Willingham was the fire officer's OPINION that the fire was arson. The ''science'' that supported his opinion was proved to be false. Even the fire officer agreed that it was 'an art' rather than a science. So when the science developed enough to prove opinion wrong, Willingham's case should have been re-examined but the bigwigs chose not to. They didn't even open the report handed to them by the leading authority on the subject. That report did not say that "a few indicators previously thought to be only present in arson fires, can sometimes be found in normal fires"; it said that all the main indicators used to show that Willingham's 1991 fire was arson were normally present in cases of the type of accidental housefire that Willingham originally claimed had happened -- thus making them NO indicator of arson. In fact, they are now considered indicators of a specific pattern of fire wholly consistent with accidental causes, and were already considered as such prior to him being executed. Witness testimony was shown to be unreliable. No motive was ever shown. There was no evidence against Willingham. List them. Huh? Says who, precisely? Link? Such as.....? ?? ? Cameron Todd Willingham case: Expert says fire for which father was executed was not arson
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jul 15, 2011 2:00:33 GMT -5
How arbitrary is this? Willis -- > case dismissed; Willingham --> executed. Same evidence. Same year. Same state. Report: Inmate wrongly executed
Arson experts say evidence in Texas case scientifically invalid
May 03, 2006|By Maurice Possley, Chicago Tribune staff reporter.In addition to the Willingham case, the report examined the arson prosecution of Ernest Ray Willis, who was charged with the arson-murders of two women in Iraan, Texas, on June 11, 1986.
In 2004--a few months after Willingham was executed--Willis, who was facing the death penalty in a retrial of his case, was released and the case dismissed after arson experts concluded there was no evidence that the fire was intentionally set.
The report assessing the two cases notes that even though the interpretations of the physical evidence in the Willis case were the same as in the Willingham case, authorities in Texas have declined to say that Willingham was wrongly convicted and executed. The report said the "disparity of the outcomes in these two cases warrants a closer inspection."
In the letter to the commission, Scheck said, "Willis cannot be found `actually innocent'* and Willingham executed based on the same scientific evidence." *sic Typo? Maybe means ''factually innocent''?
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jul 15, 2011 2:10:04 GMT -5
Ah Trubble, you witness at first hand the zealotry of the bloodthirsty
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jul 15, 2011 6:54:53 GMT -5
antis like to trot out willingham, and it is as abjectly stupid as their imbecility with roger coleman. there is not the slightest doubt that willingham was guilty of murdering his kids. the ONLY thing these moronic nutjobs have is the fact that it has been discovered that a few indicators previously thought to be only present in arson fires, can sometimes be found in normal fires. that in NO way creates an iota of doubt as to willingham's guilt. in the first place, it is his actions before, during, and after the fire that conclusively PROVE beyond all doubt that he was guilty. the fact that he had tried to murder the one kid before it was born, the fact that he just watched his kids burn, and that after the fire, instead of having ANY concern about the kids, all he cared about was his dartboard, combined with the overwhelming mountain of other evidence, that leaves NO doubt whatsoever as to his guilt, in the mind of anyone with an iq above forty and the ability to use it Incorrect. The ONLY evidence against Willingham was the fire officer's OPINION that the fire was arson. The ''science'' that supported his opinion was proved to be false. Even the fire officer agreed that it was 'an art' rather than a science. So when the science developed enough to prove opinion wrong, Willingham's case should have been re-examined but the bigwigs chose not to. They didn't even open the report handed to them by the leading authority on the subject. That report did not say that "a few indicators previously thought to be only present in arson fires, can sometimes be found in normal fires"; it said that all the main indicators used to show that Willingham's 1991 fire was arson were normally present in cases of the type of accidental housefire that Willingham originally claimed had happened -- thus making them NO indicator of arson. In fact, they are now considered indicators of a specific pattern of fire wholly consistent with accidental causes, and were already considered as such prior to him being executed. Witness testimony was shown to be unreliable. No motive was ever shown. There was no evidence against Willingham. List them. Huh? Says who, precisely? Link? Such as.....? ?? ? Cameron Todd Willingham case: Expert says fire for which father was executed was not arsonyou obviously don't know much about the case. i'm sure that you were leading the charge for roger coleman being innocent. it was funnier than hell when that basket fell and put egg all over the anti's faces. the arson investigator's testimony was only a smidgen of the evidence proving willingham's guilt. had he acted like a human being before, during, and after the fire, he would not have been convicted of murder in this case. FACT: willingham repeatedly punched his wife in the stomach while she was pregnant, attempting to end the pregnancy. FACT: while the kids were burning to death in the house, willingham sat in the bushes, making NO attempt to either rescue the kids or call for help. FACT: the ONLY thing willingham was concerned with while his kids were burning was to try and save a car in the garage. FACT: after the fire was out, and his kids were dead, the ONLY thing that willingham was upset about was that his dartboard burned. and on, and on, and on. for sure, the arson investigator's testimony was a cornerstone, but it was the mountain of empirical evidence that convicted willingham
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jul 15, 2011 7:02:13 GMT -5
thankfully, both are something i need not worry about. Is that the word from your god? no, just reality
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jul 15, 2011 7:04:50 GMT -5
i'm sure that it must be nice to be able to convince yourself so easily. i imagine that you led the charge as a kid to sneak downstairs and catch santa on christmas eve. obviously, china does executions properly. there are very few who languish in prison for ten years between sentence and execution Santa? You and your irrational beliefs! Sounds like China is your kind of place, I'm amazed you haven't moved there. i don't speak chinese, and i'm too big. i would stick out like a sore thumb. not believing in the wind because you can't see it, even though you see it's results, is not prudent, but that's exactly the same as your irrational DISbeliefs
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jul 15, 2011 7:08:48 GMT -5
Is that the word from your god? no, just reality LOL You believe in god and then cry reality. Now that is funny, jumbo.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jul 15, 2011 7:09:54 GMT -5
Santa? You and your irrational beliefs! Sounds like China is your kind of place, I'm amazed you haven't moved there. i don't speak chinese, and i'm too big. i would stick out like a sore thumb. not believing in the wind because you can't see it, even though you see it's results, is not prudent, but that's exactly the same as your irrational DISbeliefs "irrational DISbeliefs" Now do tell me what is irrational about being an atheist... I'm all ears.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jul 15, 2011 10:53:32 GMT -5
i don't speak chinese, and i'm too big. i would stick out like a sore thumb. not believing in the wind because you can't see it, even though you see it's results, is not prudent, but that's exactly the same as your irrational DISbeliefs "irrational DISbeliefs" Now do tell me what is irrational about being an atheist... I'm all ears. the refusal to accept reality is, by definition, ALWAYS irrational
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jul 15, 2011 10:58:05 GMT -5
"irrational DISbeliefs" Now do tell me what is irrational about being an atheist... I'm all ears. the refusal to accept reality is, by definition, ALWAYS irrational You haven't answered the question, jumbo. What is irrational about being an atheist?
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jul 15, 2011 11:23:12 GMT -5
Incorrect. The ONLY evidence against Willingham was the fire officer's OPINION that the fire was arson. The ''science'' that supported his opinion was proved to be false. Even the fire officer agreed that it was 'an art' rather than a science. So when the science developed enough to prove opinion wrong, Willingham's case should have been re-examined but the bigwigs chose not to. They didn't even open the report handed to them by the leading authority on the subject. That report did not say that "a few indicators previously thought to be only present in arson fires, can sometimes be found in normal fires"; it said that all the main indicators used to show that Willingham's 1991 fire was arson were normally present in cases of the type of accidental housefire that Willingham originally claimed had happened -- thus making them NO indicator of arson. In fact, they are now considered indicators of a specific pattern of fire wholly consistent with accidental causes, and were already considered as such prior to him being executed. Witness testimony was shown to be unreliable. No motive was ever shown. There was no evidence against Willingham. List them. Huh? Says who, precisely? Link? Such as.....? ?? ? Cameron Todd Willingham case: Expert says fire for which father was executed was not arsonyou obviously don't know much about the case. i'm sure that you were leading the charge for roger coleman being innocent. it was funnier than hell when that basket fell and put egg all over the anti's faces. the arson investigator's testimony was only a smidgen of the evidence proving willingham's guilt. had he acted like a human being before, during, and after the fire, he would not have been convicted of murder in this case. FACT: willingham repeatedly punched his wife in the stomach while she was pregnant, attempting to end the pregnancy. FACT: while the kids were burning to death in the house, willingham sat in the bushes, making NO attempt to either rescue the kids or call for help. FACT: the ONLY thing willingham was concerned with while his kids were burning was to try and save a car in the garage. FACT: after the fire was out, and his kids were dead, the ONLY thing that willingham was upset about was that his dartboard burned. and on, and on, and on. for sure, the arson investigator's testimony was a cornerstone, but it was the mountain of empirical evidence that convicted willingham That's really not how the 'evidence' is being portrayed across the board -- you are right that I am no expert in this case, but does it take an expert to see that the evidence that convicted him of arson was false evidence? I'll return to your FACTs if I have a chance to. Now, about Willis being set free within weeks/months of Willingham's execution, yet both convicted on the same bad evidence..... .... any thoughts on the arbitrary nature of killing people? ---- ---- You and I both thought Casey Anthony was guilty, but here's the deal: we might be wrong. That's why we need proof - more than just that she liked to party - and sending her to her death without that proof would have been as wrong as many a murder. Willingham deserved to be proved guilty.
|
|