|
Post by trubble on Jul 15, 2011 11:25:20 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 Uh-oh. Not the windy red herring! Please! I have never seen my brain either. Or the leprechauns. How shall I choose which to believe? Halp!
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jul 15, 2011 14:24:27 GMT -5
you 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. there's very little valid information about willis, but, from what little i have found, it does appear that he was innocent. of course, the ONLY similarity between willis and willingham, other than their names beginning with "will", is that they were convicted of murder by arson. that is where the similarity ends. it appears that willis had been a normal person, with no police record, and hadn't known the victims long. a psychiatrist also found that he wasn't a dangerous person. it also wasn't just the fire not being arson that got him off death row. it was the ineffective assistance of counsel and the drugging that got the conviction overturned. willingham, of course, had talked to the cops many times, particularly about his incessant abuse of his wife and kids. no psychiatrist was necessary to determine that he was dangerous as he had already proven it himself on many occassions. as i said, he tried to murder one child before it was even born. there isn't the slightest possibility on earth that casey anthony is innocent. the "arbitrariness" of the death penalty could be resolved simply by going back to mandatory death sentences for first degree murder and execute EVERY murderer. that is the morally proper thing to do, but, the supreme court chose to eliminate the morality with furman and gregg
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2011 18:01:18 GMT -5
Unlike my wife, I am firmly opposed to the death penalty.
However, my principal reason for being against capital punishment is because I feel that it is morally better to find alternative ways of dealing with murderers.
IMO it is a sad abrogation of our duties as citizens to simply wave a needle at a person and imagine that executing them will make all murders magically cease.
It is (I believe) an exercise in futility and one that belongs in the history books along with the burnings of witches and heretics at the stake.
That is how I feel.
I do NOT oppose it on the grounds of possible innocence because that danger applies to any form of punishment.
Nor do I oppose it because I have some secret admiration for murderers or that I am in favour of handling criminals with kid gloves.
I believe that criminals need to be looked upon as mentally ill people and sentence to proper psychiatric treatment within a secure mental unit.
That is how I feel.
I know others feel quite differently on the issue.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jul 16, 2011 16:38:04 GMT -5
The point is that their cases were up before the same people at the same time and one was tirelessly argued at the estimated cost of a million dollars pro bono while the other relied on state defenders who did eff all.
And the board-of-(whatever-it-is-that is supposed to catch these little things such as mistakes) saw that the arson theory was destroyed but there it still stands as key evidence in Willinghams conviction.
Whatever you want to argue about dart boards or violence, it isn't evidence of arson, see?
The New Yorker article details the repeated negligence on the part of the State, and several inconsistencies in witness statements.
It doesn't matter very much whether Willingham is ''innocent'' or guilty for the moment. What matters is that we can see the inconsistency - and therefore the injustice - of such a final punishment.
----------
(Willis had an horrendous deal if he was innocent. Sitting on Death Row, no education, no hope, no life, for all those years.)
----------
Mike, at least if the punishment was ''Life'' instead of Death, the innocent waiting to be exonerated via DNA etc would have had some sort of life so I think the argument about the one innocent person is especially pertinent in DP debates.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jul 16, 2011 17:55:47 GMT -5
Unlike my wife, I am firmly opposed to the death penalty. However, my principal reason for being against capital punishment is because I feel that it is morally better to find alternative ways of dealing with murderers. IMO it is a sad abrogation of our duties as citizens to simply wave a needle at a person and imagine that executing them will make all murders magically cease. It is (I believe) an exercise in futility and one that belongs in the history books along with the burnings of witches and heretics at the stake. That is how I feel. I do NOT oppose it on the grounds of possible innocence because that danger applies to any form of punishment. Nor do I oppose it because I have some secret admiration for murderers or that I am in favour of handling criminals with kid gloves. I believe that criminals need to be looked upon as mentally ill people and sentence to proper psychiatric treatment within a secure mental unit. That is how I feel. I know others feel quite differently on the issue. that is not a viable alternative, or even a legitimate argument my man. in fact, it is quite demeaning to those who actually do have a mental illness. obviously, a few criminals do have a mental illness, but the OVERWHELMING majority do not. they are criminals SOLELY because they CHOOSE to be worthless. if they were to be sent to a psychiatric facility, it would change absolutely NOTHING
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jul 16, 2011 18:02:02 GMT -5
The point is that their cases were up before the same people at the same time and one was tirelessly argued at the estimated cost of a million dollars pro bono while the other relied on state defenders who did eff all. And the board-of-(whatever-it-is-that is supposed to catch these little things such as mistakes) saw that the arson theory was destroyed but there it still stands as key evidence in Willinghams conviction. Whatever you want to argue about dart boards or violence, it isn't evidence of arson, see? The New Yorker article details the repeated negligence on the part of the State, and several inconsistencies in witness statements. It doesn't matter very much whether Willingham is ''innocent'' or guilty for the moment. What matters is that we can see the inconsistency - and therefore the injustice - of such a final punishment. ---------- (Willis had an horrendous deal if he was innocent. Sitting on Death Row, no education, no hope, no life, for all those years.) ---------- Mike, at least if the punishment was ''Life'' instead of Death, the innocent waiting to be exonerated via DNA etc would have had some sort of life so I think the argument about the one innocent person is especially pertinent in DP debates. no hon, the point is that they were two TOTALLY different cases in every way, and in NEITHER case has it been proven that the fires were not arson. NOTHING more has been shown than the possibility exists that they were not. in the case of willis, the rest of the "evidence" did not hold up. in the case of willingham, there was nothing else other than the remote possibility that the fire might not have been arson, and a mountain of evidence to prove him guilty
|
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on Jul 16, 2011 20:42:03 GMT -5
that is not a viable alternative, or even a legitimate argument my man. in fact, it is quite demeaning to those who actually do have a mental illness. obviously, a few criminals do have a mental illness, but the OVERWHELMING majority do not. they are criminals SOLELY because they CHOOSE to be worthless. if they were to be sent to a psychiatric facility, it would change absolutely NOTHING And just why is a criminal worthless? Who decides? This country. Israel and the USA were created by criminal terrorists today revered as heroes (and I have my doubts about the sanity of some of them). Do the legal activities of financial finanglers make them better people, less worthless than the criminal activities of professional thieves and con-men? Who is more worthless, the crook who raids a company safe or the rival director who buys the company to asset-strip it? The con-merchant working a pyramid scheme or the IMF demanding that a government cut back on welfare and accept loans in dollars to build cheap labour factories for foreigners to export in dollars that go to paying the original loan off with interest?
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 17, 2011 4:20:37 GMT -5
a criminal is any one who takes what is not his..what he has not earned..what he has not been given a criminal is some one who destructs society and adds nothing to society..and does those things for his own gain or kicks.....and yes criminals are worthless pieces of garbage in the case of israel...taking back what has been stolen from you is not criminal..it may be morally suspect but it isnt criminal america once again using what you believe to be un owned land may be morally suspect but not criminal just as settling land you think you have bought is not criminal..especially where there is a misunderstanding between the seller and the buyer....the later treatment of the seller was most certainly criminal but then survival crosses with morality ..yet we are judging from to days point of view rather than the point of view of the time asset stripping ..who is the more culpable the seller of assets or the buyer?? the imf is most deffinitely a criminal organisation...so are governments who allow their people to be ripped off......just as fraudsters who rip off the national health or the benefits system..or the burglers...scam merchants etc etc
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jul 17, 2011 7:29:55 GMT -5
that is not a viable alternative, or even a legitimate argument my man. in fact, it is quite demeaning to those who actually do have a mental illness. obviously, a few criminals do have a mental illness, but the OVERWHELMING majority do not. they are criminals SOLELY because they CHOOSE to be worthless. if they were to be sent to a psychiatric facility, it would change absolutely NOTHING And just why is a criminal worthless? Who decides? This country. Israel and the USA were created by criminal terrorists today revered as heroes (and I have my doubts about the sanity of some of them). Do the legal activities of financial finanglers make them better people, less worthless than the criminal activities of professional thieves and con-men? Who is more worthless, the crook who raids a company safe or the rival director who buys the company to asset-strip it? The con-merchant working a pyramid scheme or the IMF demanding that a government cut back on welfare and accept loans in dollars to build cheap labour factories for foreigners to export in dollars that go to paying the original loan off with interest? there's not an iota of difference between ANY of those, with the small exception that the burglar is at least a tad more honorable than the corporate executives. they are ALL morally criminals, and should be legally. they ARE all totally worthless as human beings however
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jul 17, 2011 7:32:13 GMT -5
And just why is a criminal worthless? Who decides? This country. Israel and the USA were created by criminal terrorists today revered as heroes (and I have my doubts about the sanity of some of them). Do the legal activities of financial finanglers make them better people, less worthless than the criminal activities of professional thieves and con-men? Who is more worthless, the crook who raids a company safe or the rival director who buys the company to asset-strip it? The con-merchant working a pyramid scheme or the IMF demanding that a government cut back on welfare and accept loans in dollars to build cheap labour factories for foreigners to export in dollars that go to paying the original loan off with interest? there's not an iota of difference between ANY of those, with the small exception that the burglar is at least a tad more honorable than the corporate executives. they are ALL morally criminals, and should be legally. they ARE all totally worthless as human beings however And what about people who dealt drugs in the past?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jul 17, 2011 7:33:13 GMT -5
a criminal is any one who takes what is not his..what he has not earned..what he has not been given a criminal is some one who destructs society and adds nothing to society..and does those things for his own gain or kicks.....and yes criminals are worthless pieces of garbage in the case of israel...taking back what has been stolen from you is not criminal..it may be morally suspect but it isnt criminal america once again using what you believe to be un owned land may be morally suspect but not criminal just as settling land you think you have bought is not criminal..especially where there is a misunderstanding between the seller and the buyer....the later treatment of the seller was most certainly criminal but then survival crosses with morality ..yet we are judging from to days point of view rather than the point of view of the time asset stripping ..who is the more culpable the seller of assets or the buyer?? the imf is most deffinitely a criminal organisation...so are governments who allow their people to be ripped off......just as fraudsters who rip off the national health or the benefits system..or the burglers...scam merchants etc etc you have the proverbial nail on the head, a million percent correct. and of course, israel has NEVER stolen any land in the middle east. they simply took a small part of the land that has always been rightfully theirs, and of course, took what the arabs CHOSE to give them in in reparation for their worthlessness in starting three wars. the simple, yet irrefutable REALITY is that the jews have ALWAYS had the right to be there. the arabs are there by israeli sufferance only
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jul 17, 2011 7:33:34 GMT -5
Very few of us - if any at all- have not broken the law
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jul 17, 2011 7:38:15 GMT -5
there's not an iota of difference between ANY of those, with the small exception that the burglar is at least a tad more honorable than the corporate executives. they are ALL morally criminals, and should be legally. they ARE all totally worthless as human beings however And what about people who dealt drugs in the past? aha. rhetorical questions. i love 'em. "past" is the operative word lad. those who have had the sense to comprehend that they never had a right to do something, and become real people, are no longer worthless
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jul 17, 2011 7:43:28 GMT -5
And what about people who dealt drugs in the past? aha. rhetorical questions. i love 'em. "past" is the operative word lad. those who have had the sense to comprehend that they never had a right to do something, and become real people, are no longer worthless Its a valid question, jumbo! Surely they should still be punished for their crimes if they haven't been. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 17, 2011 11:23:38 GMT -5
Very few of us - if any at all- have not broken the law thats a mute point breaking the law is not always criminality...
|
|