guyser Posted October 29, 2010 Report Share Posted October 29, 2010 Denis Lortie was watched by million viewers. I am not talking about him. Did not dispute that either. As for Bernardo, not even his own defence denied who did it. Fine. But you said.... re clear evidence --"Another would be Bernardo own video tapes.... etc ...when in fact the tapes did not show that. Not now, not then never. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 29, 2010 Report Share Posted October 29, 2010 And if it was that easy, we would never have had miscarriages. Unfortunately, "clear evidence" does not seem to be something easily defined. Does it include confessions? What if the confession turns out to have been coerced? Does it include video evidence? What happens if it turns out the video evidence has been altered? Is it eye witness testimony? There are no lack of examples of the dangers of eyewitness testimony.and even DNA only proves a person was on the scene or in contact with evidence at some point not that they commited the crime...Like I said, want me to agree to sign on to capital punishment, then make a clause that everyone involved in the conviction are to be immediately taken out and shot if it turns out they executed an innocent man.I like that, there is really no difference...if you're to execute someone for taking an innocent life then if there is an error and an innocent person is executed then the police investigators, executioners, Judge, Jury, false witnesses should also pay the same price... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted October 30, 2010 Report Share Posted October 30, 2010 I like that, there is really no difference...if you're to execute someone for taking an innocent life then if there is an error and an innocent person is executed then the police investigators, executioners, Judge, Jury, false witnesses should also pay the same price... What to do with doctors who kill in error? Very many do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 30, 2010 Report Share Posted October 30, 2010 (edited) What to do with doctors who kill in error? Very many do. Last time I checked, doctors who make errors are not intending to kill their patients. The intent of a capital murder charge is to kill someone upon finding the accused guilty. Why are you so adverse to those who send an innocent man to his death sharing his fate, if his innocence is determined after the fact? If, as some here say, it could only be used for those convicted with "clear evidence", there's no problem. Right? Edited October 30, 2010 by ToadBrother Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 30, 2010 Report Share Posted October 30, 2010 Last time I checked, doctors who make errors are not intending to kill their patients. The intent of a capital murder charge is to kill someone upon finding the accused guilty. Why are you so adverse to those who send an innocent man to his death sharing his fate, if his innocence is determined after the fact? If, as some here say, it could only be used for those convicted with "clear evidence", there's no problem. Right? let's alter the situation a bit...all those in favour of execution put their name forward in a lottery to carry out the execution, if an innocent person dies the executioner forfeits their life...seems fair to me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted October 30, 2010 Report Share Posted October 30, 2010 let's alter the situation a bit...all those in favour of execution put their name forward in a lottery to carry out the execution, if an innocent person dies the executioner forfeits their life...seems fair to me... And let's get rid of lethal injection and those other methods. You've got to look the person in the eye before you put a bullet in their brain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted October 30, 2010 Report Share Posted October 30, 2010 Last time I checked, doctors who make errors are not intending to kill their patients. Neither is the court. Why are you so adverse to those who send an innocent man to his death sharing his fate, if his innocence is determined after the fact? Because it's childish idea. If, as some here say, it could only be used for those convicted with "clear evidence", there's no problem. Right? Right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted October 30, 2010 Report Share Posted October 30, 2010 let's alter the situation a bit...all those in favour of execution put their name forward in a lottery to carry out the execution, if an innocent person dies the executioner forfeits their life...seems fair to me... I say those who help dangerous criminal back on the street where he kills again, should forfeit their life. And that's a quite a pile of liberals. First one to hang high would be I guess Clayton Ruby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 30, 2010 Report Share Posted October 30, 2010 Neither is the court. If you bring back capital murder, yes the court is. Because it's childish idea. Maybe to you. To me it's the only reasonable safeguard against executing an innocent man. If "an eye for an eye" should apply one way, then it should apply the other as well. Right. So what's the problem with them sharing the fate of an innocent man found guilty of capital murder and then executed? You seem to think it could not happen, and I'm just adding a little, how shall we put it, insurance policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted October 30, 2010 Report Share Posted October 30, 2010 If you bring back capital murder, yes the court is. No, it's not. No more than lock someone for life. If "an eye for an eye" should apply one way, then it should apply the other as well. I would have no problem with that provided we have right to life, which we don't. So what's the problem with them sharing the fate of an innocent man found guilty of capital murder and then executed? You seem to think it could not happen I'm saying it wouldn't happen if administered correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 30, 2010 Report Share Posted October 30, 2010 No, it's not. The notion of a capital murder charge has always meant making the death penalty available as a sentence. A Crown Prosecutor approving such a charge (if it existed any more) would be doing so knowing that a man could be sent to his death, a jury finding him guilty of such a charge would do so knowing that he could sent to his death, and a judge who imposes execution as a sentence knows flat-out that he's condemning a man to death. I would have no problem with that provided we have right to life, which we don't. That doesn't even make sense. I'm saying it wouldn't happen if administered correctly. And I'm saying apply my insurance policy just to make sure. If you KNOW a man is guilty of a crime of such a nature that capital punishment is a legitimate sentence, then why does my particular requirement bother you? I mean, nothing can go wrong, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted October 30, 2010 Report Share Posted October 30, 2010 We let the criminals out on the street. Even a mass murderer. Or, hey, here's an idea, you could make an elementary attempt to follow along with exactly what particular conversations are about. Rather than mining posts for opportunities to throw reactionary tantrums that are not relevant to what is being said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted October 31, 2010 Report Share Posted October 31, 2010 That doesn't even make sense. You have no right to life unless you have right to defend it without any reservations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted October 31, 2010 Report Share Posted October 31, 2010 Or, hey, here's an idea, you could make an elementary attempt to follow along with exactly what particular conversations are about. Which part is mystery to you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted October 31, 2010 Report Share Posted October 31, 2010 Which part is mystery to you? You're not getting it: the point is that it's all a mystery to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted October 31, 2010 Report Share Posted October 31, 2010 You have no right to life unless you have right to defend it without any reservations. The right to defend one's life without reservation does not extend to the killing of s person who doesn't pose a threat because they're in jail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted October 31, 2010 Report Share Posted October 31, 2010 The right to defend one's life without reservation does not extend to the killing of s person who doesn't pose a threat because they're in jail. You wanted to know about right to life. So there it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.