I've hesitated to post this thread, but someone has to speak out.

#851
#851
85SugarVol said:
I find that ridiculous
Click to expand...

And yet it was posited by an educated person who found it to be perfectly reasonable. I still have that book, btw.

The point is that allowing individual "beliefs" to rule is inviting chaos. And accepting a nebulous time limit risks erring on the side of executing millions of humans, especially since most people are in favor of some restrictions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#852
#852
hog88 said:
That is not what he is saying. He is saying the standard to convict someone of any crime is no reasonable doubt and we still get it wrong. The problem with the death penalty is if we get it wrong and the sentence is carried out the state just killed an innocent person.
Click to expand...

In your mind, is there ever any situation in which there is no doubt as to the identity of the criminal? Not just "no reasonable doubt." No doubt.

Did Sirhan Sirhan kill Robert F. Kennedy? Did Jack Ruby shoot Oswald? Did Adolph Hitler commit war crimes?
 
#855
#855
creekdipper said:
Could you cite a single example in which a combination of all types of evidence has resulted in a death sentence being pronounced upon an innocent person? That would require a massive conspiracy to frame an innocent person including either a coerced or voluntary confession. Not saying that is impossible these days, but it seens highly unlikely considering the number of appeals, amicus briefs, innocence projects, etc. that would scrutinize every aspect of the case.

I'm not married to the death penalty due to its finality and inabity to undo any actual miscarriages of justice.

At the same time, I make a distinction between the truly innocent and the "wrongfully convicted." I'm sure that rights have been violated, inadequate representation provided, or gross violations of legal proceedings to tbe point that convictions should be overturned. That still does mean that the suspect didn't commit the crime.

O.J. Simpson was found to be "not guilty," but I'm not sure that a majority considers him to "innocent" of murder charges.
Click to expand...
I do believe there is a combination of evidence that has the power to prove to beyond any doubt.

But what are we going to do? Create some “super” burden for capital cases?
 
#856
#856
luthervol said:
70 million? Where did that number come from? Seems a little high.
But regardless, 95% of those were performed during the first 12 weeks and 99% before week 20.
And considering that 75% of zygotes never reach the 6 week stage, over 700 million have aborted naturally during that time.
Click to expand...

You've mentioned the "aborted naturally" point several times, but I'm not sure why. Lots of people die "naturally" of cancer (and many other "natural causes"), but we don't normally bring that up when discussing humans intentionally terminating the lives of other humans. In fact, most try to prevent "natural" deaths when quality of life can be sustained (and especially when good health can be restored).

It just seems to be an odd point to bring up since their is no equivalence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#858
#858
creekdipper said:
In your mind, is there ever any situation in which there is no doubt as to the identity of the criminal? Not just "no reasonable doubt." No doubt.

Did Sirhan Sirhan kill Robert F. Kennedy? Did Jack Ruby shoot Oswald? Did Adolph Hitler commit war crimes?
Click to expand...
If Dylan Klebold is on camera walking around executing people - that’s pretty strong.

But “confessions” aren’t always what they appear.
Inaccurate “eye witness” testimony is as old as man.
And law enforcement is fallible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128
#859
#859
creekdipper said:
I read an opinion by an abortion advocate publshed in one of those "Opposing Viewpoints" collection in which the advocate...a professor, I believe...maintained that the line should be drawn at the time at which the born human can verbalize their feelings...somewhere between one and two years old.
Click to expand...
Which is obviously stupid.

Again, the brilliance of Roe vs, Wade should not be overlooked.

It eliminates the extreme nuts on both ends of the specturm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128 and OHvol40
#862
#862
85SugarVol said:
If Dylan Klebold is on camera walking around executing people - that’s pretty strong.

But “confessions” aren’t always what they appear.
Inaccurate “eye witness” testimony is as old as man.
And law enforcement is fallible.
Click to expand...

Thus the "no doubt" rule. Heck, we already have mitigating circumstances, plea bargaining, different categories based upon premeditation, lesser charges filed due to less compelling evidence, Alford pleas, etc.

Why not have a "super category" forcapital cases? It's not as though tbe legal system doesn't already have many levels of charges and sentencing discretion within guidelines.
 
#863
#863
creekdipper said:
Thus the "no doubt" rule. Heck, we already have mitigating circumstances, plea bargaining, different categories based upon premeditation, lesser charges filed due to less compelling evidence, Alford pleas, etc.

Why not have a "super category" forcapital cases? It's not as though tbe legal system doesn't already have many levels of charges and sentencing discretion within guidelines.
Click to expand...

The "no doubt rule" has been the standard since the formation of the country and we still get it wrong in non capital cases.
 
#865
#865
hog88 said:
The "no doubt rule" has been the standard since the formation of the country and we still get it wrong in non capital cases.
Click to expand...

I believe "reasonable doubt" and "no doubt" are two different things. But even the best laws cannot prevent corruption and human biases from undermining the best-intended laws.
 
#866
#866
creekdipper said:
I believe "reasonable doubt" and "no doubt" are two different things. But even the best laws cannot prevent corruption and human biases from undermining the best-intended laws.
Click to expand...

I think "beyond a reasonable doubt" should be interpreted as "no doubt". If jurors are convicting with doubt they are doing it wrong.
 
#867
#867
creekdipper said:
You've mentioned the "aborted naturally" point several times, but I'm not sure why. Lots of people die "naturally" of cancer (and many other "natural causes"), but we don't normally bring that up when discussing humans intentionally terminating the lives of other humans. In fact, most try to prevent "natural" deaths when quality of life can be sustained (and especially when good health can be restored).

It just seems to be an odd point to bring up since their is no equivalence.
Click to expand...
Not odd at all.
Anti-abortion folks like to shout from their high horse that they are wanting to speak for those innocent little humans who cannot speak for themselves. They take a holier than thou stance in claiming pro-choice advocates care nothing for the most innocent and vulnerable of humans. Even occasionally throwing in the baby murderer claim. Yesterday I was called evil, soulless, and despicable in this thread. (and a few other things)

........but their voice is suspiciously silent when it comes to those equally (and far more numerous) innocent little humans that never have a chance to see their seventh week in the womb.

I have never once seen those nuts advocate for anything that would bring that 75% number down. They are the first to rail against free pre-natal care, nutritional services, and free birth control. I have never once seen a single one of them advocate for any scientific research regarding that 75%. (because there is not an obvious $ to be made).
If one ACTUALLY believed those zygotes were innocent little humans, they would/should be screaming from the rooftops about the 3/4 of humanity who never actually even took their first breath.
We're talking hundreds of billions over the course of time.
They seem to care far less for the innocent fetus than their anti-abortion hysteria would indicate.

To me it's the epitome of straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128 and PKT_VOL
#869
#869
hog88 said:
I think "beyond a reasonable doubt" should be interpreted as "no doubt". If jurors are convicting with doubt they are doing it wrong.
Click to expand...
Beyond a reasonable doubt
Beyond any and all doubt

I think those are 2 different burdens.

Both incredibly high burdens, but different from my perspective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#870
#870
creekdipper said:
So were women's suffrage, abolition of slavery, child labor laws, civil rights protections, etc.

Some took Constitutional amendments. Some even took wars.
Click to expand...
And all took forward looking progressives who were demonized by others........just sayin'
 
#873
#873
creekdipper said:
If an action is morally wrong, our main concern should be with protecting the potential victims rather than the safety of those who would perpetrate the act. We can have compassion and offer counseling and assistance for desperate people, but our assistance should stop short of enabling them to legally terminate a life. The depressed mother who drives her car into the river with her children inside may feel that is her only option, but society still does not condone her actions to the point of making it easier for her to take that drastic step to alleviate her problems. Not only do we not make it less risky for the mother, we actually punish the mother and convict her of a crime (or have her committed to a psychiatric institution).
Click to expand...
Do you carry the same compassion and conviction in advocating for the victims of cartel violence in Central America that try to seek asylum here?
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128
#874
#874
OHvol40 said:
Do you carry the same compassion and conviction in advocating for the victims of cartel violence in Central America that try to seek asylum here?
Click to expand...

Sure do.

Well, maybe a little less since the adults do have some options, whether emigrating to other places or working to elect governments that will fight the cartels. Those options may be precarious and limited, but they are better than certain execution.
 
#875
#875
luthervol said:
Not odd at all.
Anti-abortion folks like to shout from their high horse that they are wanting to speak for those innocent little humans who cannot speak for themselves. They take a holier than thou stance in claiming pro-choice advocates care nothing for the most innocent and vulnerable of humans. Even occasionally throwing in the baby murderer claim. Yesterday I was called evil, soulless, and despicable in this thread. (and a few other things)

........but their voice is suspiciously silent when it comes to those equally (and far more numerous) innocent little humans that never have a chance to see their seventh week in the womb.

I have never once seen those nuts advocate for anything that would bring that 75% number down. They are the first to rail against free pre-natal care, nutritional services, and free birth control. I have never once seen a single one of them advocate for any scientific research regarding that 75%. (because there is not an obvious $ to be made).
If one ACTUALLY believed those zygotes were innocent little humans, they would/should be screaming from the rooftops about the 3/4 of humanity who never actually even took their first breath.
We're talking hundreds of billions over the course of time.
They seem to care far less for the innocent fetus than their anti-abortion hysteria would indicate.

To me it's the epitome of straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel.
Click to expand...

It is quite striking. I haven't met one human who has convinced me that they honestly believe a zygote has personhood.

I would also like to point out that I am next level evil by participating in the IVF process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128 and luthervol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top