gravid
|
posted on December 29, 2000 03:35:14 AM new
To add onto what networker said. I will accept the death penalty when the penalty is applied to the prosecution, the judge, and the executioner at any time in the future that it can be shown they executed an innocent person.
If they are so certain they are willing to assume the same risk for being wrong that the prisoner has to assume then they may proceed.
How many would take that chance with THEIR life? How many would take that risk ten times?
The standard for certainty would sure change.
You would not see careers built on a body count.
People lose sight that it is individuals who do this. The state does not stick a syringe in the persons arm and inject him with a lethal drug. It is a fallible human not a godlike state. Let them assume risk as individuals for their actions.
[ edited by gravid on Dec 29, 2000 03:52 AM ]
[ edited by gravid on Dec 29, 2000 06:50 AM ]
|
krs
|
posted on December 29, 2000 05:14:48 AM new
THEIR
|
snowydays
|
posted on December 29, 2000 05:30:16 AM new
Gravid, ya got your panties in a twist over something?
|
enchanted
|
posted on December 29, 2000 06:14:52 AM new
snowydays, when I saw your remark last night about putting up a wall around certain undesirable groups of people last night, I was upset by it to the point that I did not even want to respond. Your words achieved what few people can, which is to make me shut up. Congrats on that.
My thanks to Rawbunzel for being able to respond in such a reasonable and intelligent manner to you.
Now that I've calmed down, walling certain people up that you don't want to see and attempting to allow, arrange or facilitate their destruction for your viewing pleasure has many names ... among them, genocide, Shoah, pogrom, holocaust, concentration camp,...
snowydays, have you met networker? if not I surely hope you make his chatboard acquaintance here as he would be far more eloquent than I could ever be in discussing the racist aspects of such a plan.
Over this one i might break down and start using the dreaded "ignore" feature which I haven't really felt the need to use before.
I wish you enlightenment and a dawning understanding that you have not been appointed the judge of any other human being or the quality of anyone's existence.
Good day.
[i]senk-onnanoko-san
[email protected][/i]
|
gravid
|
posted on December 29, 2000 06:55:29 AM new
Thank you - I corrected my spelling. May I assume you either felt that anything with a misspelling has no merit, or you found nothing else wrong? Yup anyone who can look at the way things are and not have THEIR panties tied in a knot and pulled up THEIR crack is asleep at the throttle.
|
KatyD
|
posted on December 29, 2000 07:10:28 AM new
Getting back to ken's original topic, the 2nd photo of Bush (on page1 of this thread)is in this morning's newspaper here, but with Donald Rumsfeld. It is EXACTLY the same photo of Bush, down to the stray wisp of hair at his temple, but rotated to a mirror image of the one Krs posted. The text under it reads President-elect Bush looked on as Donald Rumsfeld, his nominee for defense secretary, met the press yesterday.. This is really CREEPY, and the news text insinuates that the photo was taken yesterday as Rumsfeld met with the press. Since we know that it wasn't, it makes me wonder why the press would use an altered photograph obviously supplied by Bush et. al. Weird.
KatyD
|
shar9
|
posted on December 29, 2000 07:20:56 AM new
Good Morning snowydays,
"sick to death of Bush bashing and conspiracy theories..everything possible that can be blamed on the man. It is getting a mite ridiculous."
Excuse me?. This might give people a "small peek" at the idea of how many of us felt about the treatment that Bill and Hillary Clinton have received during their 8 years.
I would compare it to a constant witch hunt or that it bothers some that some might able to find fault with Dubya even to the point that some might question whether he is an imposter or the real thing but we will never know? Fair? I guess it depends on which side a person is looking? Are there any who think that the same did not happen to the Clinton's or is it perfectly fine to bash and show such disrespect to the Clinton's but bow or not question Dubya?
Iswanson,
I was and am a believer in the death penalty. I will also say I have had my eyes opened a lot this last year with the use of DNA that have proved that some have been innocent and until DNA is used for all I have to do some re-thinking but on this Networker said it better.
edited to add: Snowydays I do not know your views on the Clinton's or any remarks you might or might not have spoken so I am not speaking directly to you on this subject just explaining another point of view.
[ edited by shar9 on Dec 29, 2000 07:23 AM ]
|
gravid
|
posted on December 29, 2000 07:41:53 AM new
This offering photos that are supposed to show a physical reality that obviously never happened are small lies.
Just remember that people of this quality will tell you BIG lies just as easy as small. Not that I think the opposition is any better...
|
lswanson
|
posted on December 29, 2000 07:50:20 AM new
Net, the DA actually got "educated" by the process. He's a die-hard convert to DNA analysis. But you're right, the best apology he could muster was, "We were doing the best we could with the techniques we had available at the time".
Gravid, why blame Bush (and I'm no defender of his)? Remember that those who were executed while Bush was governor, convicted and tried years, if not decades before. That "blame" that the sentences were not lessened could equally be placed on any governor in office when/after the sentence was made, or at any time during the appeals process.
But it is a highly flawed system in which any mistake is permanent.
|
gravid
|
posted on December 29, 2000 09:44:37 AM new
Iswanson - Point taken.
The final nature of the penalty you understand.
I saw a old old grave marker out west in an old town in AZ when we were traveling back in the 60's. It said "Hung by mistake" I was surprised that anyone would put it up and that others did not tear it down. Unusually honest.
Networker is black. He knows how many were hung because if they had the wrong one - well what did it matter anyway? People have not changed that much as you can see by the "wall" remarks. They paint with a broad brush. As big of an immoral liar as Clinton is I can't fault him for CONSIDERING using his pardon. The power is there for a reason.
How wisely he uses it well - we shall see.
|
codasaurus
|
posted on December 29, 2000 10:06:17 AM new
Hello Networker67,
Why not do the AW community and this conversation the courtesy of finding out what the facts are before making statements like this...
"And I bet that arrogant SOB DA didn't even apologize. In fact I bet he is trying to say DNA shouldn't overrule his evidence at Trial."
You very often assume facts not in evidence in order to support a conclusion or opinion you hold.
I'm not saying that you are right or wrong about the DA in that case. All I'm saying is that you weaken your opinions and conclusions by not doing your homework.
[ edited by codasaurus on Dec 29, 2000 10:36 AM ]
|
codasaurus
|
posted on December 29, 2000 10:20:21 AM new
Hello Gravid,
"This offering photos that are supposed to show a physical reality that obviously never happened are small lies. Just remember that people of this quality will tell you BIG lies just as easy as small."
A lie so small in this instance as to be insignificant.
How much more contrived are these photos than the real photos of a president or vice president touring a disaster area in a hard hat?
Or the lie of makeup applied to a person before they appear on TV?
You want a big lie type photo? How about the infamous photo of Mao swimming in the Yangtze River to refute rumors of his poor health.
You want a medium lie type photo? How about many of Matthew Brady's photographs of battlefield casulties from the Civil War? Many times bodies were re-arranged to suit Brady's artistic sensibilities.
Or how about all of the photo-op photos and sound bites that we are bombarded with? All are contrived to some extent.
|
codasaurus
|
posted on December 29, 2000 10:33:57 AM new
Hello Iswanson,
"We were doing the best we could with the techniques we had available at the time."
That is no apology at all.
But it is a very good justification for the mistake that was made when the trial occurred.
In my opinion...
We all have to make decisions based on the best available information at the moment of decision.
To be responsible enough to acknowledge that all decisions will not be the correct ones.
To do whatever we can to rectify a mistake once discovered. To make whole, whenever possible, the persons who originally suffered as the result of the mistake.
To admit that not everything can be corrected.
|
shellsputer
|
posted on December 29, 2000 12:31:48 PM new
"Oceana has always been at war with Eurasia"
|
networker67
|
posted on December 29, 2000 05:11:38 PM new
codasaurus - Hummm interesting statement except you overlooked the words I BET. Maybe in your part of the world people only bet when they have full knowledge of the outcome. That's not a bet IMHO that's a certainty. So my statement I BET didn't require any additional facts to support it. Because the modifier I BET reinforced that I was speculating.
You know this fault finding campaign of yours used to be amusing. But now it has stooped to the level of childish at best.
snowydays - I read your interesting solution. Thought about it for a minute or two, then thought about it again for a day or two. Wouldn't work because at its very basic level gang warfare is unrestricted capitalism at work. See gangs aren't fighting and never were fighting over those colors that your media attached to it. Its actually territorial war for drug trading. You get those drive-bys when gang A decides to expand into gang B's area of operation, and vice versa.
You get those drive bys when young men and women driven by some sick standard of respect thinks they have been disrespected because someone dirtied their sneaker or some other insane pettiness. So your solution wouldn't work because the "good-people" as you called them are determined to stay there and make things better. And the one another note the real bad people who are the root source of the problem don't live there in the first place.
|
chococake
|
posted on December 29, 2000 08:20:18 PM new
"I don't think God is fooled by it"
I'm sorry but that line was so funny to me.
Can you just see God say, "oh no you don't, you can't fool me, I know you're bad to the bone".
Snowey - I'm sure all you know about gangs is what you see on television or read in the paper. Do you know that more women and children are killed in domestic violence then gang related killings?
|
krs
|
posted on December 29, 2000 08:39:54 PM new
No giggling.
|
chococake
|
posted on December 29, 2000 09:13:09 PM new
Giggling is good for the soul.
|
krs
|
posted on December 29, 2000 09:16:43 PM new
Shhh!
Don't say 'soul'. Networker will call you a racist.
|
barbarake
|
posted on December 31, 2000 07:38:13 AM new
shellsputer - Loved your quote. I wonder how many people know from where it comes?
|
shellsputer
|
posted on December 31, 2000 09:01:39 AM new
Thank you barbarake 
The original topic that krs posted, and the whole picture thing just reminded me of that story, and it does seem, in a lot of small(?) ways that the powers at be would like for the masses to condition themselves to that mentality.
PS: krs would be the first one with the good vodka, sugar and chocolate! (That was a compliment krs )
[ edited by shellsputer on Dec 31, 2000 09:04 AM ]
|
mrssantaclaus
|
posted on January 2, 2001 11:40:34 AM new
The "Carla" that Dubya did not pardon certainly did not deserve to be pardoned. Did you read what she did? I certainly do not think she should be pardoned for that! Well, actually life in prison on a chain gang is a much better sentence for anyone who kills, anyway. Give them time to think about what they did!
|
lswanson
|
posted on January 2, 2001 03:37:15 PM new
Coda, "'We were doing the best we could with the techniques we had available at the time.'
That is no apology at all."
No Codasaurus, is wasn't. I was being sarcastic, which often doesn't translate well in these forums.
MrsSantaClause, your point about letting people have life sentences in order to think about what they did assumes that most of them feel some sort of remorse. In most cases, the only remorse felt is that over getting caught. There is rarely any remorse felt for the victim(s).
|
