..."deathpenaltycurriculum.org/student"
Posting some biased website doesn't prove or disprove anything, James.
Baron Max
..."deathpenaltycurriculum.org/student"
...rather than risk one lousy stinkin' person being put to death by accident.
Yeah, one lousy stinking innocent citizen. Unless Max, you think that arrest implies guilt?
What if that innocent was you, Max? Or is this the 'it could never happen to me' attitude prevailing, and if you think that, why?
No, but a conviction in a court of law does!
Taking a view of things from a personal viewpoint is simple idiotic, wrong, not good, stupid, biased, dumb as hell, crazy, foolish, ....., well, you get the point.
Baron Max
But that isn't what the sentence of yours I quoted was saying Max. It was about the possibility of the death of an innocent. Don't twist.
OK, so you think it will never happen to you, so it's OK if it happens to someone else. That makes you selfish, and unfit to live in a civilised society Max.
Well, if you'd been reading the thread carefully, you'd have seen that I answered that several times ...if the courts make a mistake and send an innocent man to death, it's no worse than him being killed in a car accident ...he's dead.
No, basing societal ethics from a personal stand point is ignorant and foolish. One must, absolutely must, view ethics and morality from the grand view, not the limited view of ones own personal bias.
Baron Max
be killed painlessly by lethal injection?
I think most people would choose life over death - and who says it's painless?
If an innocent being killed is no worse than getting killed in a car crash, why prosecute people for killing innocents in the first place? Your logic defeats itself, but you are too short sighted to see it yourself.
Posting some biased website doesn't prove or disprove anything, James.
No, you're twisting things around to suite your agenda. People do that all the time, and it's easy to spot.
This is a straw man attempt Max, and I'm not going to respond to it.
Please however explain how, if it's OK for the state to kill innocent people, and one dead person is just like a dead person from a car wreck, why we bother prosecuting people for murder in the first place?
No, it just simply proves that the numbers of innocent people is not your real concern. If it was, then there are far more innocent people killed by others means than the death penalty. See? You're just "using" dead people to further your agenda and add to your bias against the death penalty.
Intent. It's a major part of a murder trial. If one accidentally kills a person with a gun, it's an accident. If a driver accidentally kills a person in a car wreck, it's an accident. If a person kills an innocent victim in a robbery, then it's intentional, it's NOT an accident.
But in either a car accident or a murder, the innocent person is still dead. Yet you seem to only care about people killed by the state in the death penalty.
And yet you're far more concerned about the dead people from the death penalty than all those others combined. See? Numbers of dead people isn't you main concern ...it's just "using" dead people to further your own agenda.
Baron Max
No, it just simply proves that the numbers of innocent people is not your real concern. If it was, then there are far more innocent people killed by others means than the death penalty. See? You're just "using" dead people to further your agenda and add to your bias against the death penalty.
Intent. It's a major part of a murder trial. If one accidentally kills a person with a gun, it's an accident. If a driver accidentally kills a person in a car wreck, it's an accident. If a person kills an innocent victim in a robbery, then it's intentional, it's NOT an accident.
But in either a car accident or a murder, the innocent person is still dead. Yet you seem to only care about people killed by the state in the death penalty.
And yet you're far more concerned about the dead people from the death penalty than all those others combined. See? Numbers of dead people isn't you main concern ...it's just "using" dead people to further your own agenda.
Baron Max
it is fairly painless because the first drug is designed to knock the person out. Like when going into surgery you dont feel them cutting you open, the difference is that you dont wake up.
Apples to Oranges Max.
.... We're talking about the state killing innocent people through a miscarriage of Justice, ...
Therefore no-one knows for certain whether the injection causes pain or not. Although, scientists have logically concluded that it probably does.
Baron, if you had bothered to quote the rest of my post you would have found the answer to your question.
It was a short post - are you just deliberately dishonest?