Still think Texas has never executed anyone who was innocent?

Which side are you scolding?

 

Just tell me the warden who executed the innocent man didn't make O'Reilly's Pinheads section!

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120518/NEWS03/305180013/As-Kentucky-plans-execute-inmate-his-need-new-hip-creates-dilemma?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

 

It's not the state's fault nobody wants anything to do with the guy. All they can do is try to get him the care he needs. Plus, they do have a point about how does it look to spend thousands of dollars on somebody you're trying to execute anyways.

 

And the point being, execution is not supposed to be about economics, but they're determined to make it so?

 

I don't see how you get that out of this story. They're sure as hell not planning on executing him to save money ... they're planning on executing him because he killed six people.

 

Good God.

A dad was executed for deaths of his 3 girls. Now a letter casts more doubt. - The Washington Post

 

Prosecutor and shifty witness should both be charged with first-degree murder. You know what happens to those kind of folk in Texas....

 

Is this your opinion or the new dogma? I didn't get a memo.

 

This is more "tolerance" from the "tolerance and diversity" side of the aisle, i.e., we are tolerant of all ideas as long as they align with our thoughts......

And it is utter bullshit.

First of all -- when you see how some of these fucktards kill, rape or injure someone, they no longer have a right to live. They have forfeited that right by their own actions. Nobody is playing God, we are just reinforcing YOUR decisions to be a scumbag.

But forget about all that - I understand the flaws in the death penalty, understand there are race and poverty issues and bias and it isn't a perfect system - though now with DNA testing, there are far less mistakes (something the 'death penalty is the devil crowd' won't talk about.....), so I am willing to concede that unless you have a smoking gun and an iron clad case, we should be very cautious about administering it.

I could even live without it to some extent because there are some issues, again, with how and who we administer it to.

However, please explain to me why we shouldn't immediately execute ANY violent felon who is currently serving time that kills, attacks, injures another inmate or attacks a guard?

We have already given you one chance to make your life right and put you in a prison. You have now proven you are not being rehabilitated, you are not interested in becoming a productive member of society, you are still a scumbag so you now longer have the right to live.

Why is this inhumane?

I nearly puke any time I watch some of those documentaries about prison life on MSNBC and see these videos of prisoners shanking each other, attacking guards, guys we have to put in solitary confinement because they are so violent -- what purpose does it serve to keep these animals alive?

 

How many innocent people do you think is an acceptable number to imprison for life to ensure that 100 guilty men are imprisoned for life?

If you are OK with life imprisonment, you have to be OK with imprisoning an innocent person for life. Does that mean you are OK with that?

If you are OK with any type of criminal punishment, then you have to be OK with punishing an innocent person.

Etc