^^well of course. but i wonder where this all started. who said they would turn in their guns? why would they turn in their guns? and why would we believe them?

[Edited on December 12, 2005 at 11:08 AM. Reason : ]

12/12/2005 11:07:03 AM

^^you're right.

12/12/2005 11:14:07 AM

Quote :

"Now, I would like to know what harm is done by not executing him?"

Well, he's been involved in the leadership of one of the worst gangs in America since being in prison, so I'd say terminating that relationship is a good thing.

Quote :

"HOLY FUCK ARE YOU PEOPLE HONESTLY GOING TO SAY THAT KILLING TOOKIE WILLIAMS IS BETTER FOR PUBLIC SAFETY THAN GETTING GUNS OFF OF THE STREET AND OUT OF THE HANDS OF GANG MEMBERS ??"

NO

I'm saying that the Bloods didn't say they'd stop being a violent gang involved in all manner of crime -- they just said they'd hand over the guns they have. First of all, since I can't corroborate it, I don't think they even said that much. Second of all, if they did say it, you'll forgive me for not having a lot of trust in the word of a fucking Blood. Third of all, even if they were sincere, all we've done is buy a little bit of time during which they can go out and buy more guns.

I'm also saying that it's wrong and immoral to negotiate with criminals. We shouldn't make trades or compromises with these people on general principle. What next? Crazy guys in compounds with a huge armory saying they'll give up their weapons, but only if we let their crazy buddies out of county?

[Edited on December 12, 2005 at 12:02 PM. Reason : ]

12/12/2005 12:00:22 PM

Allowing him to be killed merely shows that the government has no faith that the system can rehabilitate criminals.

Should Tookie be let out of prison? No.

Should he be executed? No.

12/12/2005 12:17:03 PM

REHABILITATION IS NOT THE POINT OF THE PENAL SYSTEM

12/12/2005 12:21:40 PM

He has been in jail over 2 decades. If they should have killed him the day after finding him guilty. They should have hung him in the town square. Being on death row is almost like life in prison and cost even more than life in prison b/c of the cost of appeals. Plus we should all listen to Snoop and take advice from him. Hell Tookie probably "enrolled" him in Crips. I could really careless if they kill him. I don't agree w/ the death penalty because it does not work in this country. Criminals should get treated like they do in other countries. If you steal, lose your hand; commit rape, lose your balls; murder, public execution right after being found guilty. I imagine if they do kill him, the intelligent people out in California will riot.

12/12/2005 12:58:30 PM

Quote :

"given that they understand consequences, they can exercise self-control and act (or not act) on their knowledge. Again, there's huge research that suggests a lot of people can't."

well, if there is someone who has so little self-control that he can't keep from killing people, then I have a hard time seeing why this person should continue to live...

12/12/2005 2:05:31 PM

Quote :

"If you steal, lose your hand; commit rape, lose your balls; murder, public execution right after being found guilty."

Neat. I'd like to live in the Middle Ages too.

12/12/2005 2:07:26 PM

not like our justice system is fallible or anything....

12/12/2005 2:10:47 PM

Quote :

"well, if there is someone who has so little self-control that he can't keep from killing people, then I have a hard time seeing why this person should continue to live..."

Thank you for dumbing my argument down to your level. But to respond to your remark, because you cannot kill defenseless people.

12/12/2005 2:14:05 PM

he's dead. Ahnold denied his request.

12/12/2005 3:33:49 PM

Quote :

"I'm saying that the Bloods didn't say they'd stop being a violent gang involved in all manner of crime -- they just said they'd hand over the guns they have. First of all, since I can't corroborate it, I don't think they even said that much. Second of all, if they did say it, you'll forgive me for not having a lot of trust in the word of a fucking Blood. Third of all, even if they were sincere, all we've done is buy a little bit of time during which they can go out and buy more guns."

how many convenience clerks have been stabbed in a robbery? how many people have been killed in a drive-by ninja starring? taking guns off of the street cannot possibly be bad, only good.

Quote :

"I'm also saying that it's wrong and immoral to negotiate with criminals. We shouldn't make trades or compromises with these people on general principle."

we negotiate with criminals all the time; it's called plea bargaining.

12/12/2005 3:56:08 PM

deadsauce

12/12/2005 4:32:55 PM

WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENED TO THE CULTURE OF LIFE?????

12/12/2005 4:34:41 PM

same thing as happened to people not being idiots

12/12/2005 4:36:37 PM

interesting...

his own family doesn't think he deserves clemency

12/12/2005 5:16:26 PM

A few thoughts that I wrote in my LJ with regards to Tookie:

Quote :

"The impending execution tonight in California of Tookie Williams, the founder of the Crips and convicted killer of four, is a bit confusing and frustrating to me. I am sympathetic to those who oppose Tookie's execution based upon a principled stance against the death penalty. Their call for clemency based upon the immorality of the punishment and the flaws in the system are perfectly reasonable and justifiable. They call for clemency at every execution, even those of confessed murders who killed numerous individuals without remorse. I have every respect for their opinions and no gripes against them. My annoyance and frustration with this particular case is not directed against them. No, what makes my bullshit detector go off are all those who claim that Mr. Williams somehow deserves special clemency for all the work he has done since his incarceration. Now perhaps Mr. Williams really has had a change of heart, and maybe he has done things to help alleviate gang violence. However, we must come back to the crimes at hand. Has there been any new evidence or revelation that draw his conviction into question? No, the California Supreme Court, Federal District Court, Federal 9th Circuit of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court have all upheld both the conviction and the sentence. The case may have been built on circumstantial evidence, but the sheer weight of it is simply too overwhelming to give Mr. Williams any route out. Even Mr. Williams lawyers have not bothered to claim their client's innocence, instead building their entire case upon Mr. Williams remorse and "good works". Let us look at each of these items. Tookie Williams has also refused to apologize for and shows no remorse for the four murders. The refusal is based upon a continued stand that he is innocent. However, with a larger view of all the violence that his gang has committed, the only thing he regrets are a unspecified crimes committed against "his own people". Apparently there was little to no regret for the violence against Asian, Caucasian, or Hispanic victims. There hasn't even been any real sign of sympathy for the victims of these crimes. The dead were not gang members; they were an elderly couple and their adult daughter who ran a motel as well as a young convenience store clerk, systematically killed during a series of robberies by a sawed-off shotgun purchased by and registered Mr. Williams. This is hardly a show of remorse. As for his good works, it is true that he MIGHT have played a role in a temporary brokered cease fire between gangs in Newark, NJ. Yet gang violence in his hometown has grown by 30% this past year alone with the brutality only increasing with each passing year. I have yet to see even a mention of a study that demonstrates that Tookie has directly influenced the level of gang violence or gang recruitment. Perhaps his work is noble, but it appears to have had little, if any influence upon the gangs of America. Some may mention that Tookie Williams was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize and is thus a respected global peacemaker. Well please consider that President George W. Bush, as recently as 2004, was also nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize by some foreign lawmaker. I don't think anything else needs to be said about that. A few have also argued that Tookie Williams should be granted clemency to prevent mass rioting in California. A clemency based solely upon a threat of violence by organized criminals would at very least unravel the last vestiges of the rule of law that holds this otherwise balkanized Republic together. There is no remorse, no repentance, and no real impact of Tookie's actions during his incarceration. He was convicted with overwhelming evidence which has been heavily scrutinized and upheld by every judge and jury that has looked at his case. He was given the maximum sentence available for a brutal and unnecessarily violent crime. In my opinion, the Governator made the right decision: there is simply no ground for clemency based upon the case his lawyers made. Again, if Arnold wants to give clemency to Tookie and everyone else on death row as a stance against the death penalty, that's a principled stance and is thus perfectly fine by me. Otherwise though, Tookie Williams, outside of building an excellent PR machine and making a few celebrity friends, has done nothing to distinguish him from any other convicted killer and in my opinion, deserve no special treatment. God have mercy on his soul."

12/12/2005 7:04:58 PM

Quote :

"WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENED TO THE CULTURE OF LIFE?????"

Well, I don't believe he's innocent by any means, but I do want to know something. This is just a question for anyone (especially on the right, but left can answer too) who wants to pounce on it. If 1 innocent person is executed out of 10 or even 100, is the death penalty worth it? Is that 1 innocent life worth the others, and make the death penalty justifiable?

12/12/2005 7:08:42 PM

^paging Dr. GrumpyGOP

Quote :

" taking guns off of the street cannot possibly be bad, only good."

12/12/2005 7:27:38 PM

is incarcerating one innocent person out of 100 still worth incarcerating people?

No, I'm not equating the two, all I'm saying is that our justice system, and any justice system, will have it's flaws.

In this case, he did it. He's guilty. He should pay the price for his crimes. Personally, I think executing someone 25 years after the crime really takes away the effect of capital punishment. It's been 25 years... it's long over. I'm not necessarily advocating this, but the death penalty would have MUCH more weight if the punishment took place closer to the crime than it does today.

12/12/2005 7:38:42 PM

Quote :

"how many convenience clerks have been stabbed in a robbery? how many people have been killed in a drive-by ninja starring? taking guns off of the street cannot possibly be bad, only good."

How would you get them off the street? by banning them? Banning guns would only keep them out of the hands of law abiding citizens; criminals would have no problem obtaining weapons from the black market as they are not worried about breaking the law. I don't know about the rest of you, but I would feel alot bettet with my own protection then waiting for the police to come recuse me. Plus banning guns would be a direct violation of the second amendment.

12/12/2005 7:48:47 PM

yup

12/12/2005 8:22:27 PM

Quote :

"taking guns off of the street cannot possibly be bad, only good."

If we take your autocratic, rights-obliterating argument and bring it back down to the scope of the discussion -- namely, getting the Bloods to turn in their guns -- then we can still talk.

I'm not saying that the Bloods turning in their guns would be bad. I'm saying foremost that it wouldn't happen, second that if it did, they'd just get new guns, and third, that even if they didn't I don't think it would do enough good to be worth it.

Quote :

"we negotiate with criminals all the time; it's called plea bargaining."

First of all, I think plea bargaining is a ridiculous practice that should not happen nearly so often as it does, if at all.

More importantly, you're talking oranges and I'm talking apples.

You don't say, "Alright, guys, we'll give you something if you give us something," to criminals, terrorists, and the like. To do so recognizes their legitimacy, which is wrong.

Like I say, if you do it with Tookie, what about every other nutjob (or bunch of nutjobs) with a gun that runs around demanding things? How much violence do I have to inflict on society before you'll let my buddy out of prison in exchange for me to stop?

If I blow up an orphanage once a week until rape gets decriminalized, what then?

You don't make deals with the Bloods. You arrest the fucking Bloods. Not saying it'd be easy, but it's the only thing you can do.

12/12/2005 8:42:32 PM

Quote :

"How would you get them off the street? by banning them? Banning guns would only keep them out of the hands of law abiding citizens; criminals would have no problem obtaining weapons from the black market as they are not worried about breaking the law. I don't know about the rest of you, but I would feel alot bettet with my own protection then waiting for the police to come recuse me. Plus banning guns would be a direct violation of the second amendment."

please realize i am not advocating banning guns. stop thinking that. all i am saying is that getting guns off of the streets and out of the hands of criminals CANNOT possibly be bad.

Quote :

"If we take your autocratic, rights-obliterating argument and bring it back down to the scope of the discussion -- namely, getting the Bloods to turn in their guns -- then we can still talk. I'm not saying that the Bloods turning in their guns would be bad. I'm saying foremost that it wouldn't happen, second that if it did, they'd just get new guns, and third, that even if they didn't I don't think it would do enough good to be worth it."

when i said taking them off the streets i meant only in taking them from the willing bloods. i did not and do not ever wish to imply otherwise.

i did use the wrong verb, but i didn't mean it in the way you are thinking.

Quote :

"You don't say, "Alright, guys, we'll give you something if you give us something," to criminals, terrorists, and the like. To do so recognizes their legitimacy, which is wrong."

currently we are already doing this practice, and noting this, why is this case any different? We've always offered a lighter sentence in return for something we want. this is nothing new. i don't have a problem with it in most cases, and i don't have a problem in this one.

[Edited on December 12, 2005 at 9:06 PM. Reason : misspoke]

12/12/2005 9:03:42 PM

Bye bye Tookie.

12/12/2005 9:53:34 PM

Quote :

"You don't say, "Alright, guys, we'll give you something if you give us something," to criminals, terrorists, and the like. To do so recognizes their legitimacy, which is wrong. "

America was founded by terrorist. 99.9999% of violent people probably have no legitimate cause, but there may come a day or time when someone does. A hard-line policy to completely ignore and shut those people out is idiotic, and only leads to fascism. Even though our gov. is massive and faceless, we the people should still strive for humanity and compassion, even if it isn't always possible. It's the massive gov.'s job to hold hard-line, nonsense views about things (not really, but they always seem to come to this), and our job to keep them in check.

12/12/2005 9:54:14 PM

mytwocents, now keeping the SOAP BOX informed too

12/12/2005 10:57:22 PM

Quote :

"currently we are already doing this practice, and noting this, why is this case any different?"

1) I already said I disagreed with the practice we are currently using.
2) Offering reduced sentence to a person for that person's information is one thing. Offering to bend the government's will to a group's demands in return for a reduction in crime is another. Maybe if all the Bloods were going to turn in their guns and get punished, I could almost accept it.

Quote :

"America was founded by terrorist."

The overwhelming majority of the work that made America independent was conducted by an army which was in turn fighting another army. If uniforms had been more readily available, then every man jack in the Continental Army would have qualified as a combatant according to modern international law, and they may have regardless.

Quote :

"there may come a day or time when someone does."

OK, look: over here we've got gangs and terrorists, and over here we've got military groups that are actually legitimate. If you have a cause and you're not just exploiting it as an excuse to kill innocent people, then you are certainly in the latter group.

12/12/2005 11:32:51 PM

hes dead, now

12/13/2005 3:38:54 AM

its funny watching the fox news guys recap it. he tried to make it seem like tookie was trying to scare the media.







also, im sick of all this crying

HOLY SHIT THEY COULDNT FIND A VEIN

last i was at duke some nurse blugeoned the shit out of my left arm looking for a vein. you dont see me crying to the media.

12/13/2005 4:57:14 AM

So he wrote a lot of books and tried to convince people that gang life was not the way to go. Seems like his execution was the period at the end of the sentence (no pun intended). "Don't do what I did. See what it got me."

12/13/2005 7:24:25 AM

^^ This is why we should use firing squads...

Ain't no muscle gonna stop a 30.06

12/13/2005 8:13:10 AM

he didnt redeem himself, and if he did its in Gods hands now.

12/13/2005 9:55:20 AM

Quote :

"OK, look: over here we've got gangs and terrorists, and over here we've got military groups that are actually legitimate. If you have a cause and you're not just exploiting it as an excuse to kill innocent people, then you are certainly in the latter group."

HAHAHAHA!

Is that how Wikipedia sorts it out?

12/13/2005 10:00:39 AM

the death penalty is morally wrong.

and grupmy's argument why it is okay doesn't hold up to the test.

think about it. He makes the claim that if people are not executed they will magically be released. That is not true. When one's sentence is commuted, it is turned into life in prison. I don't understand why when we have life in prison without the possiblity of parole that we have the death penalty

[Edited on December 13, 2005 at 10:15 AM. Reason : .]

12/13/2005 10:00:41 AM

Quote :

"Is that how Wikipedia sorts it out?"

No, that's how international law sorts it out. If you're an organized, uniformed group openly bearing arms and subscribing to the rules of warfare, then you're not a terrorist, you're a combatant. You're legitimate.

If you're a guy in civilian clothes carrying a hidden bomb, or a thug in a jacket of a certain color hiding a gat robbing a convenience store, you're not a lawful combatant. You are not recognized; your cause is not legitimate.

If your cause entails being an unlawful combatant, blowing civilians up, committing crimes for personal profit, what have you, then the government has no business taking a lenient stance with you as moron suggested.

If your cause entails an actually righteous end, and not merely the means to that end, the situation differs.

All that being said, I wasn't enitrely sober and don't actually remember writing that post, so I'm not entirely sure where I was going with it.

Quote :

"He makes the claim that if people are not executed they will magically be released."

No, I don't. I make the claim that they will be released through legal channels, or escape, or kill people in prison, or being involved in the killing of people or the commission of other crimes from within prison.

[Edited on December 13, 2005 at 10:30 AM. Reason : ]

12/13/2005 10:29:35 AM

Quote :

"No, I don't. I make the claim that they will be released through legal channels, or escape, or kill people in prison, or being involved in the killing of people or the commission of other crimes from within prison."

how will they be released through legal channels? If they are serving life without parole there is no legal channel other than the prosecution or jury blatantly fucking up and probably violating the law. Likewise, a death row inmate is cut off from the rest of prison There is no way they can order another killing. The odds of escape are nil. Simple vigalance keeps them from giving out orders to kill. But in the end, the majority of death row inmates are not the organized crime killers you think of.

12/13/2005 10:35:30 AM

Quote :

"If they are serving life without parole there is no legal channel other than the prosecution or jury blatantly fucking up and probably violating the law."

O rly?

http://www.lvrj.com/cgi-bin/printable.cgi?/lvrj_home/2000/May-31-Wed-2000/news/13679621.html

Quote :

"Jack Rainsberger, once sentenced to death for killing a Las Vegas secretary, may be released from prison in September. The state Parole Board said Tuesday that Rainsberger...was tentatively approved for release...Rainsberger has been in prison since March 1959 for the murder of Erline Folker... In 1972, Rainsberger's death penalty was commuted to life in prison without possible parole because of a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court invalidating capital punishment laws. The state Pardons Board in 1977 agreed to cut the sentence again so Rainsberger could eventually seek parole."

Quote :

" Debra Jenner-Tyler was convicted of second-degree murder in March 1988 for stabbing her 3-year-old daughter, Abby, to death on April 5, 1987, in their Huron home. Originally given life in prison without parole, she had her sentence cut to 100 years last December by then-Gov. Bill Janklow after she admitted to him in a taped conversation that she had committed the crime."

Sentenced to "life without parole," got parole, and killed again:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2002/may/28/513502119.html?Geary%20parole

Quote :

"Melvin Geary, who was sentenced to death for a 1992 murder in Reno soon after his parole for a 1974 murder, died Sunday at the High Desert State Prison near Indian Springs. Geary was sentenced to death by injection for the 1992 stabbing death of roommate Edward Colvin of Reno, who took Geary in after he had lost a job. Geary previously was sentenced to life without parole for the 1974 stabbing death of Annette Morris in Las Vegas."

12/13/2005 10:54:29 AM

Quote :

"Jack Rainsberger"

was he given parole? Is he out on parole? I need something actually substantive. I just looked and he is still in prison. nice bit of scare mongering

Quote :

"Debra Jenner-Tyler"

you don't get the death peantly for second degree murder. Besides, this isn't something through the courts. This was the governor commuting the sentence.

Quote :

"Melvin Geary"

One incident in how many? And obviously, Nevada needs their parole system fixed. But then again, why don't you find something recent and purposeful.

[Edited on December 13, 2005 at 11:18 AM. Reason : p.s. I like how you got all of your cases from prodeathpenalty.org]

12/13/2005 11:18:16 AM

Quote :

"I just looked and he is still in prison."

Yes, but he was offered the possibility for parole, which would rather seem to fly in the face of life without possibility for parole.

Quote :

"Besides, this isn't something through the courts. This was the governor commuting the sentence. "

I was unaware that the Governor commuting a sentence was not a legal channel.

Quote :

"One incident in how many?"

Gee, nutty, I don't know, but I get the distinct impression that it wouldn't matter how many, you'd oppose the death penalty anyway.

Quote :

"And obviously, Nevada needs their parole system fixed."

Well no shit. And so, it seems, do a quite a few other states.

Quote :

"p.s. I like how you got all of your cases from prodeathpenalty.org"

That was the quickest and easiest place to find examples, yes. Nobody else compiles lists of the sort. Certainly not the anti-death-penalty sites (about which I'm sure you would not have complained for a moment), because it hurts their case. But you'll notice that I went back and quoted newspaper articles rather than that particular site.

12/13/2005 11:24:32 AM

here is an incident of an innocent person put to death. I guess that makes us equal right grumpy?

Quote :

"Cantu's long-silent co-defendant, David Garza, just 15 when the two boys allegedly committed a murder-robbery together, has signed a sworn affidavit saying he allowed his friend to be falsely accused, though Cantu wasn't with him the night of the killing. And the lone eyewitness, the man who survived the shooting, has recanted. He told the Chronicle he's sure that the person who shot him was not Cantu, but he felt pressured by police to identify the boy as the killer. Juan Moreno, an illegal immigrant at the time of the shooting, said his damning in-court identification was based on his fear of authorities and police interest in Cantu."

Excerpt from Houston Chronicle article cited at http://truthinjustice.org/ruben-cantu.htm

Let's not forget about all the death sentences in Illinois and north carolina for innocent people. I'm still winning on the innocent people count.


13 exonerated in illinois

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/01/31/illinois.executions.02/

Sicne 1973, 122 people have been exonerated. Meaning they were wrongly sentenced to death. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=110

why risk it.

[Edited on December 13, 2005 at 11:34 AM. Reason : .]

12/13/2005 11:31:38 AM

ding dong the crip is dead, the witch o crip the wicked crip

12/13/2005 11:36:40 AM

So what I guess you are saying Grumpy is the one person killed by an paroled killer is worth more than the potential 122 people and Mr. Cantu (who was killed)?

talk about fucked up priorities.

12/13/2005 11:37:05 AM

Quote :

"David Keaton was sentenced to death in Florida in July of 1971, after he was convicted of killing a police officer during an armed robbery. His conviction was based on a coerced false confession. He was exonerated in 1973, but was not released until 1979 after the actual killer was identified and convicted. Keaton is one of the main characters portrayed in the Off-Broadway play, The Exonerated."

Did David Keaton deserve to die?

Quote :

"There was no evidence linking Pitts, a 27-year-old soldier, and Lee, a 19-year-old cook, to the crime, and they "confessed" after being beaten by police."

Do Pitts and Lee deserve to die?

12/13/2005 11:45:15 AM

Quote :

"So what I guess you are saying Grumpy is the one person killed by an paroled killer is worth more than the potential 122 people and Mr. Cantu (who was killed)?"

Actually, no, not even a little bit.

The 122 people are largely irrelevant. They were exonerated, they were released, and they were not executed.

What you have at the moment is one -- just one -- innocent person who was actually executed.

I have...

Quote :

"A very quick perusal of some anecdotal evidence gives me something on the order of 71 people killed by already convicted murderers, including 11 correctional facility workers who were killed by prisoners in prison and 19 police officers outside. These numbers do not include the lists of inmates killed by their fellows in fights, gang assassinations, etc. Likewise I find an anecdotal list of 50 murderers who escaped but were captured before they could show any recidivistic tendencies -- and that's just in the last 8 years."

-Me, in this thread:
http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=195796&page=5

12/13/2005 11:45:23 AM

Here in lies the problem with you assertion and I bet you know it. You aren't that dumb

Quote :

"The rebuttal is fatuous partly because of its circular logic. There is no judicial mechanism for review of guilt or pronouncement of innocence after an execution. The courts are done with it. Therefore, it should go without saying that no court has announced that an executed person was innocent, since American courts by definition do not make such findings."

I would be willing to bet that if the United States started investigating whether or not someone was innocent after they were executed, the number of innoncent people executed would drastically rise.

http://www.justicedenied.org/executed.htm

Never the less, I give you Larry Griffin, another innocent killed.

12/13/2005 11:52:26 AM

Quote :

"Actually, no, not even a little bit. The 122 people are largely irrelevant. They were exonerated, they were released, and they were not executed. "

But that doesn't make any sense. They were about to be executed, and they were factually innocent. Now, what if they had a lawyer of a little less quality in the exoneration process? What if they had not found that last bit of evidence until it was too late? Et cetera, et cetera. The fact that there were 122 innocent people on death row makes it seem very likely that at least some innocent people have slipped through the cracks and been executed.

12/13/2005 1:08:48 PM

^Holy shit, I agree with you.

12/13/2005 1:49:35 PM

^^ But you don't understand!!1

The system fucked up... Therefore it is perfect!

[Edited on December 13, 2005 at 1:49 PM. Reason : .]

12/13/2005 1:49:45 PM

Quote :

"I would be willing to bet that if the United States started investigating whether or not someone was innocent after they were executed, the number of innoncent people executed would drastically rise."

And what do you base that on? You've already found 122 people exonerated before they were killed. That's about 3.4 percent of the population of death row. How many more times do you think we screw up? I ask just out of curiosity, since you couldn't possibly have anything to base it on.

We have this lengthy appeals process for the express purpose of exonerating innocent people. I'd say it's working.

Quote :

"They were about to be executed, and they were factually innocent."

Where do you gather that they were all factually innocent?

Quote :

"The fact that there were 122 innocent people on death row makes it seem very likely that at least some innocent people have slipped through the cracks and been executed."

I never denied that some innocent people have been killed by the death penalty. I have, however, denied that more innocent people die through executions than through the farce that is "life without parole" and other lesser sentences.

Quote :

"The system fucked up... Therefore it is perfect!"

Hardly. It is merely preferable to the alternative you have offered.



[Edited on December 13, 2005 at 1:53 PM. Reason : what, no wikipedia reference?]

12/13/2005 1:52:11 PM