US: The Arkansas executions, first blood

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

If there was even a 1% chance that he was innocent, they should of tested more before deciding for execution and I don't believe in execution.


"BUT YOU BLEEDING HEART" Just stop, not an argument and just sounds like whining.

What you believe isn't an argument either.

This man had already raped and killed women before. Not too hard to imagine he is in the same exact area where a rape and murder of a woman happened.

[Gaaz]

Hanging seeing as you break your neck from the fall.

Nope. Even decapitation is not instant, let alone hanging. French have been doing experiments on that subject early last century. The head lives sometimes for 30-40 seconds afterwards, fully conscious.
PS. I really did not enjoy reading those reports in case you were wondering. It is quite sickening and revolting. But anyone who is pro capital punishment should be fully aware as to what the costs are. If you think that capital punishment has a place in society, you have to be aware of everything that surrounds it. People do not magically dissapear. They are brutally slaughtered. That is why there should not be even a speck of doubt in the verdict. This particular case is a disgrace. Also, death should be instant, not half an hour torture (as was with some of the more recent cases).

[Aeluron Lightsong]

What you believe isn't an argument either.

This man had already raped and killed women before. Not too hard to imagine he is in the same exact area where a rape and murder of a woman happened.

What he did in those other cases don't matter to the specific one he got the execution from. Like said if some things didn't match up, they should of investigated further to figure it out 100% before going the execution route. I can also say what you believe isn't an argument either if we're playing this game.

[Independent voter]

Nope. Even decapitation is not instant, let alone hanging. French have been doing experiments on that subject early last century. The head lives sometimes for 30-40 seconds afterwards, fully conscious.
PS. I really did not enjoy reading those reports in case you were wondering. It is quite sickening and revolting. But anyone who is pro capital punishment should be fully aware as to what the costs are. If you think that capital punishment has a place in society, you have to be aware of everything that surrounds it. People do not magically dissapear. They are brutally slaughtered. That is why there should not be even a speck of doubt in the verdict. This particular case is a disgrace. Also, death should be instant, not half an hour torture (as was with some of the more recent cases).

With decapitation yes the brain stays alive for a few seconds but there is no pain. Pain is transferred from the body to the brain and since the spinal column is severed the pain signal never reaches the brain.

If I had to choose an execution method for myself decapitation would be it.

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

What he did in those other cases don't matter to the specific one he got the execution from. Like said if some things didn't match up, they should of investigated further to figure it out 100% before going the execution route. I can also say what you believe isn't an argument either if we're playing this game.

The only game I am playing is why do you care about this one specific issue?

There is a huge mountain of social injustice, yet you are captivated by literally an evil and sadistic rapist and murderer, who in one very specific case there possibly could be a 1% chance he was innocent. You seem to ignore the 99% chance he is guilty as well as his historical violent past.

[petej0]

What he did in those other cases don't matter to the specific one he got the execution from. Like said if some things didn't match up, they should of investigated further to figure it out 100% before going the execution route. I can also say what you believe isn't an argument either if we're playing this game.

Not rock solid evidence, except for the shoe print. However it doesnt paint a good picture. His DNA though was linked to 3 sexual assaults and 1 homicide. So if this guy is innocent he has some extemely bad luck to have his dna at 4 different crime scenes.

Yes, his past cases do not matter, but it shows his track record. If this was a local family man with no previous record you could probably make an argument that you have the wrong guy. Less so in this instance.

http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2...utile-/?f=news

[Moralgy]

Should have allowed for a test. I'm only okay with the death penalty if there is 100% certainty that a person did the horrible crime. Dylann Roof is an example of someone I would be okay with the death penalty.

[Tay098]

Should have allowed for a test. I'm only okay with the death penalty if there is 100% certainty that a person did the horrible crime. Dylann Roof is an example of someone I would be okay with the death penalty.

It's easy to say we need 100% certainty, but you can never be 100% certain. Thats why it says "beyond a reasonable doubt"

And crimes would never be solved if you had to wait for every sample to be run thru DNA tests. Can you imagine how much skin, hair, blood, ect are found in a home? Investigators look for what they need. You are supposed to be innocent until found guilty. So once they have enough to prove you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt there is no need to run every other sample thru the long and expensive process of DNA tests.

[Moralgy]

It's easy to say we need 100% certainty, but you can never be 100% certain. Thats why it says "beyond a reasonable doubt"

And crimes would never be solved if you had to wait for every sample to be run thru DNA tests. Can you imagine how much skin, hair, blood, ect are found in a home? Investigators look for what they need. You are supposed to be innocent until found guilty. So once they have enough to prove you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt there is no need to run every other sample thru the long and expensive process of DNA tests.

Reasonable doubt works for prison, it can be reversed, but the death penalty should be reserved for those we are 100% certain. It would reduce the death penalty convictions, sure, but something so final as death should not have the risk of an innocent being murdered by the state.

[jackofwind]

What you believe isn't an argument either.

This man had already raped and killed women before. Not too hard to imagine he is in the same exact area where a rape and murder of a woman happened.

Doesn't matter though when you consider it objectively. Sure, your argument appeals to emotion, but that's a logical fallacy.

Punish the man for what he did, but justice demands that due diligence is done - nothing is ever just a write-off when it comes to justice. It doesn't matter if he was already tried and convicted for other crimes, or will be tried for more in the future, he still shouldn't be punished for other crimes he may not have done.

It also gives false closure to a case where the real murderer may still be living freely.

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

Reasonable doubt works for prison, it can be reversed, but the death penalty should be reserved for those we are 100% certain. It would reduce the death penalty convictions, sure, but something so final as death should not have the risk of an innocent being murdered by the state.

I am not convinced Dylan Roof 100% did what he did. Eye witness testimony is pretty dubious, and the police where under a lot of pressure to solve this case and with out an investigation into whether Dylan Roof was coerced into confession, he should be thought of as innocent.

[Tay098]

Reasonable doubt works for prison, it can be reversed, but the death penalty should be reserved for those we are 100% certain. It would reduce the death penalty convictions, sure, but something so final as death should not have the risk of an innocent being murdered by the state.

This statement can be read as implying we are OK with sentencing people to life in prison even if we aren't sure they are guilty. I will reiterate. There is no way to be 100% sure of anything. Impossible. The law requires "beyond a reasonable doubt" because of this. For EVERY crime the rules for "guilty/not guilty" are AND SHOULD be the same. You are INNOCENT until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Then the crime committed is what determines the punishment.

EDIT: i should add. this is of course assuming everyone is doing their job correctly and honestly. But we really can't have a justice system that assumes otherwise, the whole thing would be pointless.

[jackofwind]

I am not convinced Dylan Roof 100% did what he did. Eye witness testimony is pretty dubious, and the police where under a lot of pressure to solve this case and with out an investigation into whether Dylan Roof was coerced into confession, he should be thought of as innocent.

If there was actually a reason to believe he was coerced into confession, which there absolutely is not, it should be investigated.

Additionally, he should be considered innocent until convicted. That's the whole basis of the justice system.

[Moralgy]

I am not convinced Dylan Roof 100% did what he did. Eye witness testimony is pretty dubious, and the police where under a lot of pressure to solve this case and with out an investigation into whether Dylan Roof was coerced into confession, he should be thought of as innocent.

He confessed and stands by the confession without ever backing down from it on top of all the other evidence. He is 100% guilty unless you want to build some kind of backwards conspiracy theory that he was set up to take the fall. FBI got the confession, not some local cops that will fall to social pressure.

- - - Updated - - -

This statement can be read as implying we are OK with sentencing people to life in prison even if we aren't sure they are guilty. I will reiterate. There is no way to be 100% sure of anything. Impossible. The law requires "beyond a reasonable doubt" because of this. For EVERY crime the rules for "guilty/not guilty" are AND SHOULD be the same. You are INNOCENT until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Then the crime committed is what determines the punishment.

EDIT: i should add. this is of course assuming everyone is doing their job correctly and honestly. But we really can't have a justice system that assumes otherwise, the whole thing would be pointless.

Well we do put people in prison without being sure they are guilty, that is the entire basis "Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". It works well for the majority of cases, but some fall through the cracks and people are exonerated later in life. That is the difference in prison and death penalty when it comes to reasonable doubt. I am not okay with innocents being murdered by the state, but I am also okay with horrible humans being sentenced to death. We should have zero doubt that someone committed a crime if they are going to be executed for it because it can not be reversed, ever.

[petej0]

EDIT: i should add. this is of course assuming everyone is doing their job correctly and honestly. But we really can't have a justice system that assumes otherwise, the whole thing would be pointless.

That should also include the Jurors, but who tries to get out of serving jury duty amirite!

[Wolfman31]

I don't know the particulars about this specific case, but I am all for the death penalty. Hell, I think the death penalty should be dealt out far more often than life terms in prison. The cost to house inmates is absurd. If they are to be locked away for the rest of their lives, might as well make it a short one and just execute them and be done with it. I also say bring back hanging. Rope is far cheaper than lethal injection. Who cares about being "humane" to murderers? (other than weak bleeding heart leftists) It doesn't even matter if the death penalty is a deterrent or not. Hang 'em high!

[Tay098]

He confessed and stands by the confession without ever backing down from it on top of all the other evidence. He is 100% guilty unless you want to build some kind of backwards conspiracy theory that he was set up to take the fall. FBI got the confession, not some local cops that will fall to social pressure.

- - - Updated - - -



Well we do put people in prison without being sure they are guilty, that is the entire basis "Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". It works well for the majority of cases, but some fall through the cracks and people are exonerated later in life. That is the difference in prison and death penalty when it comes to reasonable doubt. I am not okay with innocents being murdered by the state, but I am also okay with horrible humans being sentenced to death. We should have zero doubt that someone committed a crime if they are going to be executed for it because it can not be reversed, ever.

You make it sound like we hand out Death Sentences as door prizes at the court house. Ideologically I agree with you. But it seems like you only agree with the Death Penalty Ideologically and not realistically(not that there is a problem with that view, i understand it). Realistically we have to trust the jury to only convict when they are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, and for a judge to sentence to death only when appropriate(i dont actually know what judges use to determine death vs incarceration)

- - - Updated - - -

That should also include the Jurors, but who tries to get out of serving jury duty amirite!

ive only been called in for 1 trial where i live. but i knew one of the officers involved and so was dismissed :P

[God Save The King]

That's why the whole jury system is idiotic. You can just appeal to emotions of the jury and convict someone with out a shred of proof.

Judges have the ability to overturn a guilty verdict for this exact reason, our founders knew you couldn't always trust juries.

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

He confessed and stands by the confession without ever backing down from it on top of all the other evidence. He is 100% guilty unless you want to build some kind of backwards conspiracy theory that he was set up to take the fall. FBI got the confession, not some local cops that will fall to social pressure.

So the FBI has never fabricated evidence or been the victim of political pressure?

lol

[jackofwind]

So the FBI has never fabricated evidence or been the victim of political pressure?

lol

Trust no one, right?

#woke