Transcript
Alabama suffocated a man to death in a gas chamber tonight after starving him so he wouldn't choke on his own vomit as they did it. And this was deemed perfectly legal by multiple courts in the vaunted American legal system.
That's what happens when you value institutions over people.
Link for more info: https://www.reuters.com/legal/alabama-prepares-carry-out-first-execution-by-nitrogen-asphyxiation-2024-01-25/
Ok, but whats the number of innocent lives you'rewilling to end? Or maybe percentage? Where do you draw the line?
No one who is found innocents by a jury of their peers should be executed. The guilty however are a different story.
Some people are found not guilty when they really are, and some people are found guilty when they're really not. This is not a good enough metric by which to judge whether we should end a person's life.
Good enough for me.
So you are totally fine with a justice system that let Emmett Till's murderers go free, and slaughtered a man who lost his daughters to a fire he didn't start? Absolutely monstrous.
As stated before our system is not perfect. You seem all too eager to let those who have murdered, raped, and destroyed entire families live full lives while their victims are dead or suffering.
And you seem all to eager to let the state kill innocent people, as long as guilty people get killed too.
No I’m eager for Justice to be served. Something you don’t seem to have any interest in.
A life sentence is justice served.
Not for the victims who can’t live a full life.
A life in prison is justice for taking a life.
Many families of the victims who will never see their loved ones again will disagree with that sentiment.
Many families of victims who will never see their loved ones again will also agree. Either way, it doesn't make it untrue.
Weren't you accusing me of making emotional arguments just a few hours ago?
I am using the only type of argument you seem to understand.
What if the jury is wrong every time? Or half the time? Where do you draw the line?
So you’ve decided to go down the “Make up bullshit loaded questions that have no basis in reality” route. I’m sure in your own mind those questions make you seem justified and righteous in your own mind. But that fantasy world only exists in your head.
Why are you so desperate to justify your position especially for a man that brutally murdered Elizabeth Sennett?
https://www.al.com/news/2024/01/kenneth-smiths-execution-bittersweet-for-elizabeth-sennetts-family-nothing-happened-to-bring-her-back.html
Not justifying it for that person, but for everyone. Why haven't you answered my original question? How many innocent people do you think it's ok to execute?
I answered why in the comment above.
Maybe my reading comprehension is just bad, but I do not see anything that looks like an answer there
“So you’ve decided to go down the “Make up bullshit loaded questions that have no basis in reality” route. “
Your question is akin to asking why abortion is legal when it kills babies. You’ve taken a complex subject and distilled it down to the parts that make your case seem right. Your question fundamentally has no basis in reality, juries are not wrong 50 percent of the time. We would not base our legal system on a flip of a coin.
That doesn't look like an answer to my question.
My point is that a non-zero number of people are executed for crimes they did not commit.
My question is: How many innocent people do you think it's ok to execute in order to keep the death penalty available?
I’ll preface by saying I don’t want any innocent people to die. But with any system designed by man it will have its flaws, and you must accept that there can be mistakes. My answer to is as few as possible to ensure justice is served to those who have blatantly killed the innocent like Kenneth Eugene Smith. May he rot in hell where he belongs.