The Right To Die

[Gail Simone]

Would you support a law, like Oregon's, that allows for doctor-assisted suicide in the case of terminal patients?

Gail

[Buzz Dixon]

No. I am not opposed to individuals declining further medical treatment or requesting no heroic efforts be made to ressucitate them, and I do not oppose medicating a person to the point where they no longer feel physical pain, but I am opposed to health care providers deliberately taking life, even life that is in its last stages.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Sure. I think a person should have the right to do whatever it is they want to their own bodies, even end their life. Like Buzz, I think it can become a morally murky situation when health care providers are active participants in ending lives, but I don't have a problem with the general principle of doctor-assisted suicide. So, I'll let people smarter than I work out the details.

[Samurai]

Yes, it should be available to dying patients, especially if they are in great pain or disability. Oregon's law seems to be the right way to go, though I'm not an expert on it.

[MPagar]

Hm. At the moment, I'd probably be for it. But with further thought on the subject, I get the feeling that there's just something not right about medical workers assisting in someone's suicide. Of course there are probably loopholes around this, such as hiring others to aid in the task, but that's another subject.

[Cam63]

I've seen some horrible, drawn out deaths, so I'm well and truly in support of euthanasia.

[kingdom2000]

Unlike some, I am pretty consistant. Right to die, right to choose, and pro death-penalty (coould use a little effiency though). To me you have to be pro all or anti all, otherwise it doesn't make since, especially if claim viewpoint on religious grounds.

[Steel Spider]

If a terminally person wants to die, then they should be aided in doing so. They have a right to do as they please with their bodies.

[NickThompson]

I say no, as it seems to me to be a risky area.

[Alex Dragon]

Would you support a law, like Oregon's, that allows for doctor-assisted suicide in the case of terminal patients?

Gail

I think we should all be able to decide what we think is best for ourselves even if other disagree. An adult should be able to decide their fate or what is done to their bodies. If it's a bad decision or not in the eyes of others shouldn't matter. Let the adult who made the choice deal with the consequences. So on that issue I think people should have the right to decide if they want to end their misery.

Bringing in a doctor to do it? Absolutely. Who else should you want to do it, your cousin Tony the plumber? Try it yourself? I'd want a doctor to do it because a doctor knows the human body better than anyone else and would be able to hopefully do it cleanly and with little or no pain.
I don't see a doctor's job as black and white maintaining life, I see their job as ending misery and making the sick feel better.

[Pixies Chick]

For it. It's terrible to waste away in pain unable to care for oneself.

I prefer the passive DNR/DNI, if possible. It's a fallacy that medical personel have this massive control in the first place. You apply the best practices you know, but nothing is certain. In an overly cautious pro-life scenario, a patient may needlessly suffer out of fear that the painkillers will be patient-killers, which makes no sense when the likely outcome is negative anyway. In those cases, I think it's best to treat for symptom relief (give the morphine for pain, even knowing that it might be deadly) and let nature take it's course.

[Ponda]

I am for it.
But then, I'm the kind of person who doesn't think any form of suicide should be illegal. If that's the kind of choice a person wants to make with their own life, I think they should be allowed it.

P.S.: kingdom2000, can you explain why you think someone needs to be pro all or anti all? I'm not pro death penalty, and I don't see how that contradicts the others.

[Charles RB]

For it, but Buzz does raise a point about it being a murky issue when you have doctors deliberately having to take lives.

[Cam63]

I say no, as it seems to me to be a risky area.

Life and death is about taking risks.

[EdContradictory]

Unlike some, I am pretty consistant. Right to die, right to choose, and pro death-penalty (coould use a little effiency though). To me you have to be pro all or anti all, otherwise it doesn't make since, especially if claim viewpoint on religious grounds.
I agree with this sentiment.

[The Humanist Hero]

Unlike some, I am pretty consistant. Right to die, right to choose, and pro death-penalty (coould use a little effiency though). To me you have to be pro all or anti all, otherwise it doesn't make since, especially if claim viewpoint on religious grounds.
I disagree. I don't think there's any comparison between aborting a non-sentient zygote or fetus, and killing an adult, no matter what that adult has done. But I do belive in the right to die and the right to choose.

As to the question: Of course one should be able to decide when they want to end their life; and if they can't, for whatever reason, do it themselves, they have the right to ask a doctor to help them (particularly if said person is suffering from a crippling illness).

[stealthwise]

Short Answer: Yeah.

Long Answer: Yeah, they can die if they're suffering and there's no better recourse. Not much different than a patient refusing treatment and dying, only this way ensures that they can determine how and when they go.

[TCJohnson]

I am for it under strict circumstances. I mean, I don't think somebody with severe depression or other mental illness should not be allowed to make that decision.

But if they are bed ridden, in pain and there is no chance of them ever getting out of that bed, then I support it.

[Buzz Dixon]

Unlike some, I am pretty consistant. Right to die, right to choose, and pro death-penalty (coould use a little effiency though). To me you have to be pro all or anti all, otherwise it doesn't make since, especially if claim viewpoint on religious grounds.
P.J. O'Rourke once famously remarked that a person could be opposed to abortion and for the death penalty on the grounds that the former takes an innocent life while the latter punishes a guilty person, one could oppose both abortion and the death penalty on the grounds no one should ever take human life, and one could be brutally pragmatic and say society needs both abortions and the death penalty, but only a liberal could argue for killing babies and against executing murderers.

For myself, I think abortion should be an absolute last resort only when it's a case of saving the mother's life or sparing her from permanently debilitating physical harm. I think using it primarily as a birth control option is a stupid waste of humanity. Whenever possible, adoption should be the option for women who do not want the responsibility of raising a child.

"It's my body!" some will say. Yeah. but it's some other person's life.

[Charles RB]

P.J. O'Rourke once famously remarked... only a liberal could argue for killing babies and against executing murderers.

Except they're not babies yet and there's a large amount of debate about when fetuses count as alive, so it's not that simple.

[EdContradictory]

P.J. O'Rourke once famously remarked that a person could be opposed to abortion and for the death penalty on the grounds that the former takes an innocent life while the latter punishes a guilty person, one could oppose both abortion and the death penalty on the grounds no one should ever take human life, and one could be brutally pragmatic and say society needs both abortions and the death penalty, but only a liberal could argue for killing babies and against executing murderers.
But many who should, by the beliefs they claim to hold, be in the second group are so often in the first. Aren't the religious who are so against abortion also supposed to believe that no one is beyond redemption? That, in fact, the longer they keep a murderer alive the greater the chance for that murderer to repent and find Jesus? Shouldn't they want to save his soul, not condemn it to hell?

[tymac]

I'm in favor of the Oregon law. I generally favor people's right to choose their own path.


Buzz,

I find O'Rourke's remark to be disingenous, meant to smear "liberals" as being illogical or soulless monsters. Of course, that's what it's meant to do.

[Nevets F]

I don't think anyone has a right to tell someone else how to live or die.

[Buzz Dixon]

Except they're not babies yet and there's a large amount of debate about when fetuses count as alive, so it's not that simple.
I used to believe that, too. Not any more.

That being said, I am not championing for a change in the law to make abortion illegal. But I do think women and girls who are considering the procedure should understand the full implications of what is involved.

There are health risks. Even so called "safe and legal" abortions have killed the women and girls requesting them. (And, to be fair, people have died in the dentist's chair as well; point is, no invasive medical procedure is 100% safe.)

There are long term physical health risks associated with abortion: An increase in incidence of breast cancer among women who have had abortions vs. those who have not.

There are both short term and long term psychological implications which for the most part have been ignored by the pro-abortion camp but are well documented by therapists who have no dog in this fight.

To prevent this discussion from spiraling off onto abortion (even though many of us see the points as linked), I will let this be my last post on the topic of abortion and invite others to make one last post specifically on this then resume the assisted suicide debate.

[Buzz Dixon]

I don't think anyone has a right to tell someone else how to live or die.
No, freedom of expression is an absolute right. We may criticize and/or offer unwanted advice to anyone whom we choose.

The person on the receiving end doesn't necessarily have to obey it.

And there are times and places where a society or community has the right to dictate certain standards for the society at large. Taking care of one's body waste by depositing it on one's front lawn may be a lifestyle choice (viz. the infamous MOVE cult in Philadelphia), but one's immediate neighbors certainly have a right to demand the offender use the sewer system.

[Buzz Dixon]

I find O'Rourke's remark to be disingenous, meant to smear "liberals" as being illogical or soulless monsters. Of course, that's what it's meant to do.
Explain the logic then.

All life is sacred, therefore nobody should die.
All life is sacred, therefore only people guilty of murder should die.
All life is utilitarian, therefore anyone who is a drain on society at large or on another individual is expendable.

Those are all logical arguments. One may not agree with them, but they are logical.

[Buzz Dixon]

But many who should, by the beliefs they claim to hold, be in the second group are so often in the first. Aren't the religious who are so against abortion also supposed to believe that no one is beyond redemption? That, in fact, the longer they keep a murderer alive the greater the chance for that murderer to repent and find Jesus? Shouldn't they want to save his soul, not condemn it to hell?
There are a great many Jews and Christians who hold all life is sacred and no one should be put to death. This includes condemned criminals and persons with terminal illnesses.

There are also many Jews and Christians who cite verses in the Bible (Old and New Testaments) where God ordains the concept of civil governments to provide some sort of justice and order on Earth, and provides for those governments to justly administer capital punishment. Christ even acknowledges legal capital punishment in this world as the logical outcome of aggressive criminal behavior.

[sk716]

Unlike some, I am pretty consistant. Right to die, right to choose, and pro death-penalty (could use a little effiency though). To me you have to be pro all or anti all, otherwise it doesn't make since, especially if claim viewpoint on religious grounds.

What kingdom200 said.

[west3man]

Would you support a law, like Oregon's, that allows for doctor-assisted suicide in the case of terminal patients?

GailI'm confident that there are a lot of folks out there who wanted to die, but later were glad they lived long enough to change their minds. That's the biggest barrier to my endorsement of such a thing.

Helping people get what they want isn't always helpful.


Otherwise, I'd love to see people be able to choose an end to their suffering.

[EdContradictory]

Explain the logic then.

All life is sacred, therefore nobody should die.
All life is sacred, therefore only people guilty of murder should die.
All life is utilitarian, therefore anyone who is a drain on society at large or on another individual is expendable.

Those are all logical arguments. One may not agree with them, but they are logical.
Um, this:

"All life is sacred, therefore only people guilty of murder should die."

is not logical.

Sorry.


"Some life is sacred, therefore only people guilty of murder should die."

Is the "logical" phrasing.

[Buzz Dixon]

I see your point but I'll stick with my original phrasing. If all life is sacred then only the unlawful taking of a life is punishable by death as administered by a civil authority. It is the old eye-for-an-eye system of checks and balance in punishment; one does not impose a harsher penalty than the actual cause of the harm itself.

(Sidebar: "An eye for an eye" was not the mandated punishment but the limits to such punishment. Even in Biblical times it was possible to settle things out of court or for a judge to issue a lesser sentence.)

[Polite Scott]

There are long term physical health risks associated with abortion: An increase in incidence of breast cancer among women who have had abortions vs. those who have not.

Not True.

There were some flawed studies (small numbers, poor metholdology) that suggested a possible correlation between abortion and breast cancer, but never a cause-effect relationship. However, later and better designed studies have shown no correlation between the two at all.

This page (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage) from the National Cancer Institute sums up the data nicely.

[Polite Scott]

In the right circumstances, I can't rule out that I would help a patient die if that's what they truly wanted (how's that for a wishy-washy answer?) I've never been in such a situation, and I hope never to be one.

As for the "right circumstances": Terminal illness (well-documented), every treatment has been offered and tried, there are no other diagnoses that could affect the patient's choice (for example, depression). It would have to be the patient's choice as well, not a family members.

[PatrickG]

Explain the logic then.

All life is sacred, therefore nobody should die.
All life is sacred, therefore only people guilty of murder should die.
All life is utilitarian, therefore anyone who is a drain on society at large or on another individual is expendable.

Those are all logical arguments. One may not agree with them, but they are logical.

Our lives are our own, therefore the only person who can take a life is the individual.

I accept suicide when I reject murder, war and capital punishment. I also believe that abortion should carry emotional stigma (but not social reprucussions) but is ultimately beyond the realm of what can be prohibited because a person's body, thoughts, life and beliefs should be totally unregulated from a governmental perspective.

[EdContradictory]

I see your point but I'll stick with my original phrasing. If all life is sacred then only the unlawful taking of a life is punishable by death as administered by a civil authority.
No. If ALL life is sacred, then even the government sanctioned taking of it is wrong. If ALL life is sacred, then even the life of a murderer is sacred.

That's the definition of "all."

[west3man]

Buzz, I think you're including your 'givens' in with what you're referring to as logic.

Logic is based on certain givens. Unless we agree on them, even if it's just for the sake of argument, there can be no agreement on the logic that follows them.


"Sacred (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sacred) " usually has a religious context. That's why a given based on religion, which is not a constant in our society, is worth further scrutiny.

Maybe you meant in the "worthy of respect" sense, though.

[tymac]

Explain the logic then.

All life is sacred, therefore nobody should die.
All life is sacred, therefore only people guilty of murder should die.
All life is utilitarian, therefore anyone who is a drain on society at large or on another individual is expendable.

Those are all logical arguments. One may not agree with them, but they are logical.

Philosophical logic is not necessarily the same as mathemathic logic. It doesn't deal in absolute terms. Not everyone agrees what constitutes life, so they can logically argue from your statements even if you accept the initial conceits.

[PatrickG]

No. If ALL life is sacred, then even the government sanctioned taking of it is wrong. If ALL life is sacred, then even the life of a murderer is sacred.

That's the definition of "all."

Incidentally, I hold this view more or less and view our government as a giant instrument of mass murder.

That may be hard for some people to accept but since I don't believe in killing or warfare, I don't have much retalliatory ground. If I believed in killing, I would believe that it's the duty of people in the U.S. and around the world to violently rebel against their governments.

I don't believe in killing (not even to halt immoral actions such as killing) and that allows my view of the world to be more nuanced.

I can speak. I can rant. I can vote in the rare cases where there's SOMEBODY is running for office who I'm not 100% opposed to the platform of. And those candidates are rare.

But from where I stand, every government on this planet is evil, run by malicious and murderous political monopolies. The organized religions of this world are mostly evil as well. The corporations are better than the religions or the government but they're still run by short-sighted fools who would stab other people in the back to save their own skin.

I don't trust any government employee important enough that you could never schedule a lunch with them. I don't trust any clergyman who claims their church has superior knowledge or suggests their own superior knowledge of a text as the solution to life's ills. I also don't generally trust anyone in business who has any higher goal than mutually profitable exchanges for themselves, their employees, their vendors and their customers.

We live in a @#$%#ed up world but as long as I can convince myself there's a light at the end of the tunnel and that things aren't as bad at the human level as they are at the global level, it's almost passable.

[Rabid Trekkie]

Would you support a law, like Oregon's, that allows for doctor-assisted suicide in the case of terminal patients?

Gail

No, I'm against suicide no matter what the reason.

[Bob Violence]

I'm very conflicted on this issue. I don't think doctors who help their terminally ill patients die should be prosecuted, I don't find "Stay alive so you can suffer some more" very persuasive at all.
On the other hand, I wouldn't want any terminally ill person to be pressured into suicide based on selfish advice from their families or physicians. When you are weak and dying it's very easy for people supplant your best interests with theirs.

I have an aunt with terminal cancer. She is in pain every day, all they can do is increase her pain medication. If she couldn't stand it any more, I couldn't blame her, but she struggles on and I respect that, too.

"Life is sacred" is a black-and-white answer for a very gray world.

[The Humanist Hero]

The good thing is that no matter how many people tell you that you don't have the right to take your own life (as this thread shows), there's not a damn thing they can do to you if you succeed.

I just feel bad for the people who are physically incapable of killing themselves and have to live through agonizing pain because other people think they know best. :mad:

[Larry Dixon]

As I wrote in the Superman essay for BenBella Books, concepts don't become motivators until they impact someone personally. People are intrinsically self-absorbed, and thus only CAN make decisions based upon what has affected them personally. To a newscaster, a death may be "A 19 year old motorist was killed in a collision today," but to someone else it is "my best friend Alberto, who I shared my first double date with, and who'll never come back forever." There was still a death, but to the newscaster it was a line on a page and forgotten a minute later. It didn't affect the newscaster personally.

For example, many people get into gore and vore in fiction, but I'd lay pretty serious odds they've never actually been around any in real life. As a rescuer who's picked up someone's face seperate from their head, I see blood and trauma differently; but before I was a rescuer, I was all for the gore like about any other horror fan.

In my experience, someone who has been in close, personal proximity to someone dying feels very, very different about it than someone who just considers it as a mental exercise. I know that I wound up that way. In seeing to my dying grandfather---a great inventor, pilot, and soldier as well as a hell of a fun guy---it began as "I'll go see him off with dignity." As he lingered for months with one body system after another failing, snatching at hallucinations in the air and wheezing, and the whole family felt the strain, it turned to, "Holy crap, this guy wants to be dead, knows it, and wants OUR sufferring to stop too." But it was illegal to do anything but let him decay while the money ticked away and the anxiety and stress built up on the living.

I'll opine that pretty much everyone who's personally held the hands of someone dying would vote for assisted suicide. It's a different subject with different weighting for people who've not been in close touch with death themselves.

[Noah Johnson]

I'm in favor of a right to die. I personally think it's absolute, that you ought to be able to end your own life at any time once you're old enough to know what that means. (A tricky qualifier, I know.)

The doctor-assisted part is just about making it as graceful and painless an exit as possible. Obviously, the terminally ill are the clearest cases for this. I mean, here's a scene being played out somewhere right now:

"Doctor, how much longer have I got?"

"With modern technology and these machines you're hooked up to, say six months."

"Do you think I could maybe recover?"

"No. I'm sorry, you're definitely going to die soon."

"That's terrible. What are these six months going to be like?"

"I won't lie to you, they're going to be pretty bad, and get steadily worse. At the end, death is probably going to feel like a mercy."

"Shit. Why do I have to go through all that suffering for nothing? Would it make any difference if I just died today?"

"No, not really."

"But you're going to keep me alive and keep feeding me pills and running these damn machines for half a year anyway?"

"Yes."

"Why?"

"Beats the hell out of me."


Honestly, I just can't see an argument in favor of that six months. Nothing I've heard on the subject makes a darn bit of sense to me.

[Ponda]

Explain the logic then.

All life is sacred, therefore nobody should die.
All life is sacred, therefore only people guilty of murder should die.
All life is utilitarian, therefore anyone who is a drain on society at large or on another individual is expendable.

Those are all logical arguments. One may not agree with them, but they are logical.

Easy.

Laws are bad, therefore there should be no law prohibiting abortion and no law killing the murderers.

Now, "Laws are bad" is actually a humorously over-simplified version of my viewpoint... but it's close enough to prove my point, I think.

[Gilda Dent]

Abortion, suicide, and the death penalty are separate issues, and it's possible to come to a reasonably consistent position for any combination of positions on the three issues. I'm opposed to abortion but in favor of the individual right to choose one. I'm opposed to suicide, but in favor of the individual right to choose it. I think some people are so evil that they deserve to die, but don't believe that it's my place to make that decision.

Perfectly consistent: I don't believe I, and by extension the government that represents me, has the right to make life or death decisions for other people.

Gilda

[Gilda Dent]

only a liberal could argue for killing babies and against executing murderers.

This isn't merely disingenuous, it's an outright lie. I've never heard a liberal argue in favor of killing babies.

Gilda

[Noah Johnson]

Perfectly consistent: I don't believe I, and by extension the government that represents me, has the right to make life or death decisions for other people.

You know, Gilda, you should definitely do whatever it takes to get past your social anxiety disorder, because it's not right that this kind of clear, honest argumentation is restricted to just us pasty internet freaks.

[PatrickG]

Marvel Comics may crack the internet in half but Gilda is what holds it together.

I have to gush a second. Gilda is THE voice of reason on these boards. I'd vote Gilda for president, I think.

[Clement]

I think we should be able to sign off when we want to, especially if you are terminally ill, in pain and we can scientificaly prove that there are no chances of you ever getting better.

and I don't wanna burst anybody's bubble, but assisted suicide happens everyday. It's just not discussed. If a patient has mere days, or hours to live and is in pain, has cancer and a heart condition, and let's say his familly is present at the hospital and they ask the doctor to make sure he doesn't suffer, it's not impossible for the doc to inject more morphine than the person can support, therfor "killing" that person.

[Rabid Trekkie]

I think we should be able to sign off when we want to, especially if you are terminally ill, in pain and we can scientificaly prove that there are no chances of you ever getting better.

and I don't wanna burst anybody's bubble, but assisted suicide happens everyday. It's just not discussed. If a patient has mere days, or hours to live and is in pain, has cancer and a heart condition, and let's say his familly is present at the hospital and they ask the doctor to make sure he doesn't suffer, it's not impossible for the doc to inject more morphine than the person can support, therfor "killing" that person.

If I ever found out that something like that happened to a family member of mine, I think I'd be up on murder charges.

[Buzz Dixon]

...concepts don't become motivators until they impact someone personally...
Larry, as one Dixon to another (no, folks, we're not related; at least not to my knowledge), allow me to say I have had the long, slow, lingering death of a loved one impact on me. My grandmother died at age 101 after being bed-ridden from age 99. Those last years of her life I went over to the apartment she shared with my aunt and helped take care of her on a daily basis, lifting her from her bed so she could be cleaned and bathed. In her last year she was in pain, and no matter how gently we tried to move her she would cry out. At the very end her doctor prescribed morphine to make it possible for her to get some rest.

My aunt and I discussed the matter with my grandmother, and we all agreed that when she died we would make no heroic effort to resusscitate her. We also agreed there would be no further medical procedures except to relieve pain.

So I've been there, I've seen it, I've touched it and smelled it, and I still hold my opinion. This is not an abstract argument with me, and as I have three close family members in their 80s, it's one I'm going to have to face with the rest of the family again.

No animosity in this post, just to let you know my views are based on first hand experiences.

Sidebar to Noah: The scenario you describe is being played out nowhere. People have the right to refuse medical treatment. Any patient has the right to be removed from life-support machines at his/her request, or to refuse medical treatment.

[Ian Boothby]

P.J. O'Rourke once famously remarked that a person could be opposed to abortion and for the death penalty on the grounds that the former takes an innocent life while the latter punishes a guilty person, one could oppose both abortion and the death penalty on the grounds no one should ever take human life, and one could be brutally pragmatic and say society needs both abortions and the death penalty, but only a liberal could argue for killing babies and against executing murderers.

For myself, I think abortion should be an absolute last resort only when it's a case of saving the mother's life or sparing her from permanently debilitating physical harm. I think using it primarily as a birth control option is a stupid waste of humanity. Whenever possible, adoption should be the option for women who do not want the responsibility of raising a child.

"It's my body!" some will say. Yeah. but it's some other person's life.

Someone can't be against taking an innocent life and be pro death penalty, because with the death penalty innocents get killed. Though sloppy DNA evidence in the past to just not having enough money for a decent defence now. If you favour executions you're saying it's okay to kill a few innocent folks as long as you also kill guilty one.

The P.J. bit is good writing but unless the criminal in question is living inside a woman the comparision doesn't really work.

[Ian Boothby]

This isn't merely disingenuous, it's an outright lie. I've never heard a liberal argue in favor of killing babies.

Gilda


Okay once, sitting behind one on a fight to Europe.

[Pixies Chick]

I used to believe that, too. Not any more.

That being said, I am not championing for a change in the law to make abortion illegal. But I do think women and girls who are considering the procedure should understand the full implications of what is involved.
....

:rolleyes: No offense, but do you have any idea how arrogant that sounds? Just ask yourself -- You know the full implications more than she?

I appreciate that you haven't opted for making abortion illegal. It seems to me that a ban is about as useful as banning poverty or hunger. Nobody wants those either.

Explain the logic then.

All life is sacred, therefore nobody should die.
All life is sacred, therefore only people guilty of murder should die.
All life is utilitarian, therefore anyone who is a drain on society at large or on another individual is expendable.

Those are all logical arguments. One may not agree with them, but they are logical.

No, sorry, I don't think they are.

All life is sacred because everyone dies. It's a mistake to think a "pro-life" stance conquers death.

All life is sacred, so murder is heinous. It's a term that shouldn't be used lightly.

All life is sacred so the woman surrounding the womb matters too.

A woman's body is not utilitarian, so a fertilized egg does not always result in a healthy infant. Fertilized eggs fall out of bodies all the time without anybody noticing. Extreme measures to prevent that from ever occurring doesn't appear to be on anybody's plate at the moment, so let's not pretend that every zygote is a beloved member of the family of man.

A burning desire to have an abortion is not the most prevalent danger to fetuses. It's just the most political. If so-called "pro-lifers" want to protect the "unborn", why aren't they concerned about the health of the fetuses people want to have?


But there's lots worse logic errors than yours:

#1: All unborn life is sacred so anti-abortion crusaders can treat adult women like suspected criminals and children, and anyone who objects should be murdered. Or as Ann Coulter put it:
Coulter had told the Philander Smith College audience Thursday that more conservative justices were needed on the Supreme Court to change the current law on abortion.

Stevens is one of the court's most liberal members.

"We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee," Coulter said. http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/27/coulter.stevens.ap/index.html

Error #2: "People who disagree with letting activists control what happens in the gynecologist office want women to be duped into abortions."

#3: "To make sure all fetuses result in live birth, activists and legislators should make it difficult to work for family planning clinics, and to access prenatal care and information on reproductive health."

#4: "To show the women who come to this clinic love for the unborn, wave this picture of a dead fetus at them." Where does a woman go if she miscarries?

Kinda long way around, but the point is: I don't assume that logic is driving this debate. It's politics.

[xakko]

Would you support a law, like Oregon's, that allows for doctor-assisted suicide in the case of terminal patients?

Gail
I favor it, but only in the stringent sense that Oregon provided with their law. All sorts of counseling- including palliative care with what I understand to be one of the better hospice systems in the country- and they make the patient confirm his decision more than once, at different times. Even then, if I recall correctly, the doctor provides the means, under all these restrictions, but isn't the one who performs the deed.

[Buzz Dixon]

Someone can't be against taking an innocent life and be pro death penalty, because with the death penalty innocents get killed. Though sloppy DNA evidence in the past to just not having enough money for a decent defence now. If you favour executions you're saying it's okay to kill a few innocent folks as long as you also kill guilty one.
Has any innocent person been mistakenly executed in the U.S. since the death penalty has been revived? Name and proof, please.

[Ian Boothby]

Has any innocent person been mistakenly executed in the U.S. since the death penalty has been revived? Name and proof, please.

It'll happen. Mathematically it eventually has to. The courts aren't perfect, mistakes get made. And if you have the death penalty those mistakes will eventually lead to innocent folks getting killed. With jail if new evidence comes up you can at least free the person.

[TCJohnson]

Has any innocent person been mistakenly executed in the U.S. since the death penalty has been revived? Name and proof, please.


Larry Griffin Missouri Conviction 1981 Executed 1995
A year-long investigation by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund has uncovered evidence that Larry Griffin may have been innocent of the crime for which he was executed by the state of Missouri on June 21, 1995. Griffin maintained his innocence until his death, and investigators say his case is the strongest demonstration yet of an execution of an innocent man. The report notes that a man injured in the same drive-by shooting that claimed the life of Quintin Moss says Griffin was not involved in the crime, and the first police officer on the scene has given a new account that undermines the trial testimony of the only witness who identified Griffin as the murderer. Based on its findings, the NAACP has supplied the prosecution with the names of three men it suspects committed the crime, and all three of the suspects are currently in jail for other murders. Prosecutor Jennifer Joyce said she has reopened the investigation and will conduct a comprehensive review of the case over the next few months. "There is no real doubt that we have an innocent person. If we could go to trial on this case, if there was a forum where we could take this to trial, we would win hands down," stated University of Michigan law professor Samuel Gross, who supervised the investigation into Griffin's case. (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, July 11, 2005). Read the NAACP report on Larry Griffin's case.

Cameron Willingham Texas Convicted 1992 Executed 2004
After examining evidence from the capital prosecution of Cameron Willingham, four national arson experts have concluded that the original investigation of Willingham's case was flawed and it is possible the fire was accidental. The independent investigation, reported by the Chicago Tribune, found that prosecutors and arson investigators used arson theories that have since been repudiated by scientific advances. Willingham was executed earlier this year in Texas despite his consistent claims of innocence. He was convicted of murdering his three children in a 1991 house fire.

Arson expert Gerald Hurst said, "There's nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire. It was just a fire." Former Louisiana State University fire instructor Kendall Ryland added, "[It] made me sick to think this guy was executed based on this investigation.... They executed this guy and they've just got no idea - at least not scientifically - if he set the fire, or if the fire was even intentionally set."

Willingham was convicted of capital murder after arson investigators concluded that 20 indicators of arson led them to believe that an accelerent had been used to set three separate fires inside his home. Among the only other evidence presented by prosecutors during the the trial was testimony from jailhouse snitch Johnny E. Webb, a drug addict on psychiatric medication, who claimed Willingham had confessed to him in the county jail.

Some of the jurors who convicted Willingham were troubled when told of the new case review. Juror Dorinda Brokofsky asked, "Did anybody know about this prior to his execution? Now I will have to live with this for the rest of my life. Maybe this man was innocent." Prior to the execution, Willingham's defense attorneys presented expert testimony regarding the new arson investigation to the state's highest court, as well as to Texas Governor Rick Perry. No relief was granted and Willingham was executed on February 17, 2004. Coincidentally, less than a year after Willingham's execution, arson evidence presented by some of the same experts who had appealed for relief in Willingham's case helped free Ernest Willis from Texas's death row. The experts noted that the evidence in the Willingham case was nearly identical to the evidence used to exonerate Willis. (Chicago Tribune, December 9, 2004). Read the Chicago Tribune article. See Innocence Case Descriptions regarding Ernest Willis' case.

Leo Jones Florida Convicted 1981 Executed 1998
Jones was convicted of murdering a police officer in Jacksonville, Florida. Jones signed a confession after several hours of police interrogation, but he later claimed the confession was coerced. In the mid-1980s, the policeman who arrested Jones and the detective who took his confession were forced out of uniform for ethical violations. The policeman was later identified by a fellow officer as an "enforcer" who had used torture. Many witnesses came forward pointing to another suspect in the case.

Gary Graham Texas Convicted 1981 Executed 2000
On June 23, 2000, Gary Graham was executed in Texas, despite claims that he was innocent. Graham was 17 when he was charged with the 1981 robbery and shooting of Bobby Lambert outside a Houston supermarket. He was convicted primarily on the testimony of one witness, Bernadine Skillern, who said she saw the killer's face for a few seconds through her car windshield, from a distance of 30 -40 feet away. Two other witnesses, both who worked at the grocery store and said they got a good look at the assailant, said Graham was not the killer but were never interviewed by Graham's court appointed attorney, Ronald Mock, and were not called to testify at trial. Three of the jurors who voted to convict Graham signed affidavits saying they would have voted differently had all of the evidence been available.

The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles has announced that it will issue a formal pardon this month for Lena Baker (pictured), the only woman executed in the state during the 20th century. The document, signed by all five of the current board members, will note that the parole board's 1945 decision to deny Baker clemency and allow her execution was "a grievous error, as this case called out for mercy." Baker, an African American, was executed for the murder of Ernest Knight, a white man who hired her . Baker was tried, convicted, and sentenced to die in one day by an all-white, all-male jury. Baker claimed she shot Knight in self-defense after he locked her in his gristmill and threatened her with a metal pipe. The pardon notes that Baker "could have been charged with voluntary manslaughter, rather than murder, for the death of E.B. Knight." The average sentence for voluntary manslaughter is 15 years in prison. Baker's picture and her last words are currently displayed near the retired electric chair at a museum at Georgia State Prison in Reidsville. (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, August 16, 2005). See Race, Clemency and Women.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=111#executed

Not proof they were innocent, but enough to cast resonable doubt on their guilt.

[Buzz Dixon]

Larry Griffin was executed June 21, 1995

State of Missouri v. Larry Griffin
622 S.W. 2d 854 (Mo. banc 1983)
Case Facts: On June 26, 1980 at approximately 4:25 p.m. gun shots were fired from a moving car at the intersection of Sarah and Olive in the City of St. Louis, Missouri. The shots struck two men, Quinton Moss and Wallace Connors. According to the coroner’s report Mr. Moss died of 13 gunshot wounds in various parts of his body including his shoulders, left lung, heart and head. A witness to the shooting gave police a description of the car and also identified Larry Griffin from a group of police photos as the man in the front passenger seat who fired the shots.

Later that day, police located the car and found a .30 caliber semi-automatic carbine capable of holding a clip of 31 cartridges and a .38 Smith and Wesson revolver in the trunk along with several .30 caliber carbine shell casings. The police officers also found some papers with the names of several individuals. Fragments of bullets found at the scene were positively identified as having been fired from the semi-automatic carbine.

The investigation revealed that the deceased victim, Quniton Moss, had been arrested on January 2, 1980 in connection with the death of Dennis Griffin, brother of Larry Griffin. Moss’ mother told police that on the afternoon of May 13, 1980 her son told her he had been shot at the corner of Sarah and Olive. Police had identified Larry Griffin near the scene of the May 13th shooting.

On June 30, 1980 police arrested and charged Larry Griffin with the murder of Quinton Moss.

Cameron Todd Willingham

Executed February 17, 2004 06:20 p.m. by Lethal Injection in Texas

Summary:
Two days before Christmas in 1991, Willingham poured a combustible liquid on the floor throughout his home and intentionally set the house on fire, resulting in the death of his three children. According to autopsy reports, Amber, age two, and twins Karmon and Kameron, age 1, died of acute carbon monoxide poisoning as a result of smoke inhalation. Neighbors of Willingham testified that as the house began smoldering, Willingham was “crouched down” in the front yard, and despite the neighbors’ pleas, refused to go into the house in any attempt to rescue the children. An expert witness for the State testified that the floors, front threshold, and front concrete porch were burned, which only occurs when an accelerant has been used to purposely burn these areas. The witness further testified that this igniting of the floors and thresholds is typically employed to impede firemen in their rescue attempts. The testimony at trial demonstrates that Willingham neither showed remorse for his actions nor grieved the loss of his three children. Willingham’s neighbors testified that when the fire “blew out” the windows, Willingham “hollered about his car” and ran to move it away from the fire to avoid its being damaged. A fire fighter also testified that Willingham was upset that his dart board was burned. Willingham told authorities that the fire started while he and the children were asleep. An investigation revealed that it was intentionally set with a flammable liquid. His claims of heroic effort to save the girls were not borne out by his unscathed escape with little smoke in his lungs.


Leo Jones

Leo Jones killed Officer Thomas Szafranski, a Jacksonville police officer in 1981. The officer was struck in the head by a sniper's bullet while sitting in his patrol car in downtown Jacksonville in May 1981. Jacksonville police arrested Jones in a nearby apartment, where two Winchester rifles were under a bed. One of the rifles contained Jones' fingerprints. Jones confessed to the murder, saying he killed the officer because of police beatings, but later recanted, saying police forced the confession out of him. Jones contends another man, Glenn Schofield, killed Szafranski. Jones' lawyers tried unsuccessfully in a evidentiary hearing to get Jones a new trial.

Gary Graham

Gary Graham, 36, was executed by lethal injection on 22 June in Huntsville, Texas for the murder of a 53-year-old man outside a supermarket.

On 13 May 1981, Bobby Lambert was coming out of a supermarket when an assailant reached into his pockets and shot him with a pistol as they scuffled. The robber got away with the change from a $100 bill.

Gary Graham, then 17, was arrested a week later (20 May) for the rape and robbery of a taxi driver. Lisa Blackburn said that Graham abducted her at a gas station, took her to a vacant place and repeatedly raped her. Then, they went to her house, where he took her valuables, shot up the walls, got undressed, and fell asleep. Blackburn then took Graham's gun and called police, who arrested him at the scene. Blackburn said that during the 5-hour ordeal, Graham kept saying to her "I've killed three people, and I'm going to kill you."

Police linked 22 crimes that occurred from 13 to 20 May to Graham. On 16 May, Gary Spiers was robbed and shot in the thigh with a sawed-off shotgun. From a hospital bed, he identified Graham as the shooter to police. Spiers said that Graham saw he was having car trouble and offered to give him a lift, and attempted to rob him after he got in Graham's car. Graham was also identified by Greg Jones as the man who shot him in the throat and left him for dead. In all, Graham was suspected in 19 aggravated robberies -- including the shootings of Spiers and Jones and the rape of Blackburn -- two auto thefts, and Lambert's murder. He pleaded guilty to ten of the robberies.

On the night of Bobby Lambert's murder, Bernadine Skillern was sitting in her car in the parking lot. She said that when a man put a pistol to Lambert's head, she blew her horn, and the gunman turned to look at her. There was a pop, Lambert dropped his bag of groceries, and the other man fled. She followed him in her car until her screaming children made her stop. Skillern said that she got a good look at the killer for about a minute and a half. After Graham was arrested, Skillern picked his mug shot and chose him from a police lineup. She identified him at trial and has continued to do so ever since.

Graham has admitted responsibility for the other crimes, but says he did not kill Bobby Lambert and that Skillern's identification of him is mistaken. Two other eyewitnesses, though they could not identify the killer because neither saw his face, nevertheless said it could not have been Graham, because he is 5'10", while the assailant they saw was between 5'3" and 5'6". Graham also faults his attorney, who did not call the other two eyewitnesses to testify and did not cross-examine Skillern.

Most capital murder cases are decided without any eyewitnesses. A number of criminal defense attorneys have stated that they prefer when there is an eyewitness because it gives them a chance to create reasonable doubt. Harris County defense attorney Robert Morrow said, "I see there's an eyewitness and I see an opportunity." Another local defense lawyer, Floyd Freed, said, "it certainly gives me more hope at trial" if the prosecutors present an eyewitness. Death penalty cases are usually decided on confessions, physical evidence, and/or circumstantial evidence. In Graham's case, there was no confession or physical evidence, and circumstantial evidence was weak, so the prosecutors had to base most of their case on Bernadine Skillern's testimony.

At his trial, Graham gave no alibi for his whereabouts on the night Bobby Lambert was killed. His lawyer said Graham told him only that he had spent the evening with a girlfriend whose name, description, and address he could not remember. On appeal, four witnesses came forward to offer alibis for Graham, but when two of them -- one was his wife -- were called to testify before a state district judge, they contradicted themselves and each other and were deemed not credible.

Graham's case attracted national attention from the media, anti-death-penalty groups, and even Hollywood. As the date drew nearer, each side offered new evidence to support their positions. Graham's attorneys presented signed affidavits from three jurors who said they had a change of heart because they did not know about the other two eyewitnesses when they sentenced him to death. Harris County prosecutors filed an affidavit signed by the bailiff who escorted Graham from the courtroom after his death sentence, who heard him say, "Next time, I'm not going to leave any witnesses." A prosecutor filed an affidavit stating that the bailiff related the comment to him within minutes of the time it was allegedly made.

Harris County District Attorney Johnny Holmes noted that Graham's case was reviewed 35 times by the courts and that his conviction was never overturned. The Supreme Court rejected Graham's appeal in May.

Lena Baker's case falls outside the time range specified; i.e., since the re-instatement of the death penalty.

This is the result of approximately 8-10 minutes with Google. The evidence for the guilt of the men executed goes beyond reasonable doubt.

[Noah Johnson]

This is the result of approximately 8-10 minutes with Google. The evidence for the guilt of the men executed goes beyond reasonable doubt.
See, based on what you and TCJohnson just posted, the above statement is factually untrue. The summaries you posted mostly do not address the evidence in the ones he posted, and even when they do, there certainly appears to me to be ample room for doubt.

It's statements like that that make people think conservatives aren't actually interested in justice, you just like killing people.

[kingdom2000]

What does Buzz's "rebuttal" have to do anything? He asked for proof that its possible an innocent man was executed. People posted some possibilities. He then replies by posting about "successful" death penality cases. How is that a rebuttal? How is that proof of anything? Was there a point? I see zero logic in any of it. Can someone who speaks "Buzz logic" translate for me.

* don't ya love how board topics can meander all over the place yet still somehow be mostly on topic

[Buzz Dixon]

You have eye witnesses, confessions, physical evidence, lack of alibis and/or alibis that fall apart. You have repeated appeals, all of which uphold the original verdicts.

You've also got this:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/12/dna.execution.ap/?section=cnn_us

Until two weeks ago he was the poster boy for the "innocent put to death" argument, then DNA testing from a lab in Canada proves the state was correct in putting him to death.

Lemme explain something: People capable of murder are capable of lying. Nobody gets sentenced to death cavalierly in this country. You have to have done something very, very bad and there has to be no exculpatory or contradictory evidence in order for several layers of appeals to keep re-affirming the verdict.

Ah, but what about those sentenced to death row who were later found innocent by an appeals court and released? Well, see, the system worked: They weren't executed, were they?

[Ian Boothby]

This is the result of approximately 8-10 minutes with Google. The evidence for the guilt of the men executed goes beyond reasonable doubt.

Reasonable doubt brings with it a margin of error. The margin of error means innocent folks are going to be executed eventually. If you're against killing the innocent you can't be for capital punishment. If you think killing some innocent people for the greater good, that's a different story.

[Steel Spider]

A person lying in bed, very little strength to move, can't speak, always in pain... why shouldn't they be allowed to die if they want? What possible point is there in keeping them suffering in pain like that?

[Cam63]

None what so ever.

[Pixies Chick]

Has any innocent person been mistakenly executed in the U.S. since the death penalty has been revived? Name and proof, please.

It's only a valid question if you believe that people can't be rehabilitated.

[stealthwise]

It's only a valid question if you believe that people can't be rehabilitated.

That doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not the person was innocent of the crime they're charged with.

[Pixies Chick]

That doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not the person was innocent of the crime they're charged with.

You're right. I mean that the question for a liberal is whether it's just or necessary to execute someone for a crime they committed after they've rehabilitated themselves. What happened to redemption?

[BcAugust]

*sighs* I voted for Oregon's law(I was an Oregon citizen at the time). And unlike it appears some people have, I've actually read it. Guess what? It already provideds 1. No mental illness involved in the matter. 2. at least three doctors have to agree that the person has less then six monthes to live. 3. That at least two doctors agree to the request. 4. And at that, the doctor has nothing to do with the death other then prescribing a lethal dose of barbitues. 5. The Patient is the one that has to request this. No one else. Not family, not friends, not the doctor.... the actual person that is suffering.

Sorry, I'm a bit upset that people think we are stupid enough to pass a law without at least a few precautions. And I know I'm forgetting some. Oh, and if you're not a voter in Oregon? You may not know that in the voter's handbook(a wonderful thing, I wish they had it here), each side can present it's opinion... and they do. I remember there were about fifteen pages of arguements on all sides about this. For a lot of us, this wasn't a trivial matter... and it's kind of sad to see it reduced to a soundbite without the hard real world work that went into it.

[Buzz Dixon]

It's only a valid question if you believe that people can't be rehabilitated.
No, rehabilitation has nothing to do with it. One may disagree with this premise, but there is an argument that says society is required to extract retributive justice on a person who has willfully taken the life of another.

There have been a few killers who were executed whom I feel genuinely and truly repented of their crimes before they were put to death. They did not want to die, they used every legal appeal available to them, but they were willing to die in order to balance the scales of justice.

BTW, some people can't be rehabilitated.

[Buzz Dixon]

Reasonable doubt brings with it a margin of error. The margin of error means innocent folks are going to be executed eventually. If you're against killing the innocent you can't be for capital punishment. If you think killing some innocent people for the greater good, that's a different story.
You will notice I said "beyond resonable doubt."

[Noah Johnson]

You will notice I said "beyond resonable doubt."
Yes, but again, based on what you yourself posted, you don't seem to actually mean what you said.

[Pixies Chick]

No, rehabilitation has nothing to do with it. One may disagree with this premise, but there is an argument that says society is required to extract retributive justice on a person who has willfully taken the life of another.

There have been a few killers who were executed whom I feel genuinely and truly repented of their crimes before they were put to death. They did not want to die, they used every legal appeal available to them, but they were willing to die in order to balance the scales of justice.

BTW, some people can't be rehabilitated.

Gee, "can't" huh? What a simple world with no unknowable you have. I'd prefer to think we don't know everything yet.

It's the position that rehabilitation has NOTHING to do with executing someone that permits someone to be in favor of it. To so ardently admire death because of their past - while denying the opportunity for change - is what makes execution a bloodthirsty and barbaric act.

[Buzz Dixon]

No, some people can't be rehabilitated. They enjoy their evil too much.

[Buzz Dixon]

Yes, but again, based on what you yourself posted, you don't seem to actually mean what you said.
Well, ya got me bumfuzzled, Noah. I provide pretty conclusive evidence that the men in question were most certainly responsible for the crimes they committed and you say I do't seem to actually mean what I posted.

Let me put it this way: I supposed Martians might have committed the crimes and planted evidence to frame all of these men, but that's not reasonable, comprende?

[TCJohnson]

Cameron Todd Willingham

Executed February 17, 2004 06:20 p.m. by Lethal Injection in Texas

Summary:
Two days before Christmas in 1991, Willingham poured a combustible liquid on the floor throughout his home and intentionally set the house on fire, resulting in the death of his three children. According to autopsy reports, Amber, age two, and twins Karmon and Kameron, age 1, died of acute carbon monoxide poisoning as a result of smoke inhalation. Neighbors of Willingham testified that as the house began smoldering, Willingham was “crouched down” in the front yard, and despite the neighbors’ pleas, refused to go into the house in any attempt to rescue the children. An expert witness for the State testified that the floors, front threshold, and front concrete porch were burned, which only occurs when an accelerant has been used to purposely burn these areas. The witness further testified that this igniting of the floors and thresholds is typically employed to impede firemen in their rescue attempts. The testimony at trial demonstrates that Willingham neither showed remorse for his actions nor grieved the loss of his three children. Willingham’s neighbors testified that when the fire “blew out” the windows, Willingham “hollered about his car” and ran to move it away from the fire to avoid its being damaged. A fire fighter also testified that Willingham was upset that his dart board was burned. Willingham told authorities that the fire started while he and the children were asleep. An investigation revealed that it was intentionally set with a flammable liquid. His claims of heroic effort to save the girls were not borne out by his unscathed escape with little smoke in his lungs.


I will take this one since it is pretty obvious.

The highlighted portions are countered by what I posted before:

After examining evidence from the capital prosecution of Cameron Willingham, four national arson experts have concluded that the original investigation of Willingham's case was flawed and it is possible the fire was accidental. The independent investigation, reported by the Chicago Tribune, found that prosecutors and arson investigators used arson theories that have since been repudiated by scientific advances. Willingham was executed earlier this year in Texas despite his consistent claims of innocence. He was convicted of murdering his three children in a 1991 house fire.

Arson expert Gerald Hurst said, "There's nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire. It was just a fire." Former Louisiana State University fire instructor Kendall Ryland added, "[It] made me sick to think this guy was executed based on this investigation.... They executed this guy and they've just got no idea - at least not scientifically - if he set the fire, or if the fire was even intentionally set."


So we have four arson experts to the states one. And the arson expert the state had used was using investigative methods that have since been determined as not reliable. Take out the expert testemony and what you posted could very well be a man having a complete nervous breakdown at his children being killed. He mind couldn't comprehend his children dying so it focused on the material objects he was loosing.

How the hell does this not create reasonable doubt. It created reasonable doubt in another case:

Coincidentally, less than a year after Willingham's execution, arson evidence presented by some of the same experts who had appealed for relief in Willingham's case helped free Ernest Willis from Texas's death row. The experts noted that the evidence in the Willingham case was nearly identical to the evidence used to exonerate Willis. (Chicago Tribune, December 9, 2004). Read the Chicago Tribune article.

[TCJohnson]

Leo Jones

Leo Jones killed Officer Thomas Szafranski, a Jacksonville police officer in 1981. The officer was struck in the head by a sniper's bullet while sitting in his patrol car in downtown Jacksonville in May 1981. Jacksonville police arrested Jones in a nearby apartment, where two Winchester rifles were under a bed. One of the rifles contained Jones' fingerprints. Jones confessed to the murder, saying he killed the officer because of police beatings, but later recanted, saying police forced the confession out of him. Jones contends another man, Glenn Schofield, killed Szafranski. Jones' lawyers tried unsuccessfully in a evidentiary hearing to get Jones a new trial

So the fact that the arresting office was later forced out of the police force for torturing suspects into confessing doesn't give this reasonable doubt?

By the way, I notice that they said that they found rifles under his bed, only one had his fingerprints and they did not mention matching the bullet to the gun.

How is this not resonable doubt?

[Pixies Chick]

No, some people can't be rehabilitated. They enjoy their evil too much.

Oh, for the purity of a pro-lifer! The very things they support kill people, (for example, botched abortions were the leading cause of death of women of childbearing age in Mississippi pre-Roe) but thine be the reflected glory of Jesus' own heart forever! Because if ever there was a guy who bought into the notion that people can't change, it'd be him.

[EdContradictory]

No, some people can't be rehabilitated. They enjoy their evil too much.
I don't recall Jesus ever saying that.

[Gilda Dent]

The Innocence Project (http://www.innocenceproject.org/) has freed men wrongly convicted of a variety of crimes, including murder, in some cases freeing men who were on death row. They use DNA to prove conclusively the innocence of men convicted before DNA testing was available or in cases where it wasn't used because of cost.

It is an indisputable fact that men have been falsely convicted of murder and sentenced to die. The death penaly was reinstated in the United States in 1976, and executions began again in 1977. Since then, over 1000 people have been executed in the United States. It is unreasonable to the point of absurdity to assume that none of those 1004 (http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/usexecute.htm) people executed thus far was innocent, given that we know for a fact that innocent people have been convicted of murder and sentenced to death.

The standard counter to this is that it's evidence that the system works, that the innocently convicted are being identified and freed. The glaring flaw here is the logical error of the assumption of the unique exception. If there are no known exceptions to a rule, it can be reasonable assumed that, given a large enough sample size, there are no exceptions. Given one exception, it becomes more difficult, but still possible to assume that this is the only exception. As the number of known exceptions increases, the possibility that all the exceptions are known becomes exponetially smaller. The key number here seems to be two. Once you know of two exceptions, it becomes unreasonable to assume that there are no others.

For example, mammals give live birth, cannot fly, and live at least part of their adult lives on land. Except for the duck-billed platypus, which lays eggs, and the bat, which can fly, ane whales which live in the ocean. One exception to the rule in each case, and no known other exceptions. We can assume for argument's sake that the rule holds true with these single exceptions.

In the case of murder convictions, the number of known exceptions, or false convictions, numbers in the thousands. There is next to zero probability that no innocent person has been convicted since the death penalty was reinstated.

As the number of convictions and executions increases, the probability that no innocent person has been executed approaches zero closer and closer.

It isn't necessary to prove to a certainty that a specific person who was executed was innocent; simple logic tells us that someone has and some will be, even if we don't know who that person is.

Also, the burden of proof in the US is beyond a resonable doubt and to a moral certainty for guilty. There is no burden of proof for innocent, save to show that the burden for guilty has not been met.

Gilda

[Gilda Dent]

I don't recall Jesus ever saying that.

Heaven welcomes all regardless of when they come. Everyone can be redeemed.

Matthew 20: (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Matthew+20:1-16&vnum=yes&version=nrsv)

1 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2 After agreeing with the laborers for the usual daily wage, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 When he went out about nine o”clock, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace; 4 and he said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ So they went. 5 When he went out again about noon and about three o”clock, he did the same. 6 And about five o”clock he went out and found others standing around; and he said to them, ‘Why are you standing here idle all day?’ 7 They said to him, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard.’ 8 When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his manager, ‘Call the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and then going to the first.’ 9 When those hired about five o”clock came, each of them received the usual daily wage. 10 Now when the first came, they thought they would receive more; but each of them also received the usual daily wage. 11 And when they received it, they grumbled against the landowner, 12 saying, ‘These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.’ 13 But he replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? 14 Take what belongs to you and go; I choose to give to this last the same as I give to you. 15 Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous?’ 16 So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

Gilda

[TCJohnson]

You know, Gilda, you should definitely do whatever it takes to get past your social anxiety disorder, because it's not right that this kind of clear, honest argumentation is restricted to just us pasty internet freaks.

Completely off subject, but I agree. I actually think she should try her hand at writing.

[cactusmaac]

This isn't merely disingenuous, it's an outright lie. I've never heard a liberal argue in favor of killing babies.

Gilda

Not if you take the view that fetus = baby.

[The Humanist Hero]

Not if you take the view that fetus = baby.
Yes, but since calling a zygote or a non-sentient fetus a baby is only done to inflame people's emotions against abortion, her point still stands. Liberals aren't for killing babies. In fact, liberals are much more in favor of providing for the babies that are born than conservatives are.

[west3man]

Yes, but since calling a zygote or a non-sentient fetus a baby is only done to inflame people's emotions against abortion, her point still stands.
Humanist, I love you to death, but that is so damned wrong, I couldn't type this fast enough.

Sometimes people say these things because... they actually believe them.


That's the first thing people should accept before entering into most debates, around here. Too bad there are so many disingenuous types making the situation worse, by confirming our "fears."

And, no, you're not one of those types, from what I can see.

[cactusmaac]

Yes, but since calling a zygote or a non-sentient fetus a baby is only done to inflame people's emotions against abortion, her point still stands. Liberals aren't for killing babies. In fact, liberals are much more in favor of providing for the babies that are born than conservatives are.

How is a baby sentient in the sense that a fetus is not?

[The Humanist Hero]

Humanist, I love you to death, but that is so damned wrong, I couldn't type this fast enough.

Sometimes people say these things because... they actually believe them.


That's the first thing people should accept before entering into most debates, around here. Too bad there are so many disingenuous types making the situation worse, by confirming our "fears."

And, no, you're not one of those types, from what I can see.
So what if they believe them? They're not true. A zygote isn't a baby. A two week old fetus isn't a baby.

If we follow your line of thinking then there will never be a solution to the abortion debate because the people who insist that a fertilized egg is a baby an hour after conception are never going to agree that abortion is justified whereas many others (including myself) see no problem in putting the mother's rights over the well-being of a clump of non-sentient cells.

[west3man]

So what if they believe them? They're not true. A zygote isn't a baby. A two week old fetus isn't a baby.

If we follow your line of thinking then there will never be a solution to the abortion debate because the people who insist that a fertilized egg is a baby an hour after conception are never going to agree that abortion is justified whereas many others (including myself) see no problem in putting the mother's rights over the well-being of a clump of non-sentient cells.
HELL-o.

Look at what I responded to and then look at what I said.

You said people only say that because they want to piss enflame people's emotions and that is WRONG. It's that simple. Whether what they're saying is wrong or not is another story, but DELIBERATELY lying is distinct from being unknowingly, factually incorrect.

[The Humanist Hero]

How is a baby sentient in the sense that a fetus is not?
A baby has a brain and a nervous system, a three-week old fetus does not.

A baby can feel pain. The aforementioned fetus cannot.

Now if you want to argue that abortion should be permissible until the fetus reaches a certain point of development then fine. But most anti-abortion people are against all abortions, not just late ones.

And it still doesn't justify saying that liberals want to kill babies.

[The Humanist Hero]

HELL-o.

Look at what I responded to and then look at what I said.

You said people only say that because they want to piss enflame people's emotions and that is WRONG. It's that simple. Whether what they're saying is wrong or not is another story, but DELIBERATELY lying is distinct from being unknowingly, factually incorrect.
Ok, I see your point since I said only.

What I meant was this is done for the same reason people say "abortion is murder," even though abortion is not murder, by definition. Its a way to demonize people who support abortion rights by equating them with murderers.

[west3man]

Ok, I see your point since I said only.

What I meant was this is done for the same reason people say "abortion is murder," even though abortion is not murder, by definition. Its a way to demonize people who support abortion rights by equating them with murderers.
By some people? Sure. No argument from me.

[Buzz Dixon]

So we have four arson experts to the states one. And the arson expert the state had used was using investigative methods that have since been determined as not reliable. Take out the expert testemony and what you posted could very well be a man having a complete nervous breakdown at his children being killed. He mind couldn't comprehend his children dying so it focused on the material objects he was loosing.
Who were these four experts? Who paid for them? What groups do they represent?

My info came from the state execution records. Where did yours come from?

BTW, the guy lied about trying to rescue his kids.

[Buzz Dixon]

Oh, for the purity of a pro-lifer! The very things they support kill people, (for example, botched abortions were the leading cause of death of women of childbearing age in Mississippi pre-Roe) but thine be the reflected glory of Jesus' own heart forever! Because if ever there was a guy who bought into the notion that people can't change, it'd be him.
There's a difference between redemption, which is a spiritual/theological term, and rehabilitation, which is a sociological one. Only God knows if a person has truly repented.

Rehabilitation means to produce a change in the person sufficient to enable them to re-enter mainstream society. This is why people recovering from trauamatic injuries or surgeries are said to be rehabilitated; they are taught news ways of coping with the outside world so they can participate in the mainstream as much as possible.

There are some crimes so heinious that rehabilitation (i.e., release back into the outside world) should never be considered regardless of whether then offender has repented or not. The Manson family, for example, should never see the light of day ever again.

Many criminals are out and out sociopaths who will say/do anything for their own advantage -- check out the current brouhaha re James Frey and his book A MILLION LITTLE PIECES for a very low-wattage example of this.

In fact, Stephen King -- who knows a thing or two about addiction -- recently said the following about Frey: "Alcoholics and drug addicts lie about the weather just to keep in practice. . . . Once you discover he has lied about one thing, Katie bare the door--it's probably all lies."

I would add "murderers, rapists, dealers, and career criminals" to the quote.

[TCJohnson]

Who were these four experts? Who paid for them? What groups do they represent?

My info came from the state execution records. Where did yours come from?

BTW, the guy lied about trying to rescue his kids.


I've already posted this if your bothered reading.

[TCJohnson]

But here is another link: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=17&did=1240

[Buzz Dixon]

I don't recall Jesus ever saying that.
I don't recall saying Jesus ever said it. I do recall saying Jesus making a reference to bad behavior in this world getting you dragged before the law and possibly put to death.

[Buzz Dixon]

But here is another link: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=17&did=1240
And here's a link right back atcha: www.prodeathpenalty.com

Here's their report on the Mr. Willingham:

Cameron Willingham, 36, was sentenced to die for the deaths of his three daughters. The three children -- Amber Louise Kuykendall, 2, and 1-year-old twins Karmon Diane Willingham and Kameron Marie Willingham -- died in a fire at their home on West 11th Street in Corsicana. The fire occurred on Dec. 23, 1991, just before Christmas. Corsicana fire marshall James Palos was the fire department's chief investigator at the Dec. 23, 1991 fire scene. It's a day he remembers well. "I can remember what I was doing that day, what was going on," Palos said. "I can remember it just like it was yesterday." He said firefighters had been called out earlier in the day to a fire that was also ruled an arson. Palos said there were 11, 1-gallon jugs of gasoline involved in that fire. It was while the fire department was in the mop-up stages of that North 36th Street fire that firefighters got the call to go to the Willingham fire in the 1200 block of West 11th Avenue. The mood back at the firehouse, after the Willingham fire, was different than most after-action gatherings. "Guys that normally joke around, take things in stride ... well, that day was real solemn," Palos said. "And the word of the fire and children's deaths spread around town real quick." Referring to Willingham's execution day being set, Palos said, "It's been due a long time." Then 22 years old, Willingham told authorities that the fire started while he and the children were asleep. An investigation revealed that it was intentionally set with a flammable liquid. According to autopsy reports, Amber and twins Karmon and Kameron died of acute carbon monoxide poisoning as a result of smoke inhalation. His claims of heroic effort to save the girls were not borne out by his unscathed escape with little smoke in his lungs. Neighbors of Willingham testified that as the house began smoldering, Willingham was “crouched down” in the front yard, and despite the neighbors’ pleas, refused to go into the house in any attempt to rescue the children. An expert witness for the State testified that the floors, front threshold, and front concrete porch were burned, which only occurs when an accelerant has been used to purposely burn these areas. The witness further testified that this igniting of the floors and thresholds is typically employed to impede firemen in their rescue attempts. The testimony at trial demonstrates that Willingham neither showed remorse for his actions nor grieved the loss of his three children. Willingham’s neighbors testified that when the fire “blew out” the windows, Willingham “hollered about his car” and ran to move it away from the fire to avoid its being damaged. A firefighter also testified that Willingham was upset that his dart board was burned. One of Willingham’s neighbors testified that the morning following the house fire, Christmas Eve, Willingham and his wife were at the burned house going through the debris while playing music and laughing. The proceeds of an insurance policy on the girls were later used to buy a pickup truck. Willingham argued that his ex-wife's boyfriend started the blaze, but the jury in his 1992 trial delivered a guilty verdict and the death penalty. At the punishment phase of trial, testimony was presented that Willingham has a history of violence. He has been convicted of numerous felonies and misdemeanors, both as an adult and as a juvenile, and attempts at various forms of rehabilitation have proven unsuccessful. The jury also heard evidence of Willingham’s character. Witnesses testified that Willingham was verbally and physically abusive toward his family, and that at one time he beat his pregnant wife in an effort to cause a miscarriage. A friend of Willingham’s testified that Willingham once bragged about brutally killing a dog. In fact, Willingham openly admitted to a fellow inmate that he purposely started this fire to conceal evidence that the children had been abused. According to a psychologist for testifying for the state, Willingham fits the profile of a sociopath whose conduct becomes more violent over time, and who lacks a conscience. He explained that a person with this degree of sociopathy commonly has no regard for other people’s property or for other human beings. He expressed his opinion that an individual demonstrating this type of behavior can not be rehabilitated in any manner, and that such a person certainly poses a continuing threat to society. UPDATE: When firefighters arrived at the burning 5-bedroom house on Corsicana's south side, the man who lived there was outside. Neighbors said they saw Cameron Willingham outdoors even before the blaze engulfed the place, according to testimony at Willingham's trial. "He was engaged in pushing his car out of the way so it wouldn't be scorched by the flames," John Jackson, the prosecutor in the subsequent criminal case, recalled. Inside, Willingham's 3 young children -- 2-year-old Amber, and 1-year-old twins, Karmon Diane and Kameron Marie -- were dying. It was 2 days before Christmas 1991. Willingham was charged with setting the blaze that killed the 3 youngsters, was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. His execution was set for Tuesday night. "In my opinion, Willingham was an utterly sociopathic individual," said Jackson, the former Navarro County district attorney and now a state district judge. "He had a lifestyle that really didn't include care and nurturing of children. And, in my opinion, the children were just an impediment to his lifestyle." Willingham, now 36, insisted in a recent interview on death row he wasn't responsible for his daughters' deaths. "I was the only person at home and that was their way of thinking," he said of the charges against him. The resulting trial was "a joke," he said. "Any man who can look at me in the eye and say the justice system is not a farce is a liar. All they're going to do is kill an innocent man for something he didn't do. The most distressing thing is the state of Texas will kill an innocent man and doesn't care they're making a mistake." Evidence at his trial showed an accelerant, believed to be charcoal lighter fluid, was used to ignite the floors, a front threshold to the house and on a concrete porch. A fire marshal testified the placement of the accelerant was designed to impede any rescue efforts by firefighters. Willingham suggested a lantern lamp dumped fluid when a shelf collapsed inside the house and caught fire or his oldest daughter, who was "fascinated with everything," accidentally set off the blaze. "Either that or someone came in with the intent to kill me and the children," he said from prison. "The arson investigator was a liar."

cont'd next msg

[Buzz Dixon]

part 2

"He really just wanted to get rid of them," said Pat Batchelor, who was Navarro County district attorney at the time. "He had a burn on his arm from charcoal lighter fluid." Willingham, a native of Ardmore, Okla., said his wife went out shopping and left him with the children. He was asleep late in the morning when the 2-year-old woke him with her cry for him. He saw smoke, jumped out of bed and told her to get out of the house, he said. Willingham said he tried to get to the twins' room, couldn't get past the flames and ran to get help. His house had no phone. "The only way for me to get back into the house was to jump back into the flames," he said. "I wouldn't do that." Trial testimony showed he expressed no grief over the loss of the children. Neighbors said he "hollered about his car" and a firefighter testified how Willingham was upset over the loss of a dart board. "I died 12 years ago," Willingham said from death row. "At 11:51 a.m., Dec. 23, 1991. That's when I died." Willingham's wife initially supported him and testified on his behalf at his 1992 trial. But Stacy Kuykendall told the Corsicana Daily Sun earlier this month that after reviewing case and meeting with her former husband in prison recently, she doesn't buy his version of the events that day. "It was hard for me to sit in front of him," she said. "He basically took my life away from me. He took my kids away from me." Willingham had a history of violence and a record of felony and misdemeanor convictions both as an adult and juvenile. Evidence at his trial showed he was abusive to his family and once beat his pregnant wife with a telephone to try to force a miscarriage. In November, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review his case. The Texas attorney general's office was unaware of any appeals pending. A clemency request was rejected Friday on a 15-0 vote by the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. UPDATE: Spewing profanities at his ex-wife standing a few feet away, an angry former auto mechanic was executed this evening for the deaths of his 3 young children in a fire at their home 2 days before Christmas 12 years ago. "The only statement I want to make is that I am an innocent man convicted of a crime I did not commit," Cameron Willingham said. "I have been persecuted for 12 years for something I did not do." Willingham, 36, said, "From God's dust I came and to dust I will return so the Earth shall become my throne. I gotta go, Road Dog." He expressed love to someone named Gabby and then addressed his ex-wife, Stacy Kuykendall, who was watching about 8 feet away through a window. He told her repeatedly in obscenity-laced language that he hoped she would "rot in hell" and attempted to maneuver his hand, strapped at the wrist, into an obscene gesture. His former wife showed no reaction to the outburst. She declined to speak to reporters. Willingham was pronounced dead at 6:20 p.m., 7 minutes after the lethal dose began flowing through his veins. Willingham previously acknowledged he was a lousy husband but insisted he wasn't responsible for the blaze in Corsicana that killed his daughters -- 2-year-old Amber and 1-year-old twins Karmon and Kameron. The U.S. Supreme Court in November refused to review his case and a late appeal Tuesday was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court. Last week, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles voted 15-0 to deny a clemency request. "I can't think of a more horrible case," said Pat Batchelor, who was district attorney in Navarro County when Willingham was the lone survivor of the blaze Dec. 23, 1991. "All you had to do was see the pictures of little babies. "Anybody that can do that, you just think: My God, what kind of sadistic monster is this?" When firefighters arrived at the burning five-bedroom house on Corsicana's south side, Willingham was outside. At his trial, neighbors said he was outdoors even before flames engulfed the place and was concerned about his car getting scorched. Prosecutors contended he just wanted to get rid of the children. Evidence at his trial showed an accelerant, believed to be charcoal lighter fluid, was used to ignite the floors, a front threshold to the house and on a concrete porch. A fire marshal testified the placement of the accelerant was designed to impede any rescue efforts by firefighters. "Dude's a liar," Willingham said in a recent interview on death row. "It's all a farce ... They just didn't want to pursue what really happened." Willingham suggested a lantern lamp dumped fluid when a shelf collapsed inside the house and caught fire or his oldest daughter, who was "fascinated with everything," accidentally set off the blaze. "Either that or someone came in with the intent to kill me and the children," he said. Willingham, a native of Ardmore, Okla., said his wife went out shopping and left him with the children. He was asleep late in the morning when the 2-year-old woke him with her cry for him. He saw smoke, jumped out of bed and told her to get out of the house, he said. Willingham said he tried to get to the twins' room, couldn't get past the flames and ran to get help. Hs house had no phone. Trial testimony showed he expressed no grief over the loss of the children. Willingham, who did not testify in his own defense, disputed the comments. "They were great kids," he said. Willingham, a 10th grade dropout, had a history of violence and a record of felony and misdemeanor convictions both as an adult and juvenile. He said he got hooked on inhalants as a young teenager and was in and out of treatment centers beginning at age 14. He also spent time at a boot camp in Oklahoma. Evidence at his trial showed he was abusive to his family and once beat his pregnant wife with a telephone to try to force a miscarriage. "I was a sorry husband, a piece of crap as husbands go," he acknowledged from death row. "I was so full of myself and so dumb." Willingham's wife initially supported him and testified on his behalf at his 1992 trial. But Kuykendall told the Corsicana Daily Sun earlier this month that after reviewing case and meeting with her former husband in prison recently, she doesn't buy his version of the events that day. "It was hard for me to sit in front of him," she said. "He basically took my life away from me. He took my kids away from me."

Here's the money quote from the middle of all that: Willingham, a native of Ardmore, Okla., said his wife went out shopping and left him with the children. He was asleep late in the morning when the 2-year-old woke him with her cry for him. He saw smoke, jumped out of bed and told her to get out of the house, he said.

He told a 2-year old to get out of a burning house.

He. Told. A. 2. Year. Old. To. Get. Out. Of. A. Burning. House.

You shed tears for the wrong person.

Here's CNN report of his execution: http://www.prisonpotpourri.com/EXECUTED/Innocent/Willingham/Willingham.CNN_com%20-%20Texas%20man%20executed%20for%20daughters'%20dea ths%20-%20Feb_%2017,%202004.html

As for your experts, none are identified as active foresinc arson investigators. One is a former professor at Louisiana State University. The newspaper cited, the Chicago Tribune, has a long history of supporting anti-death penalty cases, so they are not exactly unbiased when it comes to objectively reporting the facts.

I was on a civil trial jury last year. You can always find a expert of your own to say exactly the opposite of what the other side's expert says. A trial jury listens to everything and then decides what makes the most sense.

[Gilda Dent]

only a liberal could argue for killing babies and against executing murderers.This isn't merely disingenuous, it's an outright lie. I've never heard a liberal argue in favor of killing babies.Not if you take the view that fetus = baby.


When an abortion opponent equates a fetus to a baby, and thus says that aborting a fetus is killing a baby as a part of his own argument, he's being honest.

When he attributes that equation to an opponent who does not actually believe that nor has expressed that belief, that's a lie, and that's what O'Rourke does here. I had the same thing happen to me not to long ago on this very board. It's not only a logical fallacty, it's dishonest on its face.

Gilda

[west3man]

I'm trying to learn from the past and break what I now consider to be bad habits.

After being ignored multiple times, by the same poster, I have to conclude that this poster is unobservant, unmoved by my points, or uninterested in admitting the flaws in his or her own arguments.

I see no reason to expect this to change, so I will post just enough to make myself feel better... and then stop expecting different behavior.

[Ian Boothby]

You will notice I said "beyond resonable doubt."

Even beyond reasonable doubt brings with it, some doubt. Some doubt bring with it innocents being convicted of crimes they didn't commit. So you have to be okay with killing a few innocent people along the way to punishing the guilty.

[mgs]

yes, i'd support it, even though it's really against my religion.

[TCJohnson]

An investigation revealed that it was intentionally set with a flammable liquid.

THe investigation is based on methodology that is no longer considered valid for investigations.

He told a 2-year old to get out of a burning house.

He. Told. A. 2. Year. Old. To. Get. Out. Of. A. Burning. House.

So? He was a scummy human being. But there is enough evidence to put reasonable doubt on wether or not he started the fire. If we were to execute people for acting scummy, a lot of republicans would be sitting in a chair.

The fact is that all the scientific evidence in the trial would be thrown out of court today. Even the asssitant fire investigator on the Willingham case, Edward Cheever, admits that their scientific evidence was faulty. (Unfortunately the lead fire investigator is dead.) With all the scientific evidence thrown out all you have left is emotional evidence. Do we really want to kill people convicted solely on emotional evidence?

As for your experts, none are identified as active foresinc arson investigators.

John Lentini (http://www.nafi.org/archives/Archive0008.htm) is a Certified Fire and Explosion Investigator in Georgia. He is also chairman of ASTM Committee E30 on Forensic Sciences. He is also a long standing member of NAFI is manager if fire investigations at Applied Technical Services in Marietta, GA.

John DeHaan (http://www.nafi.org/archives/Archive0008.htm) - Dr. John DeHaan has been a criminalist for some 32 years. He has worked at county, State, and Federal forensic labs. He is a native of Chicago and his Bachelor of Science degree in physics was from the University of Illinois at Chicago. He has been involved with fire and explosion investigations for over 30 years, and has authored dozens of papers on fires, explosions, and their investigation and analysis. He is probably best known as the author of the textbook Kirk's Fire Investigation (now in its Fourth Edition). His doctorate (in 1995), from the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, Scotland, was on the Reconstruction of Fires Involving Flammable Liquids.

Kendall Ryland - At the time he was Louisiana fire chief.

The newspaper cited, the Chicago Tribune, has a long history of supporting anti-death penalty cases, so they are not exactly unbiased when it comes to objectively reporting the facts.

Oh, yes, and prodeathpenalty.com is not biased? Makes you out to be hypocritical. So, if something is biased it means that it is wrong? SO I can ignore everything you just posted.

I was on a civil trial jury last year. You can always find a expert of your own to say exactly the opposite of what the other side's expert says. A trial jury listens to everything and then decides what makes the most sense.

So you are saying the same standards to a civil trial should be the same to a capital criminal trial? Do you think the ultimate standards should be applied to the ultimate penalty? The highest standard must be met, and in this case and in others it was not.

Also, what you say is besides the fact. This evidence was never shown to the jury, and jury members have said if they had heard from these experts they would not have voted guilty for him. It was scientific advances that came after the trial that disproved the scientific evidence, so the jury never heard any of this.

I am not saying that this guy was innocent, but there is enough evidence for resonable doubt.

The scientific method for the investigation is faulty and is no longer being used by fire investigators for that reason. If the trial was held today, the evidence would be thrown out (and has been thrown out in other cases) because of outdated methodology and data.

Oh, and by the way, the judge who decided wether this case should be re-opened with the new evidence...was an assistant prosecutor on the original case. Talk about bias.

One more thing...I am pro death penalty in many cases but this is one where the system screwed up.

[Buzz Dixon]

Sorry, TCJ, but he convicted himself in my mind when he claimed he told a 2 year old to get out of a burning house.

I'm a father. I raised two daughters. At the best of times, you can't expect a 2 year old to fully comprehend you.

He deliberately killed those kids.

[Crowley]

I believe in choice in regards to one's own body... so the right to die and abortion are AOK with me.

After a recent great deal of consideration:

I believe that if we say murder is barbaric, then the state should set an example by not killing.

Is it fair to let someone who murders live?

perhaps not, but frying them won't bring back the deceased. Our act of compassion would be society choosing compassion over a false sense of vengeance.

[Samurai]

When an abortion opponent equates a fetus to a baby, and thus says that aborting a fetus is killing a baby as a part of his own argument, he's being honest.

When he attributes that equation to an opponent who does not actually believe that nor has expressed that belief, that's a lie, and that's what O'Rourke does here. I had the same thing happen to me not to long ago on this very board. It's not only a logical fallacty, it's dishonest on its face.

Gilda
So, it's ok to kill something if you personally don't believe it's human, no matter what other people think? What about some KKK member who doesn't believe black people are really human? Should he then be allowed to kill them, because that's his personal choice, and while others may not choose to do it themselves, no one has the right to prevent him?

[Samurai]

I believe in choice in regards to one's own body... so the right to die and abortion are AOK with me.

After a recent great deal of consideration:

I believe that if we say murder is barbaric, then the state should set an example by not killing.

Is it fair to let someone who murders live?

perhaps not, but frying them won't bring back the deceased. Our act of compassion would be society choosing compassion over a false sense of vengeance.
Why is the vengeance false? And what about the other reasons for execution, such as deterence?

[Noah Johnson]

Buzz, I've been watching you have this argument for several pages now, and patterns have emerged.

Every time there's benefit of the doubt to be given, you come down in favor of killing people.

Every time it's a judgement call, you come down in favor of killing people.

Every time it's a matter of personal opinion, you come down in favor of killing people.

Earlier, I said that some of the stuff you say gives the impression you don't care about justice, you just like killing people.

I want to amend that statement.

EVERYTHING you say gives that impression.

[Crowley]

Why is the vengeance false? And what about the other reasons for execution, such as deterence?
I can't help you with the first question if my reasoning in the post didn't explain that part.

On the second question... in the many thousands of years of human existence has execution EVER worked as a deterent?

Europe is virtually free of the death penality:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html

I'm wondering about how their homicide rates compare to ours...

[Vendetta]

Why is the vengeance false? And what about the other reasons for execution, such as deterence?

I never really figured that deterence even worked. It's not like anyone commits a murder with the expectation of being caught. Either it happens in the heat of the moment with no thought of the possible consequences, or the murderer has convinced themselves that no one'll ever catch them. I can't imagine that anyone plans to commit a murder thinking "well, I'm only going to get life imprisonment."

[Gilda Dent]

So, it's ok to kill something if you personally don't believe it's human, no matter what other people think? What about some KKK member who doesn't believe black people are really human? Should he then be allowed to kill them, because that's his personal choice, and while others may not choose to do it themselves, no one has the right to prevent him?

Speak of the devil . . .

You'll notice that I never said I think it's ok to abort a fetus, just the opposite, but I don't think I, or anyone else should be allowed to make such a decision for another person. That same protection applies to black people as well. The KKK member in your hypothetical is depriving her of the right to make life and death decisions regarding her own body and own life for herself.

Gilda

[Steel Spider]

Many people claim that assisted suicide is against God's laws... but I don't accept that. Yes, God says that we are not to kill but assisted suicide is a mercy killing and anyone who aids someone in suicide is not doing so because they enjoy it. They do it because it is the right thing to do. When you aid someone who has expressed a need to die, you're showing them compassion and mercy, not cruelty and evil.

[Pixies Chick]

Humanist, I love you to death, but that is so damned wrong, I couldn't type this fast enough.

Sometimes people say these things because... they actually believe them.


That's the first thing people should accept before entering into most debates, around here. Too bad there are so many disingenuous types making the situation worse, by confirming our "fears."

And, no, you're not one of those types, from what I can see.

I think you have a point, but I don't think it's wrong to point out the inconsistencies that make it clear that the individual may claim to advocate for the unborn, but really doesn't give a crap about the unborn. They're against a medical procedure (abortion), not opposed to fetal death (spontaneous abortion).

For example, if a zygote is a baby...

cutting food stamps and maternal nutrition -- isn't that starving a baby?
inadequately funding fuel assistance programs -- isn't that freezing a baby?
cutting maternal health programs -- isn't that neglecting a baby?
reducing air quality -- isn't that poisoning a baby?
interfering with contraception -- isn't that conspiracy to commit murder?

But they don't debate these things. So it's worth asking why the prototypical pro-lifer doesn't give a shit about a zygote unless it's a zygote that a woman doesn't want implanted in her body. How can they possibly claim to see a zygote as a person when they're guilty of so much neglect?

[Pixies Chick]

There's a difference between redemption, which is a spiritual/theological term, and rehabilitation, which is a sociological one. Only God knows if a person has truly repented....

Which isn't important to the question of whether people can rehabilitate. It's your opinion,and I disagree with you. You aren't Christian, are you? Sorry. I shouldn't have assumed that.

[Buzz Dixon]

On the second question... in the many thousands of years of human existence has execution EVER worked as a deterent?
Yes. Robbers are less likely to kill witnesses in communities that execute murderers. A live witness to a robbery runs them the risk of a long jail sentence, but killing the witness ups the ante; they are in essence betting their life that murder will spare them jail time.

In communities where people are not executed for killing witnesses, witnesses are more likely to be killed. The difference between an armed robbery term and a murder term are virtually meaningless.

[Buzz Dixon]

Many people claim that assisted suicide is against God's laws... but I don't accept that. Yes, God says that we are not to kill but assisted suicide is a mercy killing and anyone who aids someone in suicide is not doing so because they enjoy it. They do it because it is the right thing to do. When you aid someone who has expressed a need to die, you're showing them compassion and mercy, not cruelty and evil.
Dr. Kirkovian (spl?) seemed to enjoy it. I don't think he thought of himself as cruel, but he certainly seemed to enjoy the power of death.

[Buzz Dixon]

Which isn't important to the question of whether people can rehabilitate. It's your opinion,and I disagree with you. You aren't Christian, are you? Sorry. I shouldn't have assumed that.
I am a Christian, and as a Christian I am charged to forgive those who do wrong against me. I am not authorized, empowered, or entitled to forgive those who do wrong to others. Indeed, I am to protect others to the utmost of my ability. That's why I cheerfully served in the U.S. Army for six years, and why I vote for laws that provide lengthier jail terms for violent offenders.

Further, while I may forgive someone who has wronged me, I am not to let that person off the legal hook if there is a risk they might harm others. If my neighbor and I get in a fist fight because of a property dispute, I should forgive him since he was directing his rage at me. But if a criminal is bopping people over the head to rob them, even though I may forgive him of the specific acts against me, I must prosecute to see that he is put away so he can not continue harming others.

Mind you, I am not a die hard supporter of the death penalty. Come up with a reasonable alternative and I will support it: Say guaranteed solitary confinement for life with no possibility of parole, no communincation or visits with any friends, family, or people on the outside save for a monthly intercom chat with a lawyer, no TV, radio, or reading material, nothing but institutional loaf and water for sustenance, and I'd consider that fair punishment.

[Gilda Dent]

Yes. Robbers are less likely to kill witnesses in communities that execute murderers. A live witness to a robbery runs them the risk of a long jail sentence, but killing the witness ups the ante; they are in essence betting their life that murder will spare them jail time.

Cite please.

In communities where people are not executed for killing witnesses, witnesses are more likely to be killed. The difference between an armed robbery term and a murder term are virtually meaningless.

Nonsense. Murders for which a person might be executed carry as an alternative life in prison without parole. A person convicted of armed robbery gets a much lighter sentence with a possibility of parole.

I doubt most people who kill witnesses to shut them up stop to consider whether there is a death penalty for that crime at the time they're stopping to consider it. The motive is not to get caught and avoid any punishment, as such, the severity probably has little value.

However, if you can cite a relaible source to the contrary, I'd very much like to see it.

Mind you, I am not a die hard supporter of the death penalty. Come up with a reasonable alternative and I will support it: Say guaranteed solitary confinement for life with no possibility of parole, no communincation or visits with any friends, family, or people on the outside save for a monthly intercom chat with a lawyer, no TV, radio, or reading material, nothing but institutional loaf and water for sustenance, and I'd consider that fair punishment.

And here is where we arrive at an impasse. What's the purpose of laws against violent crime? At a societal level it's to decrease said crime in three ways, the first being the deterrent effect, the second being by removing those who commit antisocial acts from society, thus preventing their reoffending, and the third being rehabilitation.

We want a society free from violent crime. Punishment should be a tool to that end, not an end to itself. Punishment that doesn't achieve that goal is simply vengeance, and the government shouldn't be in the vengeance business.

You seem to believe that punishment is the purpose of legal penalties, vengeance. That's a basic philosophy I can't really connect to on a societal level, as much as it attracts me on a personal level.

Gilda

[Charles RB]

So, it's ok to kill something if you personally don't believe it's human

No, the thing with fetuses is that there's debate over whether or not they're actually alive. Not human, alive. There's debate on the subject.

[Crowley]

Yes. Robbers are less likely to kill witnesses in communities that execute murderers. A live witness to a robbery runs them the risk of a long jail sentence, but killing the witness ups the ante; they are in essence betting their life that murder will spare them jail time.

In communities where people are not executed for killing witnesses, witnesses are more likely to be killed. The difference between an armed robbery term and a murder term are virtually meaningless.
I don't believe this to be true at all.

You honestly expect me to believe that someone who decides to break the law by commiting armed robbery, then chooses to consider consequences in the heat of the moment?

I find that highly doubtful.

Furthermore, you're neglecting to address the hypocrisy of the state being okayed to kill, but telling it's citizens that killing is wrong...

[Noah Johnson]

I did some research on the death penalty as a deterrent, and noticed something interesting. Pro-death-penalty arguments tend to rely primarily on anecdotal evidence and emotional arguments, some of them pretty good ones. Anti-death-penalty arguments tend to rely on scientific studies, thorough analysis of data, and ruthless application of logic.

I've always believed that we have to make policy decisions based on the best possible information. The choice here is clear.

Unless, of course, you just like killing people.

[Samurai]

No, the thing with fetuses is that there's debate over whether or not they're actually alive. Not human, alive. There's debate on the subject.
How in the heck can you say that? It's obviously alive, whether you think it's human or not. If it were dead, it would miscarry or cause a massive infection. What are you talking about?

And there used to be much debate over whether blacks were really human, and the law of the land was that if you owned one, you could do as you wanted with your own property. Some people disagreed, but they were just a vocal minority who wanted to have the govt intervene in the property rights of others... Really, I see a great deal of similarity here, for me at least as far as abortions after the 1st trimester (and for many other people, all abortions, and I honestly can't say they are objectively wrong).

[Samurai]

I did some research on the death penalty as a deterrent, and noticed something interesting. Pro-death-penalty arguments tend to rely primarily on anecdotal evidence and emotional arguments, some of them pretty good ones. Anti-death-penalty arguments tend to rely on scientific studies, thorough analysis of data, and ruthless application of logic.

I've always believed that we have to make policy decisions based on the best possible information. The choice here is clear.

Unless, of course, you just like killing people.
Some people, who deserve it, yes...

[Crowley]

How in the heck can you say that? It's obviously alive, whether you think it's human or not. If it were dead, it would miscarry or cause a massive infection. What are you talking about?

And there used to be much debate over whether blacks were really human, and the law of the land was that if you owned one, you could do as you wanted with your own property. Some people disagreed, but they were just a vocal minority who wanted to have the govt intervene in the property rights of others... Really, I see a great deal of similarity here, for me at least as far as abortions after the 1st trimester (and for many other people, all abortions, and I honestly can't say they are objectively wrong).
the bacteria in the back of your fridge is alive too.... the question truly is whether or not it's sentient life in the early stages of pregnancy.

Also, the racial analogy is superbly ridiculous.

[Buzz Dixon]

Furthermore, you're neglecting to address the hypocrisy of the state being okayed to kill, but telling it's citizens that killing is wrong...
The state has the collective authority of its citizens to execute judgment. If the state does not have that authority, there is no basis for law whatsoever.

The state does not look upon a capital case as one of personal revenge but one of justice in the abstract sense: Citzen A has committed an offense against Citizen B, what will it take to balance the scales of justice? In a society that is run on democratic principals, if the majority of the citizens wish the state to have the authority to pass judgment on criminals and confer upon the state the authority to execute those found guilty, that is defacto legal and ethical. One may argue it is not moral, but it's certainly legal and ethical.

[Charles RB]

EDIT: Never mind.

[Crowley]

The state has the collective authority of its citizens to execute judgment. If the state does not have that authority, there is no basis for law whatsoever.

The state does not look upon a capital case as one of personal revenge but one of justice in the abstract sense: Citzen A has committed an offense against Citizen B, what will it take to balance the scales of justice? In a society that is run on democratic principals, if the majority of the citizens wish the state to have the authority to pass judgment on criminals and confer upon the state the authority to execute those found guilty, that is defacto legal and ethical. One may argue it is not moral, but it's certainly legal and ethical.
it's still hypocritical.

and it still sets a bad example for the citizens.

As I said we have a choice to make... compassion or ruthlessness.

[Buzz Dixon]

No, it is not hypocritical.

The citizens agree that only the state may extract justice. They agree to forego personal revenge provided the state prosecutes criminals in their stead. For an individual to kill another on his own is to violate this social contract.

The state is required not to prosecute people promiscuously, and to bring charges and punishment only against those who have committed a crime.

Individual murders are almost never based on thwarted justice. They are usually based on one person believing his or her right to his or her self-gratification exceeds another person's right to life. To prevent chaos and anarchy, the state is required to punish those who act this way. The state is supposed to do it in a detached, dispassionate manner, basing their case entirely upon the known facts.

The state is supposed to be an avenger, not a revenger.

[Noah Johnson]

The state is supposed to be an avenger, not a revenger.
So you believe in a vengeance-based society that kills as many people as it legally can.

I forget, are you a Christian or a Klingon?

[Samurai]

the bacteria in the back of your fridge is alive too.... the question truly is whether or not it's sentient life in the early stages of pregnancy.

Also, the racial analogy is superbly ridiculous.
Lets forget the very early stages when it's a few cells for a minute. My personal belief is that it becomes a human life when its brain starts working. The problem is that the laws makes no distinction between an 8 day old fetus, an 8 week old fetus, and an 8 month old fetus. That just seems insane to me, on the order of not distinguishing between a pistol and a rocket launcher and making both legal because of the 2nd Amendment. Aborting a collection of unthinking cells that are a few weeks old, no problem. Tearing apart an 8 month old baby in a partial birth abortion... much different. I think that if brainwaves are strong and detectable, then it should be declared a human being and only killed if there is absolutely no other choice. By that time, it's no longer just a collection of cells like bacteria... it has hands, feet, a nervous system, brain, etc, and is very definitely alive. We use brainwaves to determine when a person dies, so why not when they are considered to be a living person?

[Crowley]

No, it is not hypocritical.

The citizens agree that only the state may extract justice. They agree to forego personal revenge provided the state prosecutes criminals in their stead. For an individual to kill another on his own is to violate this social contract.

The state is required not to prosecute people promiscuously, and to bring charges and punishment only against those who have committed a crime.

Individual murders are almost never based on thwarted justice. They are usually based on one person believing his or her right to his or her self-gratification exceeds another person's right to life. To prevent chaos and anarchy, the state is required to punish those who act this way. The state is supposed to do it in a detached, dispassionate manner, basing their case entirely upon the known facts.

The state is supposed to be an avenger, not a revenger.
and a life sentence with no parole fails to avenge how exactly?

[Crowley]

Lets forget the very early stages when it's a few cells for a minute. My personal belief is that it becomes a human life when its brain starts working. The problem is that the laws makes no distinction between an 8 day old fetus, an 8 week old fetus, and an 8 month old fetus. That just seems insane to me, on the order of not distinguishing between a pistol and a rocket launcher and making both legal because of the 2nd Amendment. Aborting a collection of unthinking cells that are a few weeks old, no problem. Tearing apart an 8 month old baby in a partial birth abortion... much different. I think that if brainwaves are strong and detectable, then it should be declared a human being and only killed if there is absolutely no other choice. By that time, it's no longer just a collection of cells like bacteria... it has hands, feet, a nervous system, brain, etc, and is very definitely alive. We use brainwaves to determine when a person dies, so why not when they are considered to be a living person?
that is simply not true... most states have a limit on WHEN an abortion may occur.

the 8 month old fetus death is a more hyperbole on your part. It's definitely an exception and not the rule.

[Samurai]

that is simply not true... most states have a limit on WHEN an abortion may occur.

the 8 month old fetus death is a more hyperbole on your part. It's definitely an exception and not the rule.
Yes, partial birth abortions (and other late term abortions) are not the rule, but they do exist. Making abortions past the 1st trimester illegal except to save the life of the mother would probably affect less than 10% of abortions, but that is still thousands who should not be killed (IMO) being saved. The majority of women would still have their abortions.

This is the same as letting most people buy guns, except those with criminal backgrounds or who want automatic weapons and rocket launchers... a sensible limitation on a freedom.

[The Humanist Hero]

Yes, partial birth abortions (and other late term abortions) are not the rule, but they do exist. Making abortions past the 1st trimester illegal except to save the life of the mother would probably affect less than 10% of abortions, but that is still thousands who should not be killed (IMO) being saved. The majority of women would still have their abortions.

This is the same as letting most people buy guns, except those with criminal backgrounds or who want automatic weapons and rocket launchers... a sensible limitation on a freedom.
You know, I'm 100% pro-choice, but I would go along with your first trimester abortions only rule if the pro-life people agreed that they would then forever stop trying to outlaw ALL abortions. But you know as well as I do that that isn't going to happen. So as much as you would like to see that, it isn't going to happen. Hell, even if Roe v. Wade were overturned and only ten states allowed abortion, the pro-lifers wouldn't stop until all abortion were outlawed. So, in order for your proposal to work you have to convince both the pro-lifers and the pro-choicers. That isn't going to happen.

[Crowley]

Yes, partial birth abortions (and other late term abortions) are not the rule, but they do exist. Making abortions past the 1st trimester illegal except to save the life of the mother would probably affect less than 10% of abortions, but that is still thousands who should not be killed (IMO) being saved. The majority of women would still have their abortions.

This is the same as letting most people buy guns, except those with criminal backgrounds or who want automatic weapons and rocket launchers... a sensible limitation on a freedom.
I don't think anyone would think that's unreasonable.

[The Humanist Hero]

I don't think anyone would think that's unreasonable.
I think the vast majority of pro-lifers would see that as unreasonable and never go for it.

[Crowley]

i apologize... by anyone I meant people talking within this thread and other reasonable people.

not the ultra right.

[The Humanist Hero]

i apologize... by anyone I meant people talking within this thread and other reasonable people.

not the ultra right.
I understand. But far right or not, in order for this to work in actuality, they will have to be convinced.

[Screwtape]

I would love to see abortion outlawed. All of 'em. I think human life begins at conception.

[The Humanist Hero]

I would love to see abortion outlawed. All of 'em. I think human life begins at conception.
There you go.

That's why Samurai's plan, though fine by me, will never work.

[Screwtape]

That is probably true.

[Crowley]

I would love to see abortion outlawed. All of 'em. I think human life begins at conception.

I think that is an attainable goal... IF the right is willing to start compromising and not leave pregnant women hanging out to dry.

IE:
Social Welfare
Sex Education
Free Contraceptives in High Schools
Birth Control
the morning after pill
RU486

etc...

[kingdom2000]

Yeah thats my main problem with those against abortions. They want to outlaw it but have no concept of the consequences for the children that are born in unwanted homes (and thats just a "single" area of consequences). Nor do they seem to care. Its all about the poor "baby", but after its born suddenly its a "not my problem" scenario. Then it comes under "social" programs (ie democrat agenda). Which is kind of ironic. When its in the mother, its a republican issue, and when it leaves the mother, its a democrat issue

[Noah Johnson]

I think that is an attainable goal... IF the right is willing to start compromising and not leave pregnant women hanging out to dry.

IE:
Social Welfare
Sex Education
Free Contraceptives in High Schools
Birth Control
the morning after pill
RU486

etc...
To be fair, the last two on there violate Screwtapes two-or-more-cells cutoff point, and therefore would not be acceptable to him and those who agree with him. I think they're wrong, but we're talking about working out a compromise here, not arguing over different people's basic standpoints.

The cases against everything else on that list are a lot more dubious, I'm afraid.

[Buzz Dixon]

and a life sentence with no parole fails to avenge how exactly?
I'll give you a dollar if you can find where I indicated capital punishment in my post. I used the term "punishment" in general.

As I stated elsewhere, if the anti-death penalty people were willing to guarantee life imprisonment in solitary confinement as a punishment for murder, I would be willing to go along with it.

[Gilda Dent]

To be fair, the last two on there violate Screwtapes two-or-more-cells cutoff point, and therefore would not be acceptable to him and those who agree with him. I think they're wrong, but we're talking about working out a compromise here, not arguing over different people's basic standpoints.

The cases against everything else on that list are a lot more dubious, I'm afraid.

Hormonal birth control also violates the life begins at conception rule, as, among other effects, it can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb.

Gilda

[Gail Simone]

*sighs* I voted for Oregon's law(I was an Oregon citizen at the time). And unlike it appears some people have, I've actually read it. Guess what? It already provideds 1. No mental illness involved in the matter. 2. at least three doctors have to agree that the person has less then six monthes to live. 3. That at least two doctors agree to the request. 4. And at that, the doctor has nothing to do with the death other then prescribing a lethal dose of barbitues. 5. The Patient is the one that has to request this. No one else. Not family, not friends, not the doctor.... the actual person that is suffering.

Sorry, I'm a bit upset that people think we are stupid enough to pass a law without at least a few precautions. And I know I'm forgetting some. Oh, and if you're not a voter in Oregon? You may not know that in the voter's handbook(a wonderful thing, I wish they had it here), each side can present it's opinion... and they do. I remember there were about fifteen pages of arguements on all sides about this. For a lot of us, this wasn't a trivial matter... and it's kind of sad to see it reduced to a soundbite without the hard real world work that went into it.


I'm a current Oregonian, I voted for it, I whole-heartedly support it.

Gail

[Cam63]

As I've written before, I've seen too many people suffer unecessary horrible deaths.

I'd vote for it in less than a heartbeat.

[Screwtape]

I think that is an attainable goal... IF the right is willing to start compromising and not leave pregnant women hanging out to dry.

IE:
Social Welfare
Sex Education
Free Contraceptives in High Schools
Birth Control
the morning after pill
RU486

etc...Not bad, although Noah is right about the morning after pill/RU486. I waver on that one, incidentally - specialization doesn't start until something like four days after the egg is fertilized, and up until that point it's just like any other animal's zygote. On the other hand, it's not like it's going to turn into a lizard if it's left alone. So, like I say, conflicted.

You know, anti-abortion groups have TONS of people involved who sponsor, adopt, and care for children saved from abortions. I totally agree that the government should help out, but most sincere pro-life people are very interested in seeing the kid grow up happy and healthy.

[Crowley]

hey, I think encouraging adoptions is definitely a positive alternative.

[Noah Johnson]

Not bad, although Noah is right about the morning after pill/RU486. I waver on that one, incidentally - specialization doesn't start until something like four days after the egg is fertilized, and up until that point it's just like any other animal's zygote. On the other hand, it's not like it's going to turn into a lizard if it's left alone. So, like I say, conflicted.
See, I still disagree with you, but big damn props for doing the research, getting the facts, recognizing moral gray areas, and being open to compromise. That's not easy for anyone, I can't imagine coming from a religious perspective makes it any easier, and I respect it.

You know, anti-abortion groups have TONS of people involved who sponsor, adopt, and care for children saved from abortions. I totally agree that the government should help out, but most sincere pro-life people are very interested in seeing the kid grow up happy and healthy.
Fair point, though you'll note that this is another area where the ground-level conservatives might be doing one thing, but the legislative-level conservatives are proceeding happily with their "To hell with poor kids, let's give rich people some more money!" agenda. I'm sure you understand that, from a real-world effects standpoint, this gives the impression that conservatives in this country are all up in arms about the unborn, but could kinda give two shits about the born.

[Charles RB]

Yes, partial birth abortions (and other late term abortions) are not the rule, but they do exist.

But as far as I know, those are primarily done for medical reasons. Is it even legal in most states to have late abortions done for non-medical reasons?

[Steel Spider]

How can sentencing someone to death because they murdered someone be considered just? It's not justice, it's murder.

Any person who is convicted of pre-meditated killing should instead be locked in prison for the rest of their lives with no parole. There are two reasons for this;

1) The convict is alive but unable to live. They may be breathing but they have no freedom. That's justice.

2) Many innocent people are convicted and sentenced to death. Once they have been executed, new evidence that later proves them to be innocent is useless. At least when they are locked up and alive this new evidence can prove their innocence and allow them to return to the outside world.

[west3man]

I've got no problem with your second rule, from what I saw in that quick glance, but the below...How can sentencing someone to death because they murdered someone be considered just? It's not justice, it's murder.Are you saying that because we kill those who kill, that makes us hypocrites?

If that IS what you're saying...

Any person who is convicted of pre-meditated killing should instead be locked in prison for the rest of their lives with no parole. There are two reasons for this;

1) The convict is alive but unable to live. They may be breathing but they have no freedom. That's justice....we shouldn't take away the freedom of kidnappers, right? Because then, we're doing what they did.

[Pixies Chick]

You know, I'm 100% pro-choice, but I would go along with your first trimester abortions only rule if the pro-life people agreed that they would then forever stop trying to outlaw ALL abortions. But you know as well as I do that that isn't going to happen. So as much as you would like to see that, it isn't going to happen. Hell, even if Roe v. Wade were overturned and only ten states allowed abortion, the pro-lifers wouldn't stop until all abortion were outlawed. So, in order for your proposal to work you have to convince both the pro-lifers and the pro-choicers. That isn't going to happen.

I wouldn't go along with it. I don't believe that a ban on abortions after the first trimester is needed because there's not all these loose chicks who wanna wait til the second trimester to their their abortion on. Women and their gynecologists are not criminals. They're people doing the best they can.

And BTW - I know someone who had what would probably now be known as a "partial-birth abortion." It wasn't always called that. And I'd like to thank mom for doing it because the damaged fetus she carried wasn't living, and if she hadn't done it, I'd be short a brother, maybe two, and possibly my mom. I'd hate to think of what her experience would be like if she needed the procedure today -- testifying, traveling out of state away from her children and husband to find a doctor willing and trained to perform the procedure, confronting mobs who don't understand holding pictures of mangled fetuses to remind her that the child she'd lost is going to be torn up. She shouldn't have to explain what she was doing to anybody, least of all a panel of zealots.

[west3man]

And BTW - I know someone who had what would probably now be known as a "partial-birth abortion."
I thought "abortion" referred to aborting, or ending, the pregnancy.

I wouldn't think the removing a non-living fetus would count.

[The Humanist Hero]

I wouldn't go along with it. I don't believe that a ban on abortions after the first trimester is needed because there's not all these loose chicks who wanna wait til the second trimester to their their abortion on. Women and their gynecologists are not criminals. They're people doing the best they can.

And BTW - I know someone who had what would probably now be known as a "partial-birth abortion." It wasn't always called that. And I'd like to thank mom for doing it because the damaged fetus she carried wasn't living, and if she hadn't done it, I'd be short a brother, maybe two, and possibly my mom. I'd hate to think of what her experience would be like if she needed the procedure today -- testifying, traveling out of state away from her children and husband to find a doctor willing and trained to perform the procedure, confronting mobs who don't understand holding pictures of mangled fetuses to remind her that the child she'd lost is going to be torn up. She shouldn't have to explain what she was doing to anybody, least of all a panel of zealots.
Well, in an ideal world I wouldn't have any restrictions either, and I agree that not many rational women wait until the seventh month before deciding, or realizing, they need an abortion. But I would go along with the compormise, if and only if, it would stop the right wing effort to ban all abortions forever and make obtaining the morning after pill much easier.

However, as I stated earlier, there's no way the pro-lifers go for it because, as their rhetoric indicates, they consider even a blastocyst to be the equivalent of a baby, and grant a non-sentient clump of cells the same rights as a grown woman.

In the long run, however, none of this matters. Despite the efforts of the pro-lifers, you can't turn back the clock and simply making abortion ilegal is not going to stop abortion. Nor are states like California, New York or the New England states simply going to ban abortion because the federal government says so. It will, if nothing else, put the conservative devotion to states' rights to a test which they will inevitably fail. I do feel, however, for poor women in the states which ban abortion as they will not have the resources to travel to another state as any woman of means would do.

[Pixies Chick]

I thought "abortion" referred to aborting, or ending, the pregnancy.

I wouldn't think the removing a non-living fetus would count.

You mean she just says, "this one doesn't count" and they part like the red sea before her?

Of course, a woman who can prove to the zealots to their satisfaction that the pregnancy is already over will be treated differently. But do you think the zealots have the discernment to separate out the women entering the clinic who've miscarried from the ones who haven't? Until she's satisfied their curiosity, she's just another potential criminal. And when she's told them all, who decides whether it's nonliving? Instead of women and their doctors, it's panels of strangers.

That's the problem of making abortion a legal instead of a medical issue. It's not resolvable in court.

I don't think abortion foes are very good at math either. There's lots of abortions, but they don't seem to have a very good handle on exactly how mahy women this will effect. A mil per year times a thirty year or so reproductive age adds up to a pretty good odds that everybody knows somebody who's had an abortion. Defining a hefty chunk (I've heard up to a third of all women) of the American adult population as criminals does society no good.

[Steel Spider]

I've got no problem with your second rule, from what I saw in that quick glance, but the below...Are you saying that because we kill those who kill, that makes us hypocrites?

If that IS what you're saying...

...we shouldn't take away the freedom of kidnappers, right? Because then, we're doing what they did.

No, I just think that it's possibly more satisfying to lock up a murderer instead of executing them. It shows them that we don't have to kill them in order to make them pay for their crime.

[west3man]

You mean she just says, "this one doesn't count" and they part like the red sea before her?
No. I think you incorrectly referred to the removal of a non-living fetus from a woman's womb as "abortion."

[west3man]

No, I just think that it's possibly more satisfying to lock up a murderer instead of executing them. It shows them that we don't have to kill them in order to make them pay for their crime.
Apparently, those who are advocate death sentences AREN'T more satisfied with a situation in which the killer continues to draw breath, while his or her victim does not.

The latter can't be changed, but the former sure can.

[Steel Spider]

On the subject of abortion, what if a women became pregnant as a result of rape? What is she to do? Carry her rapist's child for nine months just to appease those against abortion? What if the mere thought of that baby growing inside her instills fear and causes her to mentally deteriorate?

If the mere thought of carrying her rapists' child is to much for her and causes her to mentally deteriorate then I feel she has every damn right to abort that baby! Her life should come first, not the foetus.

[Steel Spider]

Apparently, those who are advocate death sentences AREN'T more satisfied with a situation in which the killer continues to draw breath, while his or her victim does not.

The latter can't be changed, but the former sure can.

That's true. I personally would take great satisfaction in knowing that a murderer is locked up in jail, unable to live a normal life but there are others who feel differently, I suppose.

[west3man]

On the subject of abortion, what if a women became pregnant as a result of rape? What is she to do? Carry her rapist's child for nine months just to appease those against abortion? What if the mere thought of that baby growing inside her instills fear and causes her to mentally deteriorate?

If the mere thought of carrying her rapists' child is to much for her and causes her to mentally deteriorate then I feel she has every damn right to abort that baby! Her life should come first, not the foetus.
Not only that, but I don't think she should be required to risk her life/health to bring the child to term and give birth.

It's the health risk that tips the scales for me, in a lot of ways.

[west3man]

That's true. I personally would take great satisfaction in knowing that a murderer is locked up in jail, unable to live a normal life but there are others who feel differently, I suppose.
Some also say that the continued risk to society (and the greater-than-zero chance of escape) further justifies the death penalty.

I'm not fan of the death penalty and if I had to give it a thumbs-up or -down, I'd say "thumbs down." However, if we've just GOT to have one, I favor something that ends the threat, without torturing the person up until his or her last moments.

[Yoda]

That's true. I personally would take great satisfaction in knowing that a murderer is locked up in jail, unable to live a normal life but there are others who feel differently, I suppose.

Except they get three square meals, cable tv, plenty of exercise, access to the internet and librarys, contact with family and friends, they get to get married, write books, etc.

If they were locked in a five by six cement room, with no contact with the outside world at all then i could agree with abolishment of the death penalty.

Some "people" commit acts that are so universally evil and revolting that they lose the right to be given the same moral consideration a human being deserves. Taking a human life is wrong. These things no longer qualify as human lives any more. I think the death penalty should be expanded. Add serial rapists and child molesters to the list of eligible crimes. They destory more lives than simple murders, and enjoy what they do.

[west3man]

Except they get three square meals, cable tv, plenty of exercise, access to the internet and librarys, contact with family and friends, they get to get married, write books, etc.

If they were locked in a five by six cement room, with no contact with the outside world at all then i could agree with abolishment of the death penalty.

Some "people" commit acts that are so universally evil and revolting that they lose the right to be given the same moral consideration a human being deserves. Taking a human life is wrong. These things no longer qualify as human lives any more. I think the death penalty should be expanded. Add serial rapists and child molesters to the list of eligible crimes. They destory more lives than simple murders, and enjoy what they do.
I've got a problem with the widespread tendency to dehumanize those who make mistakes - even criminal mistakes.

SOME folks may deserve it, but taking a life, in and of itself, does not make one a monster... otherwise, we're one monstrous ass society.

Clearly, motivation matters.

[Buzz Dixon]

As I've written before, I've seen too many people suffer unecessary horrible deaths.

I'd vote for it in less than a heartbeat.
I think we have a winner in the Most Ironic Phrase of 2006 contest! ;)

[Buzz Dixon]

How can sentencing someone to death because they murdered someone be considered just? It's not justice, it's murder.
It is justice in that they deprived another human being of life, hence their life is taken from them. It is not murder for the same reason abortion is not murder. Murder is an unlawful taking of human life.

The rest of your post makes some valid arguments. I have already dealth with point 2 elsewhere, but will repeate what I've said before: If life in prison really did mean life in prison, I would be far more inclined to reduce use of the death penalty, perhaps even see it abolished.

[Yoda]

I've got a problem with the widespread tendency to dehumanize those who make mistakes - even criminal mistakes.

SOME folks may deserve it, but taking a life, in and of itself, does not make one a monster... otherwise, we're one monstrous ass society.

Clearly, motivation matters.


Spend a half hour in a room talking to a serial child rapist. Monster is to tame a term.

I probably should have qualifed my statement a little more. I agree that the taking of a life, in and of itself does not make one a monster. I think the death penalty should be reserved for those crimes that are the most reprehensible.

[west3man]

Spend a half hour in a room talking to a serial child rapist. Monster is to tame a term.

I probably should have qualifed my statement a little more. I agree that the taking of a life, in and of itself does not make one a monster. I think the death penalty should be reserved for those crimes that are the most reprehensible.
That's why I phrased my post the way that I did. I'm not saying everyone's worthy of rehabilitation efforts or even capable of being a productive member of society (distinct from ceasing to be a threat, I suppose).

I'm also not saying that everyone who's in favor of the death penalty sees all criminals as wastes of human life. I just think a whole lot of people do and your post reminded me of those opinions... which isn't to say that you hold them.


I've been in many conversations about prison conditions and most people - MOST people, I speak to, don't give a damn. Someone did something bad enough to get thrown in prison and, despite the fact that they may be on the low-end of the criminal spectrum (completely non-violent offenders, let's say), a lot of folks don't care that this person may be the victim of violence, including rape, during his or her incarceration.

I find that disgusting.

[west3man]

DUPLICATE POST.

[west3man]

DUPLICATE POST.

[Ian Boothby]

It is justice in that they deprived another human being of life, hence their life is taken from them. It is not murder for the same reason abortion is not murder. Murder is an unlawful taking of human life.

.

So if it's legal it's not murder? Say a govenment decides all people of a certain race for example should be killed and does so, those folks have no right to call what happened murder?

[Noah Johnson]

Spend a half hour in a room talking to a serial child rapist. Monster is to tame a term.

So what?

Believe me, I've met some astonishingly awful people in various places. Folks who just being in the room with them makes your skin crawl. That still doesn't mean that killing them will improve the world in any way. If they're in prison, they are no longer any threat to anyone. That is ALL that matters. The rest is just a cheap emotional desire to kill somebody, and that's not a good enough reason to take a human life.

[Yoda]

So what?

Believe me, I've met some astonishingly awful people in various places. Folks who just being in the room with them makes your skin crawl. That still doesn't mean that killing them will improve the world in any way. If they're in prison, they are no longer any threat to anyone. That is ALL that matters. The rest is just a cheap emotional desire to kill somebody, and that's not a good enough reason to take a human life.

How does keeping them alive improve the world in any way?

[Noah Johnson]

How does keeping them alive improve the world in any way?
It's another step in building a decent society, another brick in a wall of compassion and humanity, another demonstration that we as a society are better than our worst members. It's a blow struck for a better world, which I for one actually want.

[Buzz Dixon]

So if it's legal it's not murder?
That's what courts and legislatures from time immemorial say. Now, there have been societies in the past that considered it okay to kill a particular group of people with impunity. As long as the killing occured within that society and not elsewhere, there was little anyone could do about it. If the society tried exporting it's killing into societies that didn't agree with that form of legal killing, wars usually ensued and in the end the victors -- whoever they might have been -- killed the leaders of the losing side. If the original society won, it was business as usual (viz. the Aztecs and their neighbors). If the other side won, they changed the law (viz. Cortes and the Aztecs).

[Yoda]

It's another step in building a decent society, another brick in a wall of compassion and humanity, another demonstration that we as a society are better than our worst members. It's a blow struck for a better world, which I for one actually want.
So it's just an emotional desire to feel better than someone else?

[Crowley]

Except they get three square meals, cable tv, plenty of exercise, access to the internet and librarys, contact with family and friends, they get to get married, write books, etc.

this is a myth.

[Yoda]

this is a myth.

Then what's the reality? They are starved? They don't have access to exercise? They don't get visits with family? They don't get to get married? They don't get to read books, watch tv, go on the internet, meet with authors to write books?

Oh yeah, and they aren't still alive to enjoy whatever lives they still have? Some of them won't even admit to what they did or apoligize.

[stealthwise]

So what?

Believe me, I've met some astonishingly awful people in various places. Folks who just being in the room with them makes your skin crawl. That still doesn't mean that killing them will improve the world in any way. If they're in prison, they are no longer any threat to anyone. That is ALL that matters. The rest is just a cheap emotional desire to kill somebody, and that's not a good enough reason to take a human life.

They're only a threat to everyone else still in prison.

Killing them won't improve the world in any way, but it sure as hell might help prevent the world from becoming worse.

Not that I'm a huge proponent for the death penalty, but I'd really like to see some child molesters/rapists die.

I think that a murderer can be redeemed. But a sorry SOB that willingly and knowingly exploits and manipulates any child and takes their innocence deserves no less than death, imo. I have no interest in redeeming them.

[stealthwise]

Then what's the reality? They are starved? They don't have access to exercise? They don't get visits with family? They don't get to get married? They don't get to read books, watch tv, go on the internet, meet with authors to write books?

Oh yeah, and they aren't still alive to enjoy whatever lives they still have? Some of them won't even admit to what they did or apoligize.

Personally, I just like being able to leave my house and walk down the block.

[Buzz Dixon]

They're only a threat to everyone else still in prison.
Unfortunately, no. There is a recent case in California where a man was sentenced to be executed for arranging three murders on the outside while he was still in prison. This wasn't some drug lord, just a run of the mill white collar crook who was vindictive and nasty.

Escapes happen, and innocent civilians have been killed in those escapes. Hostages are sometimes taken, and those hostages have been harmed.

And we're not talking about the people who have seduced lonely hearts pen pals and gotten them involved in crimes on their behalf.

As I posted earlier, for some people it needs to be life imprisonment in solitary confinement with no contact to the outside world except a monthly intercom chat with a lawyer -- and that should be monitored by the prison authorities.

[Crowley]

Then what's the reality? They are starved? They don't have access to exercise? They don't get visits with family? They don't get to get married? They don't get to read books, watch tv, go on the internet, meet with authors to write books?

Oh yeah, and they aren't still alive to enjoy whatever lives they still have? Some of them won't even admit to what they did or apoligize.

# 68% of State prison inmates did not receive a high school diploma
# About 26% of State prison inmates said they had completed the GED while serving time in a correctional facility.
# Although the percentage of State prison inmates who reported taking education courses while confined fell from 57% in 1991 to 52% in 1997, the number who participated in an educational program since admission increased from 402,500 inmates in 1991 to 550,000 in 1997.
# 12% of State inmates and nearly 6% of Federal inmates reported having a learning or speech disability.

# 21% of State inmates and 22% of Federal inmates said they had a medical problem (excluding injury) after admission; 7% and 10%, respectively, said they had a medical problem that required surgery.

# Nearly half of State inmates who had served 6 or more years said they had been injured after admission. Fewer than 20% of those in prison less than 2 years reported an injury.

# 40% of State inmates and 48% of Federal inmates age 45 or older said they had had a medical problem since admission to prison.

# On December 31, 2004 --

-- 2,135,901 prisoners were held in Federal or State prisons or in local jails -- an increase of 2.6% from yearend 2003, less than the average annual growth of 3.4% since yearend 1995.
-- there were an estimated 486 prison inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents -- up from 411 at yearend 1995.
-- the number of women under the jurisdiction of State or Federal prison authorities increased 4.0% from yearend 2003, reaching 104,848 and the number of men rose 1.8%, totaling 1,391,781.

At yearend 2004 there were 3,218 black male sentenced prison inmates per 100,000 black males in the United States, compared to 1,220 Hispanic male inmates per 100,000 Hispanic males and 463 white male inmates per 100,000 white males.

[Lester C.]

People on both sides of this issue have made really great points. I’m still undecided on this issue but I just wanted to let you guys know that your opinions are helping me and other undecided people make an educated choice on this inherently emotional and volatile issue.

[Noah Johnson]

So it's just an emotional desire to feel better than someone else?
No, it's a rational, moral desire to be better.

Killing more people will not make the world more civilized. People have been trying that for millennia, but the improvements in the world have always come from the other path, from kindness, compassion, education, egalitarianism, justice, and respect for the humanity and rights of others.

You think violence as a long-term solution is going to suddenly start working? Like it just hasn't quite kicked in yet?

[Pixies Chick]

No. I think you incorrectly referred to the removal of a non-living fetus from a woman's womb as "abortion."

Ya gotta be kidding me. You only said that to see if my head would explode, right?

After four years in maternal health and a lifetime with a womb, nothing I'd like more than for you to pick up a medical dictionary. But don't bother: abor·tion: 1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation —compare MISCARRIAGE b : induced expulsion of a human fetus ...
Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abortion
It's a medical term for a medical procedure. Sadly, when they threaten gynecologists until they quit, and erect legal and financial barriers to abortion services, there's barriers to care for everybody. When you have to "prove" you deserve to have it, there's invasion of privacy for everybody, and there's no "we weren't talking about you" about it.

[EdContradictory]

Republicans are against abortion right up until their 14 year old daughter gets pregnant.

Then they're against it again right afterwards.

[Pixies Chick]

So it's just an emotional desire to feel better than someone else?

I'm with Noah on this. It's not arrogant to aspire to be a better than our baser instincts. It's so easy to just say that some people are the problem and without them we're all fine, but it doesn't seem like killing off killers has left us with a shortage of violence yet.

[west3man]

Ya gotta be kidding me. You only said that to see if my head would explode, right?

After four years in maternal health and a lifetime with a womb, nothing I'd like more than for you to pick up a medical dictionary. But don't bother:

You said:
Originally Posted by Pixies Chick
And BTW - I know someone who had what would probably now be known as a "partial-birth abortion."

In response, I said:
Originally Posted by west3man
I thought "abortion" referred to aborting, or ending, the pregnancy.

I wouldn't think the removing a non-living fetus would count.

You'll notice I said "I thought" and "I wouldn't think..." That was your opportunity to correct me, right there.

Instead, you went on about something I never asked about or commented on.

[Pixies Chick]

You said:
Originally Posted by Pixies Chick
And BTW - I know someone who had what would probably now be known as a "partial-birth abortion."

In response, I said:
Originally Posted by west3man
I thought "abortion" referred to aborting, or ending, the pregnancy.

I wouldn't think the removing a non-living fetus would count.

You'll notice I said "I thought" and "I wouldn't think..." That was your opportunity to correct me, right there.

Instead, you went on about something I never asked about or commented on.

Yeah, I'm kinda inclined to do that... Comes with being fascinated by my own opinions, I'd say. Truce?

[west3man]

Yeah, I'm kinda inclined to do that... Comes with being fascinated by my own opinions, I'd say. Truce?
Sounds good, to me.

[Larry Dixon]

No animosity in this post, just to let you know my views are based on first hand experiences.


I'm VERY sorry you had to go through that, Buzz, and I can't interpret animosity out of your comments for a moment. I wish I had great answers for issues like this. I really do.

I'm terribly conflicted on many issues, and sometimes find myself having to go with position "X" when my feelings on an issue are 51%-49%.

Some days it feels like life is just a state of damage control.