Again you judge based upon your view of a system rather then actual facts and guilt.
- Status
F
Forkfoot
Guest
Facts and guilt as determined by whom? The very broken system I’m here criticizing.
At our core, we all know that justice and mercy go hand in hand.
And we want to believe that, even though we know that our current system does not provide both justice and mercy.
I have called you on your own ‘facts’ a few times now.
You cannot back your on assertions.
And yet you keep calling for facts…
I don’t doubt they are physically up to the task.
It is the system built around them that creates the leaks.
F
Forkfoot
Guest
Sure I can: List of exonerated death row inmates.
These people were ***convicted *** “beyond a reasonable doubt” and sentenced to death, which was then later ruled wrongful, either because new evidence surfaced and disproved/cast doubt upon their guilt, or showed that they did not get a fair trial. Either way, it was wrongful that they were convicted and sentenced.
I’m actually claiming no such thing across the board, but FYI many of them were overturned in light of new evidence which did in fact prove them innocent. The invention of DNA testing showed a lot of that; the people who were convicted “beyond a reasonable doubt” to have committed the offense were genetically shown by the very evidence that got them convicted to not be the owner of that genetic material. It was someone else.
F
Forkfoot
Guest
Oh shut up. You’ve been doing no such thing.
I have called you on your own ‘facts’ a few times now.
You cannot back your on assertions.
And yet you keep calling for facts…
I say again: You know that innocent people have been executed, you know that you know innocent people have been executed, and I know that you know that innocent people have been executed. You’re an incredibly disingenuous human being.
I do not accept your contention the odds to be astronomical.
You have not provided anything to support your contention.
To follow this logic, we should release everyone because it is a broken system that found them guilty.
F
Forkfoot
Guest
The fact that dozens and dozens of people are known to have been wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death stacks the odds astronomically against there being zero innocent people who didn’t get lucky enough to have new evidence surface to exonerate them. Simple enough.
F
Forkfoot
Guest
No, to follow this logic we should refrain from the kind of punishment which can never be taken back.
It is not disingenuous to demand evidence and backing for assertions made.
But punishing innocent people with something less is perfectly acceptable?
B
BlaineTog
Guest
Ok, now you’re just being hypocritical. I phrased my response so as to be the twin of your original statement. You, too, used an argument of personal experience. I chose one as well to highlight the invalidity of your point.
Now you’re moving the goalposts.
F
Forkfoot
Guest
And yet, here we are, with you knowing full well that innocent people have been executed, with you knowing that you know full well that innocent people have been executed, and with me knowing that you know that you know full well that innocent people have been executed. But you’re pretending that those things are not true. Because you’re disingenuous.
BTW, have you read about Cameron Todd William yet? Click that link and read about Cameron Todd William.
Or it stacks the odds enormously in the other direction as it would be the appeals process that the DP invokes that has weeded out people.
You need something more to be able to calculate probabilities here.
And you should also consider the fact that many do not look at things the same way you do.
F
Forkfoot
Guest
Of course not. The difference, as I keep saying over and over again, is that you can exonerate a live person and you cannot exonerate a dead one. It’s the one sentence you cannot retract.
F
Forkfoot
Guest
The appeals process has nothing to do with other people confessing to the crimes the convicts were convicted of. The appeals process had nothing to do with the invention of genetic testing.
You are assuming things that are not in evidence.
You cannot claim to know if someone has a given piece of knowledge or not.
Were you privy to the information in my head, it is likely we would not be at this impasse.
F
Forkfoot
Guest
It’s not an impasse; we both already know you’re fulla malarkey. It only looks like an impasse to you cuz you’re not sucking me into your idiotic mind game.
Claiming you don’t know that innocent people have been executed is like saying you don’t know that anyone on earth has masturbated today, because it hasn’t been conclusively proven that anyone has. Would you take that bet? That nobody on earth has masturbated today? Of course not, because you know with virtual certainty that you’d be wrong due to the ridiculous odds stacked against you. The only difference is that you have nothing invested in believing that nobody has masturbated today.
BTW, have you read about Cameron Todd William yet?
- Status