It's easy really.

They're not allowed to lynch their black people anymore, now they execute them.

Bottom line, they just really, really like to kill black people.

Unique wrote:

The Demon of Carthage wrote:Think about it for min, he was executed literally for a crime he didn't commit.

He did not pull the trigger, and those three cops were murdered by someone else. Why was he executed?

There's a big difference between a perpetrator and an accomplice. The problem here is that the state of Alabama sought to punish the accomplice to the same extent as the first-degree principal and succeeded, which is wrong on so many levels.

but do you also think charles manson should not have been found guilty of murder. would you say a whole life sentence for murder when he did not kill anyone ( in the crimes he was convicted of ) was unfair.

Manson wasn't executed, he was given life imprisonment with parole. His case isn't similar to this one because Woods, as opposed to Manson, was executed.

By the way, I'm not saying that Woods was innocent and that he should've walked. I'm saying that the death penalty seems too harsh a sentence for someone who didn't even pull the trigger.

A jail time would've been a fairer option for him.

I know we are not talking about the same countries here, but do you still remember the murder that McLewis posted about not too long ago of the American young man who was beaten to death in Greece? I mean, we're talking about a guy who was body-slammed into a car and beaten by 15 men to death in the street.

Do you know the harshest sentence that was given to them? They were handed sentences ranging from five to 15 years.

Does this sound fair to you? A guy who didn't kill anyone got executed while someone who beats another one to death walks away after 15 years?

I'm sorry but I think the guy didn't deserve to be executed.

The Demon of Carthage wrote:

Unique wrote:

The Demon of Carthage wrote:Think about it for min, he was executed literally for a crime he didn't commit.

He did not pull the trigger, and those three cops were murdered by someone else. Why was he executed?

There's a big difference between a perpetrator and an accomplice. The problem here is that the state of Alabama sought to punish the accomplice to the same extent as the first-degree principal and succeeded, which is wrong on so many levels.

but do you also think charles manson should not have been found guilty of murder. would you say a whole life sentence for murder when he did not kill anyone ( in the crimes he was convicted of ) was unfair.

Manson wasn't executed, he was given life imprisonment with parole. His case isn't similar to this one because Woods, as opposed to Manson, was executed.

By the way, I'm not saying that Woods was innocent and that he should've walked. I'm saying that the death penalty seems too harsh a sentence for someone who didn't even pull the trigger.

A jail time would've been a fairer option for him.

I know we are not talking about the same countries here, but do you still remember the murder that McLewis posted about not too long ago of the American young man who was beaten to death in Greece? I mean, we're talking about a guy who was body-slammed into a car and beaten by 15 men to death in the street.

Do you know the harshest sentence that was given to them? They were handed sentences ranging from five to 15 years.

Does this sound fair to you? A guy who didn't kill anyone got executed while someone who beats another one to death walks away after 15 years?

I'm sorry but I think the guy didn't deserve to be executed.

im not talking about what sentence they both got ( this guy or manson ) im just saying the conviction was the right one. this guy was a criminal that was heavily involved in the crime he did not fire the gun but he was just as guilty. charles manson was a criminal that did not kill anyone but was also found guilty for the murders. if anyone wants to argue that this guy should not have been found guilty of murder then you have to say that manson should not have been found guilty of murder.

Unique wrote:would you kill someone that killed your family if you had the chance.

Of course I would (or at least might), I also would (or at least might) kill more people for less, but that's why I'm not the police, or the justice system. And I genuinely think that I would not sentence someone to death as a judge, no matter their crime, because it's barbaric. I can readily admit that I (probably) wouldn't hold up to the same ethical standards I demand from the judiciary. That is why vigilantism is illegal. The person directly hurt by a crime really shouldn't decide the punishment.

Hapless_Hans wrote:It's easy really.

They're not allowed to lynch their black people anymore, now they execute them.

Bottom line, they just really, really like to kill black people.

Yeah it really does seem that way. I mean, sure, maybe it isn't, but it sure as fuck looks like it. And if it lynches and executes like a duck...

Hapless_Hans wrote:It's easy really.

They're not allowed to lynch their black people anymore, now they execute them.

Bottom line, they just really, really like to kill black people.

im gonna need proof that no white man has ever been executed for being part of the crime without pulling the trigger before we can say american law is trying to kill black people. i just said that charles manson didnt kill anyone but was found just as guilty as the people that did the killing.

By the way, at the same time I totally get what Unique is saying, let's look at Manson as the easiest example: clearly none of his "family"'s murders would've happened without him, so clearly he is guilty.

I just disagree on the punishment. I don't really think it's wrong with sentencing people for the consequences of a crime they were involved in, even if they didn't foresee that consequence. But fuck, American courts overdo it. Stop just trying to fix everything with harsher punishments. It's not working. The opposite, in fact.
And it's unfair. And it's unjust.

But talking Manson, sure, lock him up, lose the key.

Edit: wasn't talking about Unique's post right before this one though.

VivaStPauli wrote:

Unique wrote:would you kill someone that killed your family if you had the chance.

Of course I would (or at least might), I also would (or at least might) kill more people for less, but that's why I'm not the police, or the justice system. And I genuinely think that I would not sentence someone to death as a judge, no matter their crime, because it's barbaric. I can readily admit that I (probably) wouldn't hold up to the same ethical standards I demand from the judiciary. That is why vigilantism is illegal. The person directly hurt by a crime really shouldn't decide the punishment.

so you would be willing to kill someone but you think other people should not be willing to kill someone

@viva where do you stand on giving a prisoner a bit of pain and water bording to get infomation for the greater good.

Agreed McLewis. Torture doesn't work. Period. It's a proven fact. There are more effective methods.

sportsczy wrote:Agreed McLewis. Torture doesn't work. Period. It's a proven fact. There are more effective methods.

It never works.

It’s movie propaganda. Action movies have made a lot of people think it’s a viable way to get information.

Read a study about how 60% of all torture in movies result in the assailants getting the information they need to solve their problem.

There clearly a problem with how torture is portrayed in pop culture. How deliberate that portrait of torture is to minimise American methods can be speculated

Unique wrote:@viva where do you stand on giving a prisoner a bit of pain and water bording to get infomation for the greater good.

Absolutely against it.
1) It doesn't work. People are compelled by torture to get the torture to stop, not to tell the truth.
2) More importantly: it's just as barbaric as capital punishment, so of course no civilized country does it.

VivaStPauli wrote:

Unique wrote:@viva where do you stand on giving a prisoner a bit of pain and water bording to get infomation for the greater good.

Absolutely against it.
1) It doesn't work. People are compelled by torture to get the torture to stop, not to tell the truth.
2) More importantly: it's just as barbaric as capital punishment, so of course no civilized country does it.

i mean like if a terrorist has kidnapped a bunch of children and is going to kill them do you think it would be ok to start pulling his teeth out and snapping his fingers until he tells you where they are.

Unique wrote:

VivaStPauli wrote:

Unique wrote:@viva where do you stand on giving a prisoner a bit of pain and water bording to get infomation for the greater good.

Absolutely against it.
1) It doesn't work. People are compelled by torture to get the torture to stop, not to tell the truth.
2) More importantly: it's just as barbaric as capital punishment, so of course no civilized country does it.

i mean like if a terrorist has kidnapped a bunch of children and is going to kill them do you think it would be ok to start pulling his teeth out and snapping his fingers until he tells you where they are.

Only works in movies

sportsczy wrote:Agreed McLewis.  Torture doesn't work.  Period.  It's a proven fact.  There are more effective methods.

it does

Freeza wrote:

Unique wrote:

VivaStPauli wrote:

Absolutely against it.
1) It doesn't work. People are compelled by torture to get the torture to stop, not to tell the truth.
2) More importantly: it's just as barbaric as capital punishment, so of course no civilized country does it.

i mean like if a terrorist has kidnapped a bunch of children and is going to kill them do you think it would be ok to start pulling his teeth out and snapping his fingers until he tells you where they are.

Only works in movies

trust me thats not true.

if the police arrests me for terrorism and start pulling my teeth out, i would even admit doing 9/11 so they would stop...

Unique wrote:

Hapless_Hans wrote:It's easy really.

They're not allowed to lynch their black people anymore, now they execute them.

Bottom line, they just really, really like to kill black people.

im gonna need proof that no white man has ever been executed for being part of the crime without pulling the trigger before we can say american law is trying to kill black people. i just said that charles manson didnt kill anyone but was found just as guilty as the people that did the killing.

Nah but the percentages are so skewed, like more than 50% of death row inmates and people who have been executed are black.
It's absolutely clear that the mechansim in the Southern states of US is very easy, someone got killed? find a black guy and pin it on him, chances are he gets executed

of course that's not every case and not every black inmate is innocent, but the imbalance is crazy

RealGunner wrote:if the police arrests me for terrorism and start pulling my teeth out, i would even admit doing 9/11 so they would stop...

I would admit to that and more before they even start tbh

I'm for the death penalty simply because it's an easy way to address overpopulation... start by killing off the scumbags. It's not like prison "rehabilitates" anyone (at least in the US it doesn't). And what's the point of life in prison.

Just shoot them in the head and cremate them. Most efficient way to go.

sportsczy wrote:I'm for the death penalty simply because it's an easy way to address overpopulation...  start by killing off the scumbags.  It's not like prison "rehabilitates" anyone (at least in the US it doesn't).  And what's the point of life in prison.

Just shoot them in the head and cremate them.  Most efficient way to go.

It shouldn't be that simple because that way, corrupt governments would use that option to forever silence their opposition by framing them.

The death penalty should be an option only when the accused has been proven guilty beyond any shred of doubt, has no mental illnesses whatsoever, and did something beyond unspeakable and evil.

The Demon of Carthage wrote:

sportsczy wrote:I'm for the death penalty simply because it's an easy way to address overpopulation...  start by killing off the scumbags.  It's not like prison "rehabilitates" anyone (at least in the US it doesn't).  And what's the point of life in prison.

Just shoot them in the head and cremate them.  Most efficient way to go.

It shouldn't be that simple because that way, corrupt governments would use that option to forever silence their opposition by framing them.

The death penalty should be an option only when the accused has been proven guilty beyond any shred of doubt, has no mental illnesses whatsoever, and did something beyond unspeakable and evil.

thats the argument for serial killers. ted bundy was found sane and sentenced to death but if you look at some of the stuff he did you could argue that no sane person could have done them things.

Unique wrote:

The Demon of Carthage wrote:

sportsczy wrote:I'm for the death penalty simply because it's an easy way to address overpopulation...  start by killing off the scumbags.  It's not like prison "rehabilitates" anyone (at least in the US it doesn't).  And what's the point of life in prison.

Just shoot them in the head and cremate them.  Most efficient way to go.

It shouldn't be that simple because that way, corrupt governments would use that option to forever silence their opposition by framing them.

The death penalty should be an option only when the accused has been proven guilty beyond any shred of doubt, has no mental illnesses whatsoever, and did something beyond unspeakable and evil.

thats the argument for serial killers. ted bundy was found sane and sentenced to death but if you look at some of the stuff he did you could argue that no sane person could have done them things.

Precisely my point. Once you prove beyond any doubt that the accused has no mental illnesses whatsoever, what's left to say except that they are evil?

An evil person is a sane person as well. The only difference is that they are perfectly aware of what they are doing, and most importantly, know perfectly that what they're doing is wrong and yet do it anyway.

If I have a little bit of time, I'm going to post here a real-life story that happened in Tunisia not too long ago and turned the whole country upside down. And I'll let you be the judge as to whether or not the accusers deserve the death penalty or not.

The Demon of Carthage wrote:

sportsczy wrote:I'm for the death penalty simply because it's an easy way to address overpopulation...  start by killing off the scumbags.  It's not like prison "rehabilitates" anyone (at least in the US it doesn't).  And what's the point of life in prison.

Just shoot them in the head and cremate them.  Most efficient way to go.

It shouldn't be that simple because that way, corrupt governments would use that option to forever silence their opposition by framing them.

The death penalty should be an option only when the accused has been proven guilty beyond any shred of doubt, has no mental illnesses whatsoever, and did something beyond unspeakable and evil.

You only execute the death penalty after all the appellate recourses have been exhausted. That's plenty of checks and balances in the US at least...