Maryland Death Penalty: Lawmakers Approve Measure To Ban Capital Punishment

[Will E Worm]

I clearly stated I was happy to make time to discuss this issue.

Why are you so eager to move on? There's nothing to agree to disagree about. You made a statement that is easy to quote, and you've been ask to clarify it. Why are you being evasive?

I already answered the question.

Time to agree to disagree and move on.


Why do you think politicians shouldn't do their jobs?

 

[Jeep!]

I already answered the question.

Time to agree to disagree and move on.


Why do you think politicians shouldn't do their jobs?

He never stated this, and you never answered the question.

 

[lurkingdirk]

The question has not been answered.

Will, you said you hoped for mass murders of American citizens. Is that what you really want? All that would accomplish is proving your point. Do you hope to have your point proved by mass murders of American citizens?

 

[Elwood70]

I just wanted to point out the fact that I love the way the edit feature on this board is set up.

 

[xfire]

I already answered the question. Time to agree to disagree and move on. Why do you think politicians shouldn't do their jobs?

Elucidate me. What was the question, and what was your answer? What I'm asking is that you clarify the following statement-

I hope to see mass murders and crime in Maryland. :elaugh:

Now, if your contention is that you "answered the question" by stating that you want Maryland lawmakers to "do their jobs", that's just obtuse because making law is their job, be that through new legislation or striking down old legislation. That you don't like what their doing doesn't mean they're "not doing their jobs".

 

[Will E Worm]

Now, if your contention is that you "answered the question" by stating that you want Maryland lawmakers to "do their jobs", that's just obtuse because making law is their job, be that through new legislation or striking down old legislation. That you don't like what their doing doesn't mean they're "not doing their jobs".

I did answer the question.

Criminals can't just be allowed to walk free all the time. They have to be punished, sometimes they have to be put to death.

The politicians don't want to do their jobs. They want to step over the line and tell us not to drink or eat something.
That's not their job at all.

Now I am done with this. Agree to disagree or agree.

 

[Elwood70]

Oh fuck it, just fuck it....

 

[Mayhem]

I did answer the question.

Criminals can't just be allowed to walk free all the time. They have to be punished, sometimes they have to be put to death.

The politicians don't want to do their jobs. They want to step over the line and tell us not to drink or eat something.
That's not their job at all.

Now I am done with this. Agree to disagree or agree.

Who said anything about being allowed to walk free? Why do you make shit up? And why do you bemoan a lack of freedom in one statement and give up all freedom in another?

Will there is nothing about you to agree or disagree with. Your mind is a bag of cats. You don't know what you believe in because everything you say contradicts something else you say.

 

[Jeep!]

I did answer the question.

Criminals can't just be allowed to walk free all the time. They have to be punished, sometimes they have to be put to death.

The politicians don't want to do their jobs. They want to step over the line and tell us not to drink or eat something.
That's not their job at all.

Now I am done with this. Agree to disagree or agree.

That has nothing to do with your statement. You said you wanted to see civilians murdered. That has absolutely nothing to do with politicians doing their job. Why do you want to see civilians murdered? Answer the question and stop changing the subject. You know you're being evasive so stop it.

 

[xfire]

I did answer the question. Criminals can't just be allowed to walk free all the time. They have to be punished, sometimes they have to be put to death. The politicians don't want to do their jobs. They want to step over the line and tell us not to drink or eat something. That's not their job at all. Now I am done with this. Agree to disagree or agree.

There's nothing here to agree to disagree with. You refuse to clarify your statement because you are a coward. You said a despicable thing, and now you're trying to walk it back. Unfortunately for you, once you post something on FreeOnes it'll be here forever. Let's revisit, once more, the disgusting post you made-

I hope to see mass murders and crime in Maryland. :elaugh:

Are you denying that you made that post?

I know it's hard for you to engage in actual debate and discussion because you don't have someone that's not stupid sitting there with you telling you what to say. Perhaps, then, you should be more careful about the stupid shit you post. I know you usually get a pass and aren't held accountable for the shit you spew, but there are rare occasions, such as this, that your feet are held to the fire. It's quite amusing to watch you squirm, but it's more sad for showcasing how dumb you really are.

 

[bobjustbob]

For a long time I believed in capitol punishment but DNA testing has shifted my view of it.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

For a long time I believed in capitol punishment but DNA testing has shifted my view of it.

I think that same scientific advancement is what now makes it more acceptable. I have heard of more then one capitol case, in which the judge refused to allow any further testing, and the convicted was on death row. That is not acceptable, if there is a possibility they could be exonerated, or further proved to be guilty, that should happen. If there is doubt, commute to life, if there is no doubt, accelerate the process. As I posted earlier, in today's world, with the science we have, and the cameras on every corner, there is no reason an innocent man should die, or a guilty one should live. The costs of the death penalty ARE NOT because of the electricity, or gas, or drugs used to execute, it's because of all of the court time, and lawyer fees. This situation could be fixed, and still be a viable option, but the laws and process needs to be tweaked big time. This is the kind of shit our politicians should be working on, not taking away the civil rights of law abiding citizens.

And before someone gives me grief, I don't just mean firearms, I mean ALL of the civil rights that we've lost....including the right to give yourself tooth rot by drinking a gallon of pop a day.

 

[Elwood70]

For a long time I believed in capitol punishment but DNA testing has shifted my view of it.

Me,too. Funny how progress and having an open mind can do that.

Now;if we can just get rid of the propaganda about the death penalty being the cheaper alternative...

 

[lurkingdirk]

Okay, Will, I'm fine with agreeing to disagree, but that is not at all what this situation calls for. Perhaps you're too obtuse to understand that, so let me spell it out. You were asked a direct question, not a question that we can agree to disagree on, one that requires you to answer "yes" or "no." Can you do that? Look, here is literally everything you have said in this thread:

True.


Hope they don't do away with it.

If they do I hope to see mass murders and crime in Maryland. :elaugh:

I am not a threat nor am I for terrorism.


You like big government and hate freedom. Terrible.

That is why doing away with the death penalty is a bad thing.

If people die, it will be the lawmakers in Maryland's fault.

Not to prove anyone's point. They just don't want to do their job.

Just give criminals move power and put everyone else in danger.

Maryland has never used the death penalty correctly.

They had crime, now it will escalate.

The taxes will increase due to more life without parole.

I keep finding articles to do away with the death penalty and life without parole.


So, just give criminals a slap on the wrist and hope they will not commit another crime?
Liberals are nuts.


John Wayne Gacy's first imprisonment was for ten years. They let him out after one year and four months for good behavior.


Look what he did after that.






That is one of their jobs. Like it or not.

Prosecutor says he has no doubt about Troy Davis' guilt Link

They should be made to take responsibility. Then again people will not get together to do anything important, they are too busy watching American Idol.




It's their agenda. Guns bad, real criminals get a slap on the wrist.

This was the answer. The lawmakers don't want to do their job.

So, it will be their fault when crime escalates.

I'm not saying people need to be murdered. Politicians need to do their job.

Well, you need to.



Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean anything.




Stop being arrogant.

:noway:

:troll:

Where would you be without lies and trolling?

Because someone just can't drop it and stop trolling?

That's not my fault.

The only problem is you can't just agree to disagree and move on.

Do you really not have anything better to do with your time?

Then do them and learn to agree to disagree and move on.

No, you just can't let anything go and move on.

The only people that talk about banning is those on the left.
Because someone doesn't agree with them.

:crybaby:

I already answered the question.

Time to agree to disagree and move on.


Why do you think politicians shouldn't do their jobs?

I did answer the question.

Criminals can't just be allowed to walk free all the time. They have to be punished, sometimes they have to be put to death.

The politicians don't want to do their jobs. They want to step over the line and tell us not to drink or eat something.
That's not their job at all.

Now I am done with this. Agree to disagree or agree.

Now let me just point out part of your FIRST post one more time:

If they do I hope to see mass murders and crime in Maryland. :elaugh:

Allow me to restate the question that has been asked many, many times, but you HAVE NOT ANSWERED. You'll agree, if you aren't a potted plant, that this is not a question that can be answered "agree to disagree," as it requires a "yes" or "no" answer. Please, just answer the question:

Do you hope to see mass murders of innocent American people if they abolish the death penalty in Maryland.

We can agree to disagree on your logic, but you need to answer the question first. You haven't, because you're a coward, and a troll. You stir things up, and then leave, or respond with such vague, non-answers and single or double smilies, that people give up trying to get any answer from you. The fact is that you're the worst kind of troll, the kind that thinks he's always right, and can't look at logic, reason, or have any kind of meaningful discourse. You're incapable of debate, you're incapable of reasoned logic, and you're just a bad person.

Please. Answer the question directly. Yes, or no.

 

[HappyHapyJoyJoy]

I think that same scientific advancement is what now makes it more acceptable.

But isn't the advancement itself a sign that the system, and science, are imperfect?

Science (real science) never claims to have all the answers. We're limited by our perception of the universe, which in turn is limited by the tools we currently have available, thus one of the founding principles of true scientific theory is that scientific findings are always tentative. This is why everything that science has given us is a theory (something the ignorant like to try and use against science as a field; attempting to skewer it with it's one humility). It's not because there's missing evidence. It's not because there's contradictory evidence. It's because our methods of gathering evidence are limited and often imperfect. Science, as a result, doesn't claim to have all of the answers, that's what separates science from religion. Science doesn't prove, it only ever supports and disproves.

So now we have DNA which has shown how fallible the system has been in the past. Problem being that most cases aren't based on DNA evidence and it can't help there. And beyond that, before DNA it was fingerprints that so revolutionized criminal investigations and made everything before hand seem so imperfect. So we have to ask ourselves, what comes after DNA to show how flawed things still are right now?

 

[Jeep!]

But isn't the advancement itself a sign that the system, and science, are imperfect?

Science (real science) never claims to have all the answers. We're limited by our perception of the universe, which in turn is limited by the tools we currently have available, thus one of the founding principles of true scientific theory is that scientific findings are always tentative. This is why everything that science has given us is a theory (something the ignorant like to try and use against science as a field; attempting to skewer it with it's one humility). It's not because there's missing evidence. It's not because there's contradictory evidence. It's because our methods of gathering evidence are limited and often imperfect. Science, as a result, doesn't claim to have all of the answers, that's what separates science from religion. Science doesn't prove, it only ever supports and disproves.

So now we have DNA which has shown how fallible the system has been in the past. Problem being that most cases aren't based on DNA evidence and it can't help there. And beyond that, before DNA it was fingerprints that so revolutionized criminal investigations and made everything before hand seem so imperfect. So we have to ask ourselves, what comes after DNA to show how flawed things still are right now?

In all fairness, any failings that DNA testing highlight are present throughout the legal system and not just on death row; furthermore I tend to agree with what I believe revidffum's point was--that the same level of testing which has exonerated innocent people in the past also serves to prevent them being convicted needlessly in the first place. Yes, there's likely going to be further advances in forensics that exonerate other wrongful convictions in the future, but you can't say modern evidence technology is securing releases for wrongful convictions without also seeing that it prevents a degree of them happening again in the future too--the better our technology is, the more accurate our convictions will be going forward, which does tend to strengthen people's belief in the safety of convictions, even as exonerations will shake the beliefs of those who oppose execution. They're both valid views and they're both right in a way, but it comes down to personally choosing whether you think that any mistaken executions at all are enough to oppose the entire system, or believing that a constantly-decreasing rate of it going forward means that favouring it is more and more palatable for you.

 

[HappyHapyJoyJoy]

In all fairness, any failings that DNA testing highlight are present throughout the legal system and not just on death row...

Absolutely. It's just death is... kind of final. And since justice is imperfect that tends not to sit well with me. That said I think there are absolutely people who cannot be reformed nor treated, and who've done things so heinous that they deserve to die. This leaves me conflicted when it comes to capital punishment.

...furthermore I tend to agree with what I believe revidffum's point was--that the same level of testing which has exonerated innocent people in the past also serves to prevent them being convicted needlessly in the first place. Yes, there's likely going to be further advances in forensics that exonerate other wrongful convictions in the future, but you can't say modern evidence technology is securing releases for wrongful convictions without also seeing that it prevents a degree of them happening again in the future too--the better our technology is, the more accurate our convictions will be going forward, which does tend to strengthen people's belief in the safety of convictions, even as exonerations will shake the beliefs of those who oppose execution.

Certainly, but in most cases DNA is irrelevant (DNA only factors into about 10% of violent crimes). Just like in most cases fingerprints are irrelevant. So while these advances can exonerate some, they are inapplicable to most. So what advances will come that further shed light on innocent people who've been wrongfully convicted? While advances in forensic science give greater confidence in the system, that confidence doesn't reflect the reality. People have the impression that DNA is the Holy Grail, but when it isn't a factor in 90% of cases... :dunno:

 

[xfire]

Here's a homegrown douche bag that I personally know. Life in prison. I would have preferred he was executed.

http://www.ktre.com/Global/story.asp?S=5789001

I've mentioned James Byrd Jr. a few times in other threads. I don't personally know any of the douche bags involved in that crime, but yeah, I have to admit, I didn't feel any sadness when they executed Lawrence Brewer.

http://www.ktre.com/story/15519223/man-convicted-in-jasper-dragging-death-executed

These are pretty clear cut cases, without any doubt the accused are guilty. I have no problem with the death penalty under these circumstances. Now, if you take a case like Barry Beach, where there is some question, no, I don't agree with the sentence.

http://billingsgazette.com/news/loc...cle_68ec8964-07aa-56bf-b99b-788499bb15d5.html

I believe that capital punishment should be an option.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

But isn't the advancement itself a sign that the system, and science, are imperfect?

Science (real science) never claims to have all the answers. We're limited by our perception of the universe, which in turn is limited by the tools we currently have available, thus one of the founding principles of true scientific theory is that scientific findings are always tentative. This is why everything that science has given us is a theory (something the ignorant like to try and use against science as a field; attempting to skewer it with it's one humility). It's not because there's missing evidence. It's not because there's contradictory evidence. It's because our methods of gathering evidence are limited and often imperfect. Science, as a result, doesn't claim to have all of the answers, that's what separates science from religion. Science doesn't prove, it only ever supports and disproves.

So now we have DNA which has shown how fallible the system has been in the past. Problem being that most cases aren't based on DNA evidence and it can't help there. And beyond that, before DNA it was fingerprints that so revolutionized criminal investigations and made everything before hand seem so imperfect. So we have to ask ourselves, what comes after DNA to show how flawed things still are right now?

Ya know, I don't know what to tell you. At some point you have to just accept it as a reasonable effort. I can't see paying to support people that studies have proven will NEVER be reformable....if that's the way to phrase it. Studies have shown child molesters are almost ...I know ALMOST, always likely to commit the crime again. So, if they do it once, lock em up for a long time, very long time, and castrate them. If they do it again, kill em. If someone kills a child, there is no reason they should be allowed to live, AS LONG AS IT IS PROVEN BY DNA, OR VIDEO EVIDENCE. As far as your comments on science, I can't speak intelligently about that, but really, we can't continue to be expected to pay for 3 hots and a cot, for people that serve no purpose.

 

[lurkingdirk]

Good discussion. Anyone else hope to see Will answer the question?