You are incorrect.

Now, if you care to put forth additional quotes that I have typed here, and explain how they are indicative of me being closed-minded and lacking the mental agility to analyze data, go ahead. You will likely fail to support your hypothesis, and then have to slink away with your tail between your legs in shame. That is, if you are capable of feeling shame – which seems unlikely.

Your move again, idiot.

Wrong. Idiot. You fail.

Try again.

This sounds like damage control to me.

Cherry picking, twisting my words around, clever word play, calling me stupid or insane , doesn’t change that, at all.

What are we cherry-picking? You stated yourself that you don’t care if an innocent man is killed by the state.

But then I realized that if the community desired final retribution, or thought of certain crimes as so heinous, that the people who committed them did not deserve to live, they were entitled to get their way, regardless of what I thought.

No, they don’t have that right. Why do you think the 8th amendment exists?

If the community desired, say, a final solution, I’m sure you’d be down with it too, Frank.

When will you guys learn that?”

The short answer, never.

“Please quote me and demonstrate how I am closed-minded, and how I am somehow impervious to rational application of logic and critical thought.”
‘

I already did Mambo, but once again;

“And when have you ever known conservatives to be right about anything?

1. Conservatives are never right about anything.
2. Conservatives think the death penalty is a good thing.

Therefore…
3. The death penalty is not a good thing.”

LOL, that’s a position you want to defend as an example of an open mind, and a statement that demonstates your abilities as a logician? You know the only real downside to shooting fish in a barrel is eventually the water will all leak out. Hack is a charitable term in your case, fraud might be closer to the truth.

I was, at one time, opposed to the death penalty, simply because I saw it as “One person is dead — the victim; then two people are dead — the victim and the killer.”

But then I realized that if the community desired final retribution, or thought of certain crimes as so heinous, that the people who committed them did not deserve to live, they were entitled to get their way, regardless of what I thought.

Cherry picking, twisting my words around, clever word play, calling me stupid or insane , doesn’t change that, at all.

When will you guys learn that?

Frank, responding with reason to most of what you’ve written here would be like having to tell a competent adult “No, the square peg doesn’t fit in the round hole.” This is, of course, assuming you’re a competent adult.

You’re “reasoning” on every point is so incoherent it reads like free association.

Re-read this, for instance:

The idea that executions should be done away with, because an innocent man might be executed, is in the same category with doing away with the Police Department because crimes are still being committed [see Amused Observer's comment above].

How, how is it the same? I defy you to give a logical explanation for the this comparison.

No, no, no, Jaim. They want the government to have less power! Which is why they want the government intruding on peoples’ bedrooms, want abortion banned, a Constitutional amendment against gay marriage, etc. They just EXPECT the government to kill people – it’s one of the few things that they think the government can do well, apparently.

Frank, you realize that this sentence makes no fucking sense, correct?

“there are innumerable opportunites to appeal the decision”

And yet, we know that the state has still murdered innocent people. This doesn’t change anything. If the conviction was based on bad evidence and nobody blows a whistle, the bad evidence remains.

“And, if a policeman has been found to give a false testimony, or a prosecutor has been found to deliberately force a false guilty verdict, or a judge has been found to have acted improperly, all their cases will be subject to closer scrutiny, to insure that none of those cases were cases of an innocent man being found guilty.”

So? We need higher standards. We need to get rid of bad cops and lawyers and judges. This isn’t either/or though. We need the best judicial system possible. But even the best system, since it’s a system run by humans and the government, will fail at times.

Just as with AO, I’m amazed at how much power you want the government to have, and how naive you are to think that they can operate without error.

fafaroo: An insult is an insult, not an argument. 1 out of 10 on the Intelligence Scale.

Sure would have an impact on him and his family though. Oh, but that’s of no concern. It’s served it’s “closure” function.

You said somewhere that you studied social sciences; I’m starting to think that you stopped reading after Auguste Comte’s idea of social cohesion at whatever the price.

Well, that’s a great argument. Executing the wrong person for no reason isn’t worse than executing the wrong person for a valid reason? Huh??? Gee, Mr. Innocent, not only is your death meaningless, the meaninglessness of your death is actually used as a justification! Seems sensible.

The fact that an innocent person may be killed doesn’t slake the desire for vengeance in the hearts of the victims, but it should have an impact on what the state decides to do to satiate that desire. Retribution should not be the state’s business. Justice should. The two are not synonymous.

And the surgery analogy doesn’t work. First, *I* decide if someone is going to perform surgery on me. I don’t make *someone else* submit to surgery. The state doesn’t compel people to submit to surgery. If I decide that I will undergo surgery, that it will not have the desired outcome, even through doctor error, is a risk I take and am aware that I am taking. There is no informed consent in capital punsishment.

What a load of crap !

If the death penalty has no deterrent value , then executing an innocent man would not affect it. If the the loved ones of the victims desire closure, the possibility that an innocent man might be executed would not affect that. If the community desires retribution, or feels that some person’s crimes are so heinous, that the fact that an innocent man could conceivably be executed (a remote chance) would not change that desire*.

Jaim, you’re one of the hypocrites: If anyone could be wrongfully executed, you’re supposed to be outraged. See? Already, you have decided that there is one innocent person being executed you don’t care about.

And, as for the “guilty” ones?

Surely, you wouldn’t be terribly upset if Pres Bush, or VP Cheney, or Secy Rice , ascended the gallows?

Hypocrite!

The level of disconcern you have with people’s lives
The lack of concern you have for people’s lives

Fixed

Thus ends Zython’s grammar. syntax and vocabulary lesson for today.

* In fact, it would tend to put pressure on the community — through its law enforcement and prosecution institutions — to make great efforts to see to it that the right man is caught and punished. The idea that executions should be done away with, because an innocent man might be executed, is in the same category with doing away with the Police Department because crimes are still being committed [see Amused Observer's comment above].

It isn’t.

It does not effect the victims’ loved ones desire for closure, in any way.

WTF??? Do you honestly believe that the victims’ families would not be traumatized to find out that the WRONG PERSON was not only convicted for the death of their loved one, but also EXECUTED for it??

It does not effect the community’s judgement that some crimes are so heinous, that the person who commits them does not deserve to live, in any way.

Even when the person who commits evil gets off scot free, and a perfectly innocent person is killed? I don’t want to live in your community, Frank.

It’s kinda hard to negatively impact an effect that doesn’t exist.

It does not effect the victims’ loved ones desire for vengeance, in any way.

Fixed.

can be considered “collateral damage” in the never – ending war on crime.

Wow…just wow. The level of disconcern you have with people’s lives is just fascinating. And by fascinating, I mean disgusting.