Not Willing to Lose? You’re a Loser

[aCultureWarrior]

Then there's the palm print. The shoe print. The DNA...

Amongst many other things in the case, what strikes me as odd is why a kidnapper would write out a ransom note (for the same exact amount that John Ramsey received as his bonus, $118,000), and then decide instead to take JonBenet to the basement (which would have been difficult to find for someone that didn't know the layout of the house), and rape and murder her, still leaving the ransom note behind.

If the kidnapper was a pedophile as well, why not take the little girl elsewhere and still cash in on the ransom?

Insisting, after all this time, given the preponderance of evidence against the idea, that the Ramseys murdered their daughter strikes me as simply vicious, mean-spirited, and spiteful for its own sake.

You've mentioned numerous times former? Satanist that those of us that don't fall for the Ramsey lies are "mean-spirited".

Give it a rest.

 

[Christian Liberty]

An unreasonable standard. No human system will ever be able to establish guilty perfectly. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is the best we will ever be able to do. If you insist on that standard, then to be consistent you must insist on that standard for all penalties for all crimes. I'm sorry but the only reason the anti-death penalty crowd demands this standard is because it sounds nice and it isn't immediately obvious that it's utterly impossible.

If you want to be honest then you shouldn't set impossible standards. If you want to be consistent then you should apply your standard across the board. You don't do either and that strongly indicates your rejection of the death penalty is an emotional decision, rather than a rational one. Now, that's fine but people who want to make this decision rationally are going to recognize this argument as non-rational and quite rightly reject it.

I guess the real question is, do we want to execute someone knowing full well that evidence might come up later that would acquit them?

I think the judges who are passing those sentences should be held accountable to the point where they know they could be sentenced for manslaughter if he makes the wrong call. In cases that are obvious enough that a judge would be fine with that, I'm OK with it.

 

[Granite]

I guess the real question is, do we want to execute someone knowing full well that evidence might come up later that would acquit them?

I think the judges who are passing those sentences should be held accountable to the point where they know they could be sentenced for manslaughter if he makes the wrong call. In cases that are obvious enough that a judge would be fine with that, I'm OK with it.

If you support capital punishment you do so knowing innocent people will be executed. You either accept that reality or you oppose the death penalty.

 

[Arthur Brain]

If you support capital punishment you do so knowing innocent people will be executed. You either accept that reality or you oppose the death penalty.

Yep, it really is as simple as that. :thumb:

 

[Bob Enyart]

CL, what difference coult it possibly make?

CL, what difference coult it possibly make?

I guess the real question is, do we want to execute someone knowing full well that evidence might come up later that would acquit them?

CL, based on your theology, what possible difference could it make? By your Calvinism, every person who has been executed for a crime they didn't commit was so executed by the eternal decree of God which He determined before the foundation of the Earth. So you seem to be insisting on a consideration that would make you more righteous than God; because, by your theology, He doesn't care all that much for that consideration. Further, every country that has the death penalty, has it because God eternally decreed they would; and every country that doesn't, doesn't for the same reason. If God hasn't decreed that a particular person not be executed, then they won't be (thus God seems to work His will on this more evidently in California than elsewhere). And if He has decreed that they will be executed, then even if for some peculiar reason (peculiar things happen all the time), the only possible way for them to be executed would be for you CL to chew them to death, then they'd be executed. No?

-Bob Enyart
opentheism.org

 

[Lighthouse]

CL, based on your theology, what possible difference could it make? By your Calvinism, every person who has been executed for a crime they didn't commit was so executed by the eternal decree of God which He determined before the foundation of the Earth. So you seem to be insisting on a consideration that would make you more righteous than God; because, by your theology, He doesn't care all that much for that consideration. Further, every country that has the death penalty, has it because God eternally decreed they would; and every country that doesn't, doesn't for the same reason. If God hasn't decreed that a particular person not be executed, then they won't be (thus God seems to work His will on this more evidently in California than elsewhere). And if He has decreed that they will be executed, then even if for some peculiar reason (peculiar things happen all the time), the only possible way for them to be executed would be for you CL to chew them to death, then they'd be executed. No?

-Bob Enyart
opentheism.org

CL was banned for his disrespect of veterans on Veterans' Day.