6
   

Latest Execution

 
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Nov, 2009 06:03 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

They both should have been executed!!


By your reasoning, both should have died. By my reasoning, both should have gotten life, no parole.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Nov, 2009 06:26 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

HUNTSVILLE, Texas " Robert Lee Thompson has been executed for his part
in a fatal Houston store holdup after the Texas governor rejected
a parole board's recommendation to spare him because he wasn't the gunman.

Too bad. If Thompson had a gun, he could have defended himself.
Presumably a Thompson Submachinegun;
maybe with a nice 200 round drum magazine.





0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Nov, 2009 06:36 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

They both should have been executed!!
Presumably, Thompson was executed after he was killed.
Remember that execute means to carry out or to follow out, like a barroom bouncer.
It is the death warrant that is executed by killing the prisoner.
Thereafter, what remains of the prisoner can be executed by throwing it out of the prison.





David
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Nov, 2009 06:42 pm
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
By your reasoning, both should have died. By my reasoning, both should have gotten life, no parole.


Nopoe.
If you commit a crime and someone at the scene dies, for ANY reason, while you are committing that crime, you get the death penalty, period.
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Nov, 2009 08:51 pm
@mysteryman,
Apparently, that is somewhat true in Texas and probably other places in the U.S.

Up here in civilized Canada we do not have the death penalty for any reason. A lot of innocent people have remained alive that way.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Nov, 2009 09:10 pm
@mysteryman,
That's what you get, generally speaking. It is not what I support.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Nov, 2009 09:29 pm
@edgarblythe,
The point of the thread not being, does anybody deserve punishment, but why it is so unequal. To me, it does not matter that two separate juries were involved. It was recommended to the governor that the sentence be commuted to life without parole, the same as the killer got. Which was a correction to the inequity, but was rejected by the governor. This same governor allowed the execution recently of a man for what all the tests determined was not a crime at all. The tests were not in the trial.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Nov, 2009 09:34 pm
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:

Apparently, that is somewhat true in Texas and probably other places in the U.S.

Up here in civilized Canada we do not have the death penalty for any reason.
A lot of innocent people have remained alive that way.
Therefore, if one is in Canada, and needs to be avenged,
he knows that government will not do the job for him,
so if he wants to get even, then he needs to do the job himself.

or, if she or he was killed in the crime,
then a son, husband, brother or good friend must avenge her or him,
if he believes that the victim is worth being avenged and not merely forgotten

In other words, the social contract is abrogated in Canada (but its OK in Texas)
by reason of the government 's default on that contract,
so the victim or her survivors are left to avenge her, on their own initiave.

The "state of nature" of which John Locke wrote
in his 2nd Treatise on Civil Government is restored again in Canada.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Nov, 2009 09:42 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

This same governor allowed the execution recently of a man for what all the tests determined was not a crime at all. The tests were not in the trial.
What was that ?
Green Witch
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Nov, 2009 09:45 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

They both should have been executed!!


Hmmm I wonder who else in history would have agreed with this statement.
Here's my guess:

Jesus Christ "No"
Stalin "Yes"
Mother Teresa "No"
Pol Pot "Yes"
Gandhi "No"
Hilter "Yes"
Nelson Mandela "No"
Idi Amin "Yes"
Anne Frank "No"
Vlad the Impaler "Yes"

We can tell a lot about ourselves by the people we agree or disagree with.




Green Witch
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Nov, 2009 09:47 pm
By the way, I'll put money on it that at least the guy who was executed was black. Texas seems to especially like executing black men.
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Nov, 2009 10:12 pm
@Green Witch,
Don't forget ...
George W. Bush ... "yes"
Rush Limbaug... "yes"
Bill O'Reilly... "yes"
Sarah Palin... "yes"

Anna Lee, founder of the Shaker's movement... "no"
Playwright Arthur Miller... "no"
William Penn... "no"
Pope John Paul II... "no"
Pope Benedict XVI... "no"
Andy Warhol... "no"

George Carlin... "yes and no" ... yes for white collar criminals like corrupt bankers.

Ooops... all over the place.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Nov, 2009 10:54 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

This same governor allowed the execution recently of a man for what all the tests determined was not a crime at all. The tests were not in the trial.
What was that ?


For the complete story, click here
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?currentPage=all
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Nov, 2009 06:43 am
@Green Witch,
Green Witch wrote:

By the way, I'll put money on it that at least the guy who was executed was black. Texas seems to especially like executing black men.


Robert Lee Thompson
http://z.about.com/d/crime/1/0/8/m/thompsonrobert.jpg
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Nov, 2009 06:50 am
@Intrepid,
The killing was one of three he acknowledged. In two of them, Thompson told detectives he was the gunman.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  2  
Reply Sat 21 Nov, 2009 07:01 am
@OmSigDAVID,
It seems to be about revenge with you. The death penalty is a cruel, inhumane and degrading punishment that is incompatible with human dignity. It has not been proven to be an effective deterrent and tends to be used in a discriminatory way based on race and class.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Nov, 2009 09:39 am
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:
It seems to be about revenge with you.
Revenge is the reason for TOLERATING the existence of government,
not that the guy that collects the garbage
or delivers the mail has to be on the public payroll.
(that and repelling alien invasions)
In fairness, the perpetrators shoud be killed in the same way
that thay killed their victims, insofar as that is reasonably practicable;
I wish that the Founders had added that to the 8th Amendment.




Intrepid wrote:
The death penalty is a cruel,
inhumane and degrading punishment that is
incompatible with human dignity.
Robbery n murder are cruel,
inhumane and degrading punishment that is
incompatible with human dignity; the victim has a right to be fully avenged. That 's what he pays his taxes for.
If government defaults on the social contract to avenge the victim
then the right to execute vengeance logically and morally reverts to the victim (or those who survive her).
Honor will be served. Vengeance will be served.









Intrepid wrote:
It has not been proven to be an effective deterrent [ ?? ]
The HELL it has not;
every criminal upon whom the death penalty has been inflicted
has been effectively deterred from further violence (except maybe on Halloween).








Intrepid wrote:

and tends to be used in a discriminatory way based on race and class.
I can live with that.





David
Intrepid
 
  0  
Reply Sat 21 Nov, 2009 11:13 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Rolling Eyes

Does that drivel explain why one was jailed and the other died?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Latest Execution
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.62 seconds on 11/09/2024 at 05:27:05