Kewl.

Short Answer: Yes..

Detailed Answer: In one sense, I wouldn't be "okay" with even one innocent defendant being put to death.

But, the question entails certain assumptions. That being the case, I'll make the assumptions explicit by noting the two possible scenarios:

Scenario One: 1000 defendants are found guilty of murder. All of them are sentenced to life without parole. 5 are at some point are found to have been wrongfully convicted, and are released from prison.

Scenario Two: 1000 defendants are found guilty of murder. All of them are executed. 5 at some point after their execution are found to have been wrongfully convicted.

In my personal opinion, I believe that 995 convicted murderers receiving their proper punishment while 5 are wrongfully executed is more just than 0 convicted murderers receiving their just punishment while 5 innocents are killed.

That's my argument for preferring Scenario #2. I need to again emphasize that this is my opinion, and should not be construed as anything other than that.

This is an important point. We are not talking about 5 people plucked at random out of 1000 and executed for no reason.

All of them were found guilty in a court of law. We are not talking about some vigilante situation where the vigilantes are wrong 0.5% of the time.

So, you agree with me that unborn babies are a precious human life?

I hope so!

We all know england sucks at football. That's clear. But they've just performed an amazing gene therapy (gene editing) which appears to have cured a teen's untreatable cancer. Just amazing and promising

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...atable-cancers

It's amazing. Part of how we're living through a seismic change in science/tech faster than anything we have ever experienced. We talk a lot about covid vaccinations but it's easy to not notice what an extraordinary achievement the vaccine was for mankind.

I agree, it's easy to get distracted by all the bs and endless negative new cycles. But it's good to be reminded there are some very gifted, hard working scientists bringing us into a potentially better future

Very well said!

No don’t put me in this position .
Im showing u don’t respect your own logic .

If it had been something unjust, that could make a difference. The WNBA player was neither of those, just released as a political showcase.

Your link also said nothing about this guy getting hooked on medicine because of chronic pain.

But even if it had, it would be unlikely to get my sympathy.
I have chronic pain myself for which I get no Rx, and in the past when I had dental work or something for which I was prescribed painkillers, I only took them when I couldn't stand the pain any longer and never even took all of the small number of pills I was given, because I didn't want the chance to become addicted. For the same reason, I have never taken any street drugs.

It's pretty easy not to take heroin.

Personally I am pro-choice (and against the way the death penalty is currently used) , but I never have found anything illogical about being anti-abortion and supporting the death penalty for terrible crimes.

Again, the executed criminals have been convicted by a legal system which strives to convict only those guilty of breaking the social contract, not those who are just an inconvenience.

I'm totally consistent in believing that nobody should be killed without due process first.

The innocent man falsely charged with murder has a lawyer representing his interests.

Who is defending the right of the unborn baby to live?

Well said.

He said he was with death penalty even knowing some innocent were getting killed , as long the numbers are low ….



While being against abortion even if it was coming from
Rape or crap like that ….

If u can’t see the absurdity of this I just can’t help u there …..
It’s even claiming a cell in uterus should have more protection then an actual
Living human being ….

There is no way u can be 100% against abortion at inception under the assumption of all life should be unilaterally protected while accepting any number higher to 0 of innocent human being killed for W.e reasons …

I think you missed my earlier response:

It is not my position that innocent lives must be protected at all costs no matter what.

If that was the case, I'd favor a law prohibiting children from riding bicycles and skateboards. For that matter, I'd favor a law prohibiting parents from allowing their kids to ever leave their house aside from a medical emergency.

addendum: And I'm certainly open to the idea that abortions might in some cases be allowable by law in cases such as rape and incest.

My major issue has been against the "abortion on demand" position. That a woman has a right to kill her unborn baby for any reason up until (and even beyond) three months.

Shipping Container Border Wall


https://www.huffpost.com/entry/doug-...b0c2814644999d

We can not change that bad people do and will live amongst us.

Knowing that we know some people will be subject to horrendous crimes perpetrated by them, up to and including, the taking of innocent lives. It is horrid but we know that is what bad people will do.


Having instead the State, that we empower to protect us. be able to walk in, take away an innocent person and end their life wrongly, is a much higher abuse, imo than a criminal doing the same. There is no bigger crime, imo, then a completely innocent person being killed by the State whom he empowered to protect him.

Don't you pretend to be Pro Life?

Why not just advocate for them all to be locked up for life, which is cheaper, which then allows for the 5 who are innocent to have a chance to have justice served and them get out?

Its one of the main reasons I detested Kamela Harris. She denied inmates the right to DNA tests that would prove their innocence. One was a death row inmate to boot

DNA testing is one of the reasons we could now bring back a death penalty and set standards to when it can be used

Just to be clear this is what i was speaking to.

In my experience far too many Americans seem to have a callous disregard for the suffering of others ESPECIALLY if they managed, themselves to not fall in to hard times due to certain life challenges.

So you say 'I have chronic pain and managed to not slide into addiction... so i have no sympathy for those who do, lose everything and end up doing some petty crime multiple times in three strike States and end up jailed for life'.


There simply is no 'grace' in your position. No 'but for the grace of God... go I' type recognition that sometimes with just one wrong turn or some bad luck you could be that person?

For instance what if your pain was worse and you also had a very irresponsible Dr who was pushing way more Oxy on you? Can you still speak to certainty that you would not have slipped and fell to worse outcomes?

I do not want to call this out as just an American thing (mostly predominant on the right, where until a person has a gay person, etc in their family they just have no empathy) but it is far more commonly an American thing than what i see in Canada or Europe.

Probably a result of countries who have bigger social safety nets, seeing themselves as more connected to one another????

Yes.

I think I answered that already.

If innocent (of the alleged crime) humans end up getting murdered by the State, this is simply lipstick on a pig, morally and ethically it changes nothing indeed ethically it is worse as the State has a duty of care to its citizens.

Shortstackers position is an inherent absurdity, murder is such a terrible crime, its ok to murder people to punish it.

Also lets bear in mind that murder by the State in this instance is going to inflict more suffering that many if not most non state murders, an individual will have to endure the mental torture of the accusation, jail, trial, prison, then murder. A cruel and unusual process for an innocent that can take months if not years.

Its simply disgusting and beyond redemption to support the murder of the non guilty in this situation.

I am now about to do what everyone says is impossible. Change your mind about something. An accomplishment that not even Trump thinks he can do. But you must publicly acknowledge it in order for me to go down in history and take my proper place alongside of Socrates and Plato.

The reason you will not advocate refraining from executing those 1000 people is that 995 are not getting their "proper punishment". I need not know what exactly you mean by that, probably its bible inspired. But whatever you meant I will give you two reasons why letting them escape proper punishment is not worse than executing five innocent people. The obvious first reason is that the alternate punishment is plenty awful. Many think it is worse than death. When you first gave your reply of "five" I assumed that you were worried that some of the 995 would not spend life in prison. And I was surprised when you posted that your assumption was that they all would. Pot odds wise you are essentially saying that the mistake of executing an innocent person is about 200 times worse than sending a murderer to prison for life rather than executing him.

But since you said "five" while presumably being quite opposed to "ten" you are proclaiming that executing an innocent is definitely 100 times worse than mispunishing the murderer, but NOT more than 200 times worse. Is this the type of stance you feel comfortable holding? Do you think if Jesus was asked the question, I asked you, he would ever reply (or think) the answer should be "somewhere around five"? If giving the "proper punishment" is somehow a religious commandment not to be broken, five would almost certainly be way to low. If it's not a commandment it's almost certainly way too high.

You agree right?

Shortstacker being a pro life while thinking killing innocent is ok but not aborting .
Doesn’t killing innocent people forfeit the protection of their futur babies too ?
Why u think this has no value being pro life ?
Isn’t it the whole reason we always try to save women and children first ?

This is a logical fallacy. Accepting something negative as a possible consequence of something mostly positive is not the same thing as supporting the negative.

For example, I know that many people are killed in automobile accidents. However, I still support the legality of owning and driving cars. This does not imply that I support deaths by traffic accident, they are just an unfortunate side effect of the thing I support (the legality of driving). It's likely you feel similarly about driving, and may even drive a car yourself, despite the chance that you may kill someone every time you drive.

Can we stop with the schtick that "pro-life" must include being against capital punishment? Everyone knows that it applies to a different topic. Using that way it is no different than yelling "what about the laptop" at everything.