Top Execution Contries

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by DegreeDazed, Oct 11, 2011.

Loading...
  1. DegreeDazed

    DegreeDazed Member

  2. jts

    jts New Member

  3. major56

    major56 Active Member

    Former liberal democrat Texas Governor (1991 to 1995) Ann Richards presided over 48 executions—more than Gov. George W. Bush (1995 to 2000). There have been 234 executions under Perry's 11-year watch. Nonetheless, the Governor of Texas can only grant clemency from death sentences if it is recommended by the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. Perry has commuted 31 death sentences.
     
  4. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    I don't think we should try to compete with an Islamic third-world country that will behead you with a sword for a multitude of crimes that aren't first-degree murder.

    I'm all for the death penalty, provided it's meted out after due process, such as our bifurcated system with capital cases (seperate trials for guilt and punishment).
     
  5. BrandeX

    BrandeX New Member

    Interesting list. Let's see how many dominant, first world leaders which should an example to the rest of the planet are on there. Well, we got America and uhh... oh Japan (but I recall in 2010 one of the election stories in the news they almost never do it, it being a very special case usually). Everyone else on the list who can (and apparently not all do every year) execute people is...

    well you can see what kind of group we are lumped with eh?
     
  6. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    Texas: It doesn't matter how many innocent people get executed, just as long as we get to execute somebody.
     
  7. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    Troy Davis: Seven of nine witnesses recanted their story. There is evidence that one of the two remaining witnesses was actually the perpetrator and the other witness was sleep deprived a couldnt confidently recall what the perpetrator looked like. What's more is what during the trial the prosecution pulled that BS about "Is the person you saw in this room? Can you point to him?"

    Well, gee, it's not like it's a secret which person the defendant was.

    Then there is the fact that the ballistics evidence was discredited... ugh...

    Nice going, Georgia, at least you got to execute somebody.
     
  8. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    Question: How many people executed (in ANY state) since Furman v. Georgia have later been proven innocent?

    Answer: Zero.

    Roger Keith Coleman was the anti-death penalty people's big hope for the "smoking gun", since he proclaimed his innocence right until the very end. His last words were "An innoncent man is going to die tonight".

    Even though there were no more legal appeals, Virginia Governor Mark Warner voluntarily allowed advanced DNA testing of the physical evidence (not available at the time of his conviction/execution), and guess what?

    GUILTY!!!!

    USATODAY.com - DNA tests confirm man executed in 1992 was guilty

    Yes, our current system does work!!
     
  9. major56

    major56 Active Member

    It’s understandable you’re in opposition to the death penalty no matter the crime or victim/s … and that’s your prerogative. Nonetheless, can you provide credible /explicit example/s regarding those [innocent] of a capital murder conviction in Texas that have been subsequently executed?
     
  10. mcjon77

    mcjon77 Member

    If it was later proven that a recent execution (say, in the last 10 years) was the result of a wrongful conviction of an innocent man would you change your opinion of the death penalty?
     
  11. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member

    Are you talkign about Kirk Bloodsworth?

    I doubt this would change someones outlook on the death penalty.

    Another similar social stance is that of an anti gun person. You could ask them that if there were one instance of a kid or woman protecting themselves or their family home from an intruder/burglar/rapist with a gun (happens several times a year throughout the US) would they change their stance on guns? The answer is no.

    To them (anti-gun or pro death penalty) the outliers are not reason to doubt their stance on an issue.
     
  12. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    Cherry picking is popular among people who hold all positions. In the year 2011, there is enough information to support almost any position with the "facts and reasoning" that so many people believe to be only on their side, including the unbelievably extant notion that the earth is flat. The Flat Earth Society

    For example, which piece of information is important?

    1) It is estimated that there are millions of defensive gun uses in the United States per year.

    2) Prevalence of gun ownership in a country is directly proportional to murder, suicide and violent crime rates.

    Those two pieces of information are facts, and not just facts, but true facts.

    Pro-gun: Well, yes, prevalence of gun ownership is directly proportional to murder and suicide rates, but there are millions of defensive gun uses in the United States every year. Therefore, guns make the country safer overall.

    Anti-gun: Well, yes, there are millions of defensive gun uses in the United States every year, but the prevalence of gun ownership is directly proportional to murder and suicide rates. Therefore, guns make the country more dangerous overall.

    Well, which one has the stronger case? There are significantly more murders, violent crimes and suicides with the availability of guns, but there are also significantly more murders and violent crimes averted :confused: There are significantly less murders, violent crimes and suicides without the availability of guns, but there are also significantly less murders and violent crimes averted :confused:
     
  13. friendorfoe

    friendorfoe Active Member

    Getting a little off topic here... but would you care to source these "true facts" on gun control?

    You stated that gun ownership is proportional to murder and suicide rates and that gun proponents argue that since it is used for defensive purposes it justifies the higher rates of suicide and murder (I'm paraphrasing of course). Actually studies are pretty much conclusive that those states and even some countries (such as the UK) with less restrictive gun laws actually have a significant reduction in murder rates. For example the D.C. gun ban which was overturned by the Supreme Court or inversly the prohibition against private firearm ownership in the UK. The graphs on the following link are pretty telling (and note this is not an NRA site).

    Gun Control

    So your argument about gun control and the reason "pro-gun" people argue against it is actually incorrect in 2 ways...first in that proponents justify a higher murder rate because they actually do not believe there IS a higher murder rate...no justification needed there. Second because the "true facts" you espouse are indeed not factual.

    As for the death penalty article Yahoo has...I assume these rates are self reported by the nations responsible? I wonder how many Christians in Pakistan that have been stoned, bombed or otherwise slaughtered have been reported? Of course there was also the case of the girl who was raped then publicly stoned to death for her sexual immorality by a tribal council and carried out by the villagers (which is sickeningly common)...but I suppose that sort of death penalty doesn't count. I suppose if we just ran around shooting, mutilating or otherwise punishing offenses we see as we see them our government wouldn't have much need for a death penalty would they?
     
  14. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member

    I do not want to engage in a conversation about gun control. The 2nd amendment covers it enough for me ;)

    I will say that most people I talk to about any issues, and I include myself in that equation because I do the exact same thing, fall under this tidy little rule:

    "If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way"

    We all fall prey to this, liberals/conservatives/libertarians/progressives etc. We'll swallow as fact anything that confirms our bias and dismiss anything that does not confirm what we already believe.

    If you remeber this rule, it makes debating on the internet less about being right about something and convincing another person they are wrong (I doubt it has ever happened anyway so why look for it) and more about something to do to pass the time. We are all wasting our time here. If that is what we choose to do then so be it, but never forget we are wasting our time. I kind of like it sometimes.
     
  15. friendorfoe

    friendorfoe Active Member

    True enough...but then coffee shop banter and small talk are pretty much the same thing and I gladly participate in both. ;)
     

Share This Page