• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Controversy Builds in Texas Over an Execution

No, it's a lame ass argument. Criminal justice is the government's responsibility. The whole reason for having a criminal justice system is for the sake of public safety.

It's to uphold and protect the rights and liberties of the People. You still can't form coherent argument against the point.
 
Allow fewer appeals, execute them sooner.

So expedite all the problems with the system. yeah...that's an intelligent solution.
 
It's to uphold and protect the rights and liberties of the People.

That's right. It's they're job to protect our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A citizen can't do all that with a buncha murderers and thieves running amuck.
 
The following paragraph says it all:



Of course, Mr. Willingham was executed, and the shutting down of the investigation has all the earmarks of another Rick Perry cover up. Said Kay Bailey Hutchinson, who is running against Perry in the Republican primary:



What Perry did was unconscionable, and I sincerely hope that Hutchinson wins in a landslide. Perry needs to go. His Socialist agenda has hurt Texas, and his cover up here is only the final straw.

Article is here.

You know, dana, the only way that the death penalty can remain legitimate is if there is total transparency to the process and a strict adherence to the facts and code of justice.

It looks like what Perry did was criminal in nature.
 
That's right. It's they're job to protect our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A citizen can't do all that with a buncha murderers and thieves running amuck.

Exactly. Which is why we have the court system. And the court system is built upon the State proving its point. The State is restricted so it can't go overboard and jail and execute whomever they want. The State has to prove the case. Because we put emphasis on the State, because we're innocent until proven guilty in a court of law; guilty people will sometimes walk. It's inherent to a system designed to protect the rights and liberties of the individual. The biggest threat to our rights and liberties isn't some murderers here and there, it's the State itself. The government is the problem, the govenrment must be restricted. While we need some amount of courts and police to ensure the free practice of our rights and liberties, the process must necessarily be constrained to prevent bad government.

So where to we err at? On the People or on the State? One promotes freedom (free is dangerous afterall). The other promotes fascism.
 
You know, dana, the only way that the death penalty can remain legitimate is if there is total transparency to the process and a strict adherence to the facts and code of justice.

It looks like what Perry did was criminal in nature.

It's an interesting point. But in America, politicians are never held accountable for their actions. So unfortunately, nothing will come of it. But if we are to have the death penalty (I personally disagree with the death penalty), then it must be an extremely restrictive and transparent system. Any time we authorize the government to kill its own citizens, it must do so under only very very specific circumstances. If we must have the death penalty, I propose that people endorse the Colorado method. Which is so expensive and restrictive and requiring MUCH more evidence that it is rarely pursued for anything but the most heinous of crimes.
 
It's an interesting point. But in America, politicians are never held accountable for their actions. So unfortunately, nothing will come of it. But if we are to have the death penalty (I personally disagree with the death penalty), then it must be an extremely restrictive and transparent system. Any time we authorize the government to kill its own citizens, it must do so under only very very specific circumstances. If we must have the death penalty, I propose that people endorse the Colorado method. Which is so expensive and restrictive and requiring MUCH more evidence that it is rarely pursued for anything but the most heinous of crimes.

I agree with that last statement...it should require irrefutable evidence. As in...weapon, body, remorseless confession, eye witnesses, and DNA. All verified through multiple parties.

It seems to me that with Perry's case, if the man used the justice system to murder (unlawfully kill) another man, then he should be subject to murder charges himself.
 
I agree with that last statement...it should require irrefutable evidence. As in...weapon, body, remorseless confession, eye witnesses, and DNA. All verified through multiple parties.

It seems to me that with Perry's case, if the man used the justice system to murder (unlawfully kill) another man, then he should be subject to murder charges himself.

It is the forensic evidence that doesn't match up according to what I have been reading in the papers here.
 
I agree with that last statement...it should require irrefutable evidence. As in...weapon, body, remorseless confession, eye witnesses, and DNA. All verified through multiple parties.

I personally would just nix the death penalty. But yes, if you can provide overwhelming evidence and the crime was so terrible, as long as the process is restrictive enough to make sure the government has to do its job properly it's better.

It seems to me that with Perry's case, if the man used the justice system to murder (unlawfully kill) another man, then he should be subject to murder charges himself.

I think this is reasonable. And using government power to kill innocent people for political reasons....that's maybe heinous enough to warrant the death penalty.
 
It is the forensic evidence that doesn't match up according to what I have been reading in the papers here.

Then the execution should have been put on hold pending further investigation. Now, investigation should be made into Perry to determine if it was negligence, bad judgment, or hubris influenced him to do the opposite.
 
Then the execution should have been put on hold pending further investigation. Now, investigation should be made into Perry to determine if it was negligence, bad judgment, or hubris influenced him to do the opposite.

I agree, what is really odd is how Perry replaced the panel that was investigating this case at the last minute. It makes one wonder what is up?
 
Capital punishment is fraught with so many flaws that, in a society that values freedoms and liberties, it makes no sense to pursue it any longer. Innocent people already have died, and yet death penalty proponents dismiss it as a small number. Yeah, it is, that we know of... and any number is too small. If one innocent person has died because of it, then an atrocious state-level crime has already been committed.
 
That's right. It's they're job to protect our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A citizen can't do all that with a buncha murderers and thieves running amuck.

That's why we have life in prison without possibility of parole.
 
Back
Top Bottom