• 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

apdst said:
That's nice and neat and idealistically cute, but what about the rights of the victim when that admitted murderer re-offends?
Click to expand...

Carry a gun. WTF do you want? Do I have to hold your hand and lead you through every conceivable circumstance? Why can't people deal with **** these days. Whine and cry all the time, please government save me! The police will have to do a better job next time, that's it. The fault is on the State for not having built a better prosecution.
 
apdst said:
That's my point. The article makes it sound as if the testimony was to be heard in '91, prior to Willingham's execution.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. What planet are you from? Perry was not governor in 1991. Jeez.
 
the makeout hobo said:
On the other hand, we must have rules governing our justice system, and those rules must be followed.
Click to expand...

That's right and when a jury finds someone guilty, then decides that that person needs to be executed, we can't just second guess them at every turn. Those are the rules.
 
apdst said:
That's right and when a jury finds someone guilty, then decides that that person needs to be executed, we can't just second guess them at every turn. Those are the rules.
Click to expand...

The person gets chance to appeal, that's for damned sure. Especially if their life is on the line.
 
apdst said:
That's right and when a jury finds someone guilty, then decides that that person needs to be executed, we can't just second guess them at every turn. Those are the rules.
Click to expand...

Not relevent what I was talking to. I was referring to people getting out on a technicality, like if the officer didn't have a warrent.
 
danarhea said:
No it doesn't. What planet are you from? Perry was not governor in 1991. Jeez.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does.

From your article:

Questions about whether Gov. Rick Perry allowed the execution of a man some arson experts say may have been innocent, and then hindered an investigation into the evidence, continue to reverberate across Texas, where issues surrounding capital punishment have rarely stirred such controversy.
Click to expand...

It clearly states that Perry may have allowed the execution.
 
Ikari said:
Carry a gun. WTF do you want? Do I have to hold your hand and lead you through every conceivable circumstance? Why can't people deal with **** these days. Whine and cry all the time, please government save me! The police will have to do a better job next time, that's it. The fault is on the State for not having built a better prosecution.
Click to expand...

LMAO...that's a lame argument. I expected better from you, bro.
 
apdst said:
Yes, it does.

From your article:



It clearly states that Perry may have allowed the execution.
Click to expand...

:rofl:rofl:rofl

Reading is fundamental, guy. Do you understand what the phrase "may have hindered" even means, in the context in which it was presented?
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
The person gets chance to appeal, that's for damned sure. Especially if their life is on the line.
Click to expand...

Actually, they get to appeal for 25+ years. If they can't prove a wrongful conviction by then, it's time to light'em up.
 
danarhea said:
:rofl:rofl:rofl

Reading is fundamental, guy. Do you understand what the phrase "may have hindered" even means?
Click to expand...

Did you even read the first sentence of the article, or are you just going to ignore that part and skip to the part that supports what you're saying?
 
the makeout hobo said:
Not relevent what I was talking to. I was referring to people getting out on a technicality, like if the officer didn't have a warrent.
Click to expand...

An officer doesn't have to have a warrant if he has probable cause.
 
apdst said:
Did you even read the first sentence of the article, or are you just going to ignore that part and skip to the part that supports what you're saying?
Click to expand...

I have an assignment for everybody here. Read the article that is posted in the OP, and answer the following question:

1) Is the article referring to the here and now?

OR

2) Is the article referring to what Perry might have done if he had been governor in 1991?

This has turned out to be quite fun...... And hilarious too. :rofl
 
danarhea said:
I have an assignment for everybody here. Read the article that is posted in the OP, and answer the following question:

1) Is the article referring to the here and now?

OR

2) Is the article referring to what Perry might have done if he had been governor in 1991?

This has turned out to be quite fun...... And hilarious too. :rofl
Click to expand...

And, you wanna criticize my reading ability? Here's the punchline: your pards aren't going to touch your question with a ten-foot pole.
 
apdst said:
And, you wanna criticize my reading ability? Here's the punchline: your pards aren't going to touch your question with a ten-foot pole.
Click to expand...

And who are my pards, pray tell? LOL.

And nobody has to question your reading ability. You have done that all on your own, without any help from anybody else. :mrgreen:

EDIT: And let me add THIS, from the article.

Katherine Cesinger, a spokeswoman for Mr. Perry, said that on the night of the execution, the governor’s general counsel thoroughly briefed him on the report of the arson expert and various appellate court decisions. He denied the reprieve, she said, because the courts “all agreed that the Hurst report was no more than an opinion and did not merit reopening the case.”
Click to expand...

I think that pretty much puts this hilarious episode in perspective. LOL. That is, unless you still want to continue to insist that Perry denied the reprive in 1991. LMAO.

ANOTHER EDIT: Also from the article......

Three weeks ago Mr. Perry replaced the chairman and two other members of the State Forensic Science Commission, which was about to hold hearings on the evidence in the case. The new chairman, a close ally of the governor, promptly canceled a hearing at which a second, independent arson expert was to testify.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
It's too bad, but not nearly as bad as allowing an admitted murderer to walk on a technicality.
Click to expand...

To be morally authentic, it follows from your belief that if you were captured, falsely accused of rape and murder, and sentenced to death, but were given an extra-legal means of escaping to a foreign country, you would always choose to face the execution. Furthermore, you would demand the same of any of your own family or friends (father, brother, spouse, children), and would report any extra-legal movement toward securing their life and freedom -- even if you knew beyond all shadow of doubt that they were with you at the time of the murder, you would still defend the system. After all, you would rather a few innocents be executed for crimes they never committed than guilty persons get off on technicalities.

Its my unwillingness to make such a commitment that makes me unable to endorse the death penalty except in those situations that it is materially necessary, usually involving war. As far as domestic crimes go, there isn't a chance.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
And who are my pards, pray tell? LOL.

And nobody has to question your reading ability. You have done that all on your own, without any help from anybody else. :mrgreen:

EDIT: And let me add THIS, from the article.



I think that pretty much puts this hilarious episode in perspective. LOL. That is, unless you still want to continue to insist that Perry denied the reprive in 1991. LMAO.
Click to expand...

What part of, "Questions about whether Gov. Rick Perry allowed the execution of a man some arson experts say may have been innocent", from the article, do you not understand?
 
apdst said:
What part of, "Questions about whether Gov. Rick Perry allowed the execution of a man some arson experts say may have been innocent", from the article, do you not understand?
Click to expand...

Yes, people are questioning whether Perry Allowed an innocent man to die, by rejecting his reprieve. DUH!!

Like I said, reading is fundamental. LOL.
 
the makeout hobo said:
On the other hand, we must have rules governing our justice system, and those rules must be followed.
Click to expand...
That's right -- and, usually, they are.

This is so that when people are convicted of a crime, they have been given every benefit of the doubt, based on the presmise that they are innocent until proven guilty.

That said, once every benefit of the doubt has been given, and the burden of proof met, and then the guilty party has gone thru his string of appeals, legitimate concern that 'he might still be innocent' is, at best, nanoscopic.
 
danarhea said:
Yes, people are questioning whether Perry Allowed an innocent man to die, by rejecting his reprieve. DUH!!

Like I said, reading is fundamental. LOL.
Click to expand...

Ok, my bad. I thought Willingham was executed back in the 90's. I researched it and found out he was executed in 2004. Wait, 2004? The Commission wasn't created until 2005. Gee!
 
apdst said:
LMAO...that's a lame argument. I expected better from you, bro.
Click to expand...

Basically your dismissal says you can't argue with it.

In the absence of perfection, we must accept mistakes somewhere in the line. You either err on the side of the People or on the State. In this country, founded on the rights and liberties of the individual, we have elected (rightfully I must add) to err on the side of the individual. The State must prove the case and do so properly. If they can't, it's their failure. If someone walked on a technicality, it sucks but man up. We're going to get a failure mode somewhere, it's impossible to make a perfect system. Either guilty people go free or innocent people get killed. I'll take the guilty going free. The State must provide a case, the State must prove its assertions. If a guy walks, he does so because the State couldn't construct enough of a case to soundly get a conviction.

It's called freedom, deal with it.
 
apdst said:
Ok, my bad. I thought Willingham was executed back in the 90's. I researched it and found out he was executed in 2004. Wait, 2004? The Commission wasn't created until 2005. Gee!
Click to expand...

There ya' go. And thanks. I will now take back all the insults I have been throwing at you. Actually, I have to. I have had many an obtuse moment myself at DP. LOL.
 
apdst said:
Actually, they get to appeal for 25+ years. If they can't prove a wrongful conviction by then, it's time to light'em up.
Click to expand...

The process costs more than just jailing him for life. And comes with less problems (jailing for life, not executing).
 
Ikari said:
Basically your dismissal says you can't argue with it.

In the absence of perfection, we must accept mistakes somewhere in the line. You either err on the side of the People or on the State. In this country, founded on the rights and liberties of the individual, we have elected (rightfully I must add) to err on the side of the individual. The State must prove the case and do so properly. If they can't, it's their failure. If someone walked on a technicality, it sucks but man up. We're going to get a failure mode somewhere, it's impossible to make a perfect system. Either guilty people go free or innocent people get killed. I'll take the guilty going free. The State must provide a case, the State must prove its assertions. If a guy walks, he does so because the State couldn't construct enough of a case to soundly get a conviction.

It's called freedom, deal with it.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Ikari said:
The process costs more than just jailing him for life. And comes with less problems (jailing for life, not executing).
Click to expand...

Allow fewer appeals, execute them sooner.
 
danarhea said:
There ya' go. And thanks. I will now take back all the insults I have been throwing at you. Actually, I have to. I have had many an obtuse moment myself at DP. LOL.
Click to expand...

Thank you and you're welcome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom