2nd condemned Texas inmate in as many days executed

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by SlowwHand

Again, untrue.
BOTH sides have their numbers of strikes, and how many ever don't even have to have a reason for striking them.

"Dude's got a blue shirt. I hate blue shirts."

Thanks for explaining the mechanics of voir dire to me, you ****ing moron.

[MRT144]

i thought you liked learning KH

[KrazyHorse]

I do.

I'll be sure to let you in on it when somebody actually tells me something I don't already know.

[SlowwHand]

****ing moron? If your opinion mattered to me, I might be crushed. As it, it's like a light wind blowing by. Of little notice. Go add up how 1 murderer = my compassion. Get back with me with all haste.

[_BuRjaCi_]

SlowwHand, I'm always supprised how Americains don't trust the state to run just about anything, but allow it to execute people. The DP in the US isn't that bad, but think of countires like Iran or China. Now think of some of the less positive predicitons of the future of the West.

I don't wan't the state to have the right to kill peope period. I don't trust the goverment. (There I said It)

You're argument that the people are in charge is bogus, corporations and lobby's are far more important, bipartisanism stinks and the electoral system is bias to some states. The elites have and always will be in charge no matter how much glean we try to put on it all we can do is to try to support the rule of law as much as possible to avoid abuses.

And the majority should never decide the fate of the minority when it comes to human rights, how do you think the citizens of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy or Fundie Iran would have voted about HR related issues?

And where do you get the idea that we Europeans aren't runing free speech (excepct the Turks, French and possibly the Americanised Brits)?

[Straybow]

Ah, therein lies the difference. In Europe the court system is not as independent as in USA. You have ties lingering from the monarchies and imperial systems. Also, European problems with extremist wackos taking over haven't troubled us here.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by _BuRjaCi_
I don't wan't the state to have the right to kill peope period.

Goodbye military?

And where do you get the idea that we Europeans aren't runing free speech (excepct the Turks, French and possibly the Americanised Brits)?

Or the British, with their backwards treatment of libel. Or the Germans, with their anti-Nazi laws - and IIRC most European countries have laws against holocaust denial.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Straybow
Also, European problems with extremist wackos taking over haven't troubled us here.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by SlowwHand

Again, untrue.
BOTH sides have their numbers of strikes, and how many ever don't even have to have a reason for striking them.

"Dude's got a blue shirt. I hate blue shirts."

What KH apparently didn't feel like spelling out is that by removing people from the (presumably randomly selected) jury pool, voire dire makes the jury that is ultimately selected less representative of the general population (The People). That's not necessarily a bad thing, mind you.

-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

Texas doesn't want the federal government's involvement, BuRjaCi. Of all the State's Rights states, Texas has been, and will be, the most adamant on that point. We take care of our affairs ourselves. We don't want, nor do we need, "Big Brother" sticking his nose into our business.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

I thought that was pretty funny, too, but we really haven't had any (true) Hitlers, Stalins, etc. Then again, we've only been around for 231 years. Give us time.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Texas doesn't want the federal government's involvement, BuRjaCi. Of all the State's Rights states, Texas has been, and will be, the most adamant on that point. We take care of our affairs ourselves. We don't want, nor do we need, "Big Brother" sticking his nose into our business.

But Big Brother (in this case, Big Bro = the State of Texas) can execute people, and you're fine with that.

I think his point was that given the usual distrust of government, it's a little odd that you trust the government to execute people.

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Arrian
I think his point was that given the usual distrust of government, it's a little odd that you trust the government to execute people.

What's the difference in that case between imprisoning them and executing them? I'm especially interested in how one would rationalize LWOP sentences if we use that as a basis for rejecting the death penalty.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Arrian
I think his point was that given the usual distrust of government, it's a little odd that you trust the government to execute people.

Who else would we trust to execute people?

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Arrian


But Big Brother (in this case, Big Bro = the State of Texas) can execute people, and you're fine with that.

I think his point was that given the usual distrust of government, it's a little odd that you trust the government to execute people.

-Arrian

I'm a people. We put people as jurors.
What else are you going to have, paralysis by analysis?
Someone has to be on the jury, unless you want judges to handle all trials, which isn't how it was intended.
Sometimes, manytimes, judges may hand down a more lenient sentence, because they see it every day.
Does that make it better for you? All things considered, it doesn't make it better to me.