Something Trump is wrong about..
-
If all the murderers in Illinois (Chicago) were executed, the moonbats would be complaining that it was racist.
NOPE!!!
Blacks are innocent of everything and when they are guilty, it's whitey's fault.
I wouldn't doubt if Don Lemon and Simone Sanders haven't claimed that all the crimes committed by black people are false flags. You know, honkeys in black face committing violent crimes in crazy amounts to make poor innocent, victimized blacks look bad.
-
If all the murderers in Illinois (Chicago) were executed, the moonbats would be complaining that it was racist.
NOPE!!!
Blacks are innocent of everything and when they are guilty, it's whitey's fault.
I wouldn't doubt if Don Lemon and Simone Sanders haven't claimed that all the crimes committed by black people are false flags. You know, honkeys in black face committing violent crimes in crazy amounts to make poor innocent, victimized blacks look bad.
Don probably says that most crimes said to be committed by blacks are actually honkeys in black-face.
Youtube Video -
Al Jolson was the fist "trans-racial" hero.
Talcum X and Rachel Dolezal are just worthless copycats.
-
"A few notable case" is just bullshit.
There were more cases, but those 2 really hit home why the death penalty sucks ass and needed to go.
Illinois stopped the death penalty due to the shear number of innocent men on death row.
Your "logic" is WHO GIVES A FUCK HOW MANY INNOCENT PEOPLE WE EXECUTE, KILL 'EM ALL, GOD DAMNED IT. KILL 'EM ALL.
The more you say, the more I'm leaning toward the thought (cringe) of hoping you and your ilk get what you are willing to do to others, wrongful imprisonment and/or execution. You'd sing a different tune if it happened to you.
Here's a case where you can use statistics. Are you saying 100% of those executed in the UK were innocent? 50%? 25%? Answer me this, if any one of those people were released and murdered another someone else, how is it different than sending an innocent man to the chair?
I don't know what the numbers are. What I know is that you are willing to condemn innocent people in the real world to die by repeat offenders. I hope you and your ilk get what you are willing to do to others. I think you'll sing a different tune when your loved one is raped, maimed, murdered by these people you release.
-
If you are butt hurt about repeat offenders, then execute everyone who commits any sort of crime.
Maybe you should look at crime stats and advocate executing the worst of the worst, like they do with dogs. A few dogs do a few bad things, so we kill the entire breeds.
Now I really do hope you get your wish and you wrongly get executed. Then again, NO. I hope it happens to someone you care about, so you can be around to tell us how wonderful it was that your loved one was wrongly executed.
If we don't execute everyone, except the last human on earth, then how are we to be sure that a crime won't be committed.
-
If you are butt hurt about repeat offenders, then execute everyone who commits any sort of crime.
Maybe you should look at crime stats and advocate executing the worst of the worst, like they do with dogs. A few dogs do a few bad things, so we kill the entire breeds.
Now I really do hope you get your wish and you wrongly get executed. Then again, NO. I hope it happens to someone you care about, so you can be around to tell us how wonderful it was that your loved one was wrongly executed.
If we don't execute everyone, except the last human on earth, then how are we to be sure that a crime won't be committed.
You've stopped making sense.
You either don't know how to respond to what I'm asking so you created a slippery slope where we all go extinct or you're tired and should go to bed. Either way, I'm disappointed in you. You can come across as reasonable and well-spoken but other times your thoughts are scattered and you throw out personal attacks (I hope it happens to you, cucks, etc). You can – and have -- done better than this. We're not engaging in a video game with winners, losers, attack strategies. I'm here to exchange ideas and discuss them. When you're once again able to do that post back.
-
It is a slippery slope where we start executing innocent people to POSSIBLY prevent repeat offenses.
Tree of Logic, on YouTube, is a former Texas cop and a black woman, oh and a conservative too and she's not afraid to show crime stats. If you are so worried about repeat offenders and being a victim of violent crimes, then maybe you should advocate killing people based on those stats. When you look closely at it, 3% to 5% of the US population commit 50% of the murders and violent crimes. It's odd how fond you are of Planned Parenthood, but butthurt when I mention this idea. Unlike the founder of PP, this concept doesn't kill an entire race in the US, just the main problem ones.
I was just watching a documentary about a serial killer. According to your argument, you'd be happy with executing up to 10 innocent men for his crimes, to make sure he's executed too. Sadly, you are delusional to think that killing all those innocent men for his crimes would stop him from killing the others. NO, he'd still be out there killing while the state kills innocent men.
Your idiotic way of solving the problem of "repeat offenders" is to kill innocent men, because let's get real, we rarely kill women for their crimes due to the pussy pass. You haven't mentioned criminalizing bad behavior by DAs, police, and whatnot like I have. NO, you want to kill innocent men because somehow that might prevent serial killers from repeating their crimes.
It's like how feminists claim that every single rape is a different rapist and that they all must be thrown in prison. They don't care about the fact that most rapes are part of a group of rapes by a single person. I don't think you are as evil as they are because you aren't as demanding that we wrongfully lock up innocent men.
I didn't call you a cuck unless you feel yourself to be a feminist cuck. I was talking about you and feminists, including their cucks. If you feel you are a feminist cuck, then oh well.
HOWEVER, I do feel that you should get some of the wonderful justice you are willing to dole out onto other people and their families. If this shit you are willing to throw on other families is so good, then you should wish that it happened to you and your loved ones too.
Your idea is shit and it takes a morally fucked up person to even suggest that.
-
If we don't execute everyone, except the last human on earth, then how are we to be sure that a crime won't be committed.
Stop trying to blow smoke up our asses.
You justified killing innocent men to prevent crimes. While my statement quoted above might be extreme, it's firmly grounded in the crap you are advocating here.
-
It is a slippery slope where we start executing innocent people to POSSIBLY prevent repeat offenses.
Your idiotic way of solving the problem of "repeat offenders" is to kill innocent men, because let's get real, we rarely kill women for their crimes due to the pussy pass.
I didn't call you a cuck unless you feel yourself to be a feminist cuck. I was talking about you and feminists, including their cucks. If you feel you are a feminist cuck, then oh well.
HOWEVER, I do feel that you should get some of the wonderful justice you are willing to dole out onto other people and their families. If this shit you are willing to throw on other families is so good, then you should wish that it happened to you and your loved ones too.
Your idea is shit and it takes a morally fucked up person to even suggest that.
As I said before, you continue to evade the actual argument I put out there. I assume the idea is either too abstract for you to contemplate or you can't defend the position you'd have to take and so you're throwing around insulting language (as in the bold above) to avoid taking a position.
I mentioned cuck because when you get frustrated in arguments this way of speaking is your MO. I dislike it. I work with high school children who are better spoken and so I've come to expect it in civil conversations. I know you can do it. I've seen it. I've been on the receiving end of it but as you've been growing irate you're tending towards insults, ignoring the actual topics, and throwing out the extremes. If you have a real argument to make, then the mean will prove you right. If not, then you're unintentionally following the same methods of the SJWs and feminists you claim to despise.
You can do better.
To the second post where I quote you claiming the world will end, you really have trouble admitting that you said something too extreme. Instead of acknowledging it and moving on you decide to blame me for your words. Take responsibility.
-
I have repeatedly commented on your idiotic rubbish. You are advocating executing innocent men to prevent crimes.
As for the rest of it, stop playing up to the leftists here.
-
I have repeatedly commented on your idiotic rubbish. You are advocating executing innocent men to prevent crimes.
As for the rest of it, stop playing up to the leftists here.
No, you have not. Not even once.
Fred, by contrast, knew quickly what I was talking about and made his statement. Let me say it yet again. Justice sits on a continuum. At one end you free the maximum number of people to prevent the incarceration of the maximum number of the innocent. At the other end you punish all the guilty but in so doing incarcerate some innocent people. There is no other way. This has been a topic for millennia.
I've explained (repeatedly) my position. You have not addressed yours. To say zero innocent people is not an option – it is impossible unless you have a justice system and no one is ever prosecuted.
What you have been doing is taking my position and throwing out extremes then trying to shame me by saying normal people don't do that, or some variation. In so doing, you continue to mimic the argument style of the SJW who holds up the extreme case and says our justice system must be one that protects even this person, aka the arguement for Political Correctness.
-
I have repeatedly commented on your idiotic rubbish. You are advocating executing innocent men to prevent crimes.
As for the rest of it, stop playing up to the leftists here.
No, you have not. Not even once.
Fred, by contrast, knew quickly what I was talking about and made his statement. Let me say it yet again. Justice sits on a continuum. At one end you free the maximum number of people to prevent the incarceration of the maximum number of the innocent. At the other end you punish all the guilty but in so doing incarcerate some innocent people. There is no other way. This has been a topic for millennia.
I've explained (repeatedly) my position. You have not addressed yours. To say zero innocent people is not an option – it is impossible unless you have a justice system and no one is ever prosecuted.
What you have been doing is taking my position and throwing out extremes then trying to shame me by saying normal people don't do that, or some variation. In so doing, you continue to mimic the argument style of the SJW who holds up the extreme case and says our justice system must be one that protects even this person, aka the arguement for Political Correctness.
In my reply, I pointed out that my premise was flawed.. and posted a far superior premise that got ignored.
In the case of executions, if they have them at all, they need to be 100% certain that the person is guilty. Convict someone of a crime - without a fraudulent trial - at 90%-99% certainty based upon your standards.. but to EXECUTE someone.. has to be 100% - in other words, caught in the act. I was researching a case yesterday where this guy was not even a suspect for months after his family was murdered.. but eventually put him in death row just because he lied about letting his brother use his credit card and because he had insect parts in the radiator of the car he rented that were not native to the state he was supposed to be in. The man didn't even have any priors! Police OFTEN plant evidence.. so unless you have absolute proof.. nobody better be executed as a result. Did OJ kill his bitch wife and that sleazebag slime Ron Goldman? Probably.. but was evidence tampered with and planted in OJ's case? ABSOLUTELY! Even then.. you can bet that OJ would have been found guilty if he was a honkey.
-
While ZERO innocent men may be impossible, that is exactly what we should aim for. As long as innocent men are being convicted, we need to end the death penalty. You on the other hand are advocating for executing as many innocent men as "needed" to foster this insane "crime prevention" bullshit.
If anyone you care about is ever wrongly convicted, you had better get on TV telling the world how it's a great thing and not fight to free them. Doing otherwise would show that either you have been trolling this thread or you are a hypocrite when it comes to you and your own. I suspect you are a hypocrite.
Keep saying I'm talking like and SJW when your argument is the same as the feminists' argument. You both want innocent men sent to prison, just in case.
"Extreme cases" as in innocent men executed, which you support as "crime prevention". It's not "extreme cases" if you can just wave them away with your hand in a "who gives a fuck about them" manner that you've been doing.
I already gave you a better way. Look at the crime stats and kill the group(s) with the highest portions of violent crimes. That would do more than executing random innocent men, for crime prevention. It goes along with your stance on abortion. Planned Parenthood was a way to get rid of the "weeds" as the founder called them.
-
While ZERO innocent men may be impossible, that is exactly what we should aim for. As long as innocent men are being convicted, we need to end the death penalty. You on the other hand are advocating for executing as many innocent men as "needed" to foster this insane "crime prevention" bullshit.
If anyone you care about is ever wrongly convicted, you had better get on TV telling the world how it's a great thing and not fight to free them. Doing otherwise would show that either you have been trolling this thread or you are a hypocrite when it comes to you and your own. I suspect you are a hypocrite.
Was bullshit really necessary?
Here's your dilemma. I wholeheartedly accept the flaw at my end of the spectrum but do you accept yours? Let me put it into the same language you just used. If your husband and child were murdered and the perpetrator was caught but one of the following happened
- he got off on a technicality (didn't get his Miranda Rights read or somesuch)
- he pleaded innocent and there wasn't enough evidence to convict him but you know he did.
- he had been previously convicted of the same crime but was released after having done the time
- he is cleared of his crime because he's been rendered criminally insane.
When looking over your dead partner's corpse, when thinking of your dead child you had better be happy that the law works as it works or you'll be a hypocrite here.
Lastly, I also want zero innocent people sent to prison. I never implied I didn't. I've repeatedly said that given the flawed system we have to work with I'll take option B.
Keep saying I'm talking like and SJW when your argument is the same as the feminists' argument. You both want innocent men sent to prison, just in case.
What exactly are you trying to say here? Are you saying that you're not arguing like an SJW because I'm (allegedly) arguing like a feminist? That makes no sense. Or are you attempting to deflect my criticism of how you're arguing by pointing out a flaw in how I argue? If that's what you're doing, you still haven't addressed the flaw in how your present your thoughts. Don't deflect.
I don't want innocent people sent to prison but you're correct in that the thinking is similar. We've been talking about the death penalty. In terms of the death penalty, that is, for crimes worthy of the death penalty then it is true that I chose the stricter option. I would be comfortable to extend prison time to violent crimes, too.
What third and fourth wave feminists have done is redefine rape and sexual harassment. Punishments for the now much broader definitions are often exercised through company HR, university administrations, and public opinion (a la Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey). If you wanna go here, you'll have to open a new thread because this is a different topic altogether and I refuse to move these goalposts.
-
It is bullshit; pure and simple. Do you want me to pretend that it's not?
Of course I'd be furious that the criminal got off. HOWEVER, what good would it do to execute innocent men? How the hell would that make me feel better?! How would executing a soldier who was proven not to even be in the country at the time (the UK case I mentioned) benefit me in the scenario you mentioned? How would if benefit me to execute someone like Derrick Bennett (other UK case mentioned)?
The points you brought up have nothing to do with your stance on it being a good thing to execute innocent men.
Option B is executing innocent men.
++++
I'm not saying you are arguing like a feminist. I'm saying you are using the same arguments they use to justify their lies about rape stats, to justify their bullshit JUST BELIEVE and other things where innocent men are sent to prison. You and feminists argue for sending innocent men to prison, JUST IN CASE.
You are deflecting by keep trying to change my words to be about HOW you argue, not WHAT you are arguing. I'm not concerned about HOW, but about WHAT.
I bet if you were in GWB's position when he ran for President, you too would be so fucked up that you would refuse to delay the execute for 30 days to see what the DNA evidence said. I'm also sure you would react the same way he did; "well he was guilty when he was executed". He still maintains that he did nothing wrong by not delaying it 30 days to wait for the DNA results. He still maintains that he never executed an innocent person.
++++
I agree, the redefining of rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment would need it's own thread. BUT, I'm not talking about that. I'm only talking the "all men are evil and need to be sent to prison" mentality of feminists.
++++
If you are interested, there's a movie about the Derrick Bennett case. Christopher Eccles (former Dr Who - 2005 series) played Derrick.
There's also a movie about the other case I mentioned but I can't remember anything about it other than the story.
-
Of course I'd be furious that the criminal got off. HOWEVER, what good would it do to execute innocent men? How the hell would that make me feel better?! How would executing a soldier who was proven not to even be in the country at the time (the UK case I mentioned) benefit me in the scenario you mentioned? How would if benefit me to execute someone like Derrick Bennett (other UK case mentioned)?
Your comment sparked a thought in my brain…
Consider that your a horrible crime was committed upon someone you care about. You are devastated and distraught. There is a conviction and an execution. But then.. you find out that the man that was executed was not guilty! THAT would fuck up the rest of your life. -
It is bullshit; pure and simple. Do you want me to pretend that it's not?
Of course I'd be furious that the criminal got off. HOWEVER, what good would it do to execute innocent men? How the hell would that make me feel better?! How would executing a soldier who was proven not to even be in the country at the time (the UK case I mentioned) benefit me in the scenario you mentioned? How would if benefit me to execute someone like Derrick Bennett (other UK case mentioned)?
The points you brought up have nothing to do with your stance on it being a good thing to execute innocent men.
**Option B is executing innocent men. **
And option A is setting the guilt-free to prey upon the innocent.
You're right, what I brought up has nothing to do with it being a good idea to execute innocent men. It's not about executing innocent men. It's the other side of the coin. You're obviously comfortable with letting the guilty roam free. I'm not. For every wrongly incarcerated man (or woman) you find I can ten to a hundred examples of people who were victims of someone let out of jail in any one of the four situations I outlined before.
If you're focusing on the one man in a thousand who is wrongly executed (arbitrary number) what about the ten thousand who are victims of repeat offenders? Defend it.
Your child is molested by a repeat offender who has been let out three times for the same crime. Tell the four children that it's okay because that's the way the law works. THAT'S bullshit.
The reality is that there is no perfect system. We simply need to be aware of the flaws in what we have vs what we could have.
I'm not saying you are arguing like a feminist. I'm saying you are using the same arguments they use to justify their lies about rape stats, to justify their bullshit JUST BELIEVE and other things where innocent men are sent to prison. You and feminists argue for sending innocent men to prison, JUST IN CASE.
And I'm acknowledging that, yes, it falls on the same continuum but the circumstances and situations are apples and oranges in relation to one another and the comparison in unhelpful here when we're talking about the death penalty and violent crimes.
You are deflecting by keep trying to change my words to be about HOW you argue, not WHAT you are arguing. I'm not concerned about HOW, but about WHAT.
Because how people argue is important.
When you ask why you should pay for a woman's abortion (to borrow from another thread) you're putting a kind of rhetoric into play that is trying to hit at emotions and not the truth of the matter. The step from bullshit to an inarticulate stream of four-letter words really very short and then nothing gets discussed.
I think in my short time in these forums I've proven again and again I'm here to have discussions, not shouting matches. I make an effort to listen. I try out different thoughts and don't take it personally if I'm proven wrong. Most of what I've seen in these forums is either shouting at an opposing opinion or nodding in an echo chamber – I won't do either.
-
Of course I'd be furious that the criminal got off. HOWEVER, what good would it do to execute innocent men? How the hell would that make me feel better?! How would executing a soldier who was proven not to even be in the country at the time (the UK case I mentioned) benefit me in the scenario you mentioned? How would if benefit me to execute someone like Derrick Bennett (other UK case mentioned)?
Your comment sparked a thought in my brain…
Consider that your a horrible crime was committed upon someone you care about. You are devastated and distraught. There is a conviction and an execution. But then.. you find out that the man that was executed was not guilty! THAT would fuck up the rest of your life.I do understand what you're saying but let me reframe it so you can understand how I see the situation as a whole.
I'm speaking generally of the entire judicial system where, statistically speaking, there are going to be some innocent people executed and there is nothing that can prevent that from happening. It's analogous to getting a procedure done to remove skin cancer, sometimes there'll be a fatality in the surgery. Does the occasional wrongful execution mean that we should scrap the program? I say no.
For me, the trouble with arguing about this individual case and that individual case is that no matter how riveting or tragic the individual stories are, they are just an appeal to emotion. This means that you're indirectly suggesting we make policies based on feelings. But you're going to feel terrible if you find out he's innocent. Yeah, probably but you can't make laws that deal with feelings. That's the beginning of Political Correctness.
-
Your whole premise is based on executing innocent men so some guilty men don't go free. I can understand why you don't want us to think about executing innocent men. It makes you look like an asshole.
How many innocent men are you willing to allow to be executed in order to prevent 1 crime? Give us a number.
You want innocent men to be executed to prevent a rape or carjacking. How many innocent men need to be executed before you are willing to say "that's fucking enough" to prevent a single carjacking?!
Ok, so you admit that some innocent men are executed. That is why I made my original post. I said I support the death penalty in principle, but not in practice because innocent people get executed. You support the death penalty and say who gives a fuck about the innocent men who get executed, I don't know them. That is the difference between our stances.
But those are real cases, that you support happening exactly like they did. Also, if you want to complain about "emotion" then why did you set up the scenario about my family? It was for emotional reasons. Do you really not get that?
++++
Ok, so which male members of your family and loved ones are you going to sacrifice to this "justice" system you support? Come on, you can't be willing to throw everyone else under the bus if you aren't willing to do it to your own. And NO, I'm not talking about Uncle Jim that everyone hates. It has to be someone you actually care about.
In your child molestation example, how does executing innocent men have anything to do with piss poor sentencing and the refusal to build more prisons? In Europe, they don't "punish" they "rehabilitate". This means they are weak on criminals, actual fucking criminals. It has nothing to do with executing innocent men.
In the US, to get out on parole, you only have to claim to be sorry and a believer of one of the big 3 religions. In the UK, you have to say sorry and admit you are guilty. You won't get out on parole unless you admit you are guilty, in the UK. You also have to sign a document stating that the conviction was just.
Instead of focusing on executing innocent men, make the justice system really about justice.
Stop focusing on executing innocent men and focus on prosecutorial misconduct, police corruption and the like.
Not once have you advocated fixing the system. Your stance has always been, the system if fucked, so execute innocent men.
++++
I believe OJ is a murderer. HOWEVER, the stench of shit by the LAPD, et al, never left my nostrils. The cop that admitted on tape that he (and other cops) would routinely plant evidence was glaring when he is the one that found all the main evidence. Blood evidence items left in a crime scene van with a broken cooling system.
While I do believe he's guilty, I would vote NOT GUILTY if I was on that jury.
-
Your whole premise is based on executing innocent men so some guilty men don't go free. I can understand why you don't want us to think about executing innocent men. It makes you look like an asshole.
No. It makes it look like you have nothing but an ad hominem argument. In all the anti SJW, 3rd 'n 4th wave feminist posts you make the people here tell you that you're an asshole for saying x, y, z without ever taking you seriously. You shout back and forth. You thump on your chests. You feel you've accomplished something.
You don't.
These ad hominem attacks just make you appear like a teenager – and I have no way of knowing that you're not.
How many innocent men are you willing to allow to be executed in order to prevent 1 crime? Give us a number.
If you're going to ask this kind of question you first answer the same question about your own thoughts: How many people are you willing to let be victimized by repeat offenders before you say enough?
By asking these kinds of rhetorical questions you stall discussion. You think you've made a great point but you're just punting the ball away. It gives the impression you don't have an answer – and you probably don't.
Ok, so you admit that some innocent men are executed. That is why I made my original post. I said I support the death penalty in principle, but not in practice because innocent people get executed. **You support the death penalty and say who gives a fuck about the innocent men who get executed, I don't know them. That is the difference between our stances. **
But those are real cases, that you support happening exactly like they did. Also, if you want to complain about "emotion" then **why did you set up the scenario about my family? ** It was for emotional reasons. Do you really not get that?
Why did I set up the scenario about your family? Because you had previously set up a similar scenario about mine and then wished me dead for having done so. Otherwise, I wouldn't have. That's not my style.
What you said is not the difference in our styles. Let me do a round about and then come back to this.
Laci Green put up several examples of women who had been actually rapped but their cases dismissed because of lack of evidence, too much time passing, yada, yada, yada. She used those specific examples to say, hey, this system is broken. What we should do instead is redefine rape to mean this and change the existing ways the police to things. All of this was and is supported by pulling up specific extreme examples where the system didn't work.
You're doing the exact same thing. You're saying look at these specific cases. OMG, the tragedy! Because of these specific examples we now have proof the entire system is flawed and should be abolished.
What you both are doing is creating policy based on FEELINGS. This is why I don't argue from emotion (unless I'm feeling lazy in real life).
The difference in styles between what you and I are arguing is that I'm looking at the system in totality and saying statistically people fall through the cracks. You're digging into those cracks. You're pulling pennies out as though they're things of value. I'm saying this is the system we have, let's deal with it; you're saying this one part of the system in broken – because pennies -- so lets destroy the whole thing.
Does that make sense now? I don't think policy should be made from feelings. You apparently do.
In your child molestation example, how does executing innocent men have anything to do with piss poor sentencing and the refusal to build more prisons? In Europe, they don't "punish" they "rehabilitate". This means they are weak on criminals, actual fucking criminals. It has nothing to do with executing innocent men.
Once again, my argument has nothing to do with executing innocent people. Zero. I explained this multiple times in the course of this thread. Perhaps the previous example will finally make it sink in for you.
The rest of your argument proves my point. I think if you molest a child you should be executed. I, personally, am willing to concede that a person should be given one chance. If after they're rehabilitated they never do it again, fine. If they get caught again, off to the chopping block. Let me be clear, I'm talking about executable offenses, not theft. I'm also talking about such offences in the West, not in Uganda where being gay is an executable offence.
Instead of focusing on executing innocent men, make the justice system really about justice.
Stop focusing on executing innocent men and focus on prosecutorial misconduct, police corruption and the like.
Not once have you advocated fixing the system. Your stance has always been, the system if fucked, so execute innocent men.
As I said, the choice is unfixable. There is a continuum. The choices on either side are binaries that learned men have been discussing for at least 2000 years. Interestingly, Sam Harris has said that within a decade we will most likely have computer systems that will be able to tell if someone is telling the truth perfectly every time. Such a machine would help rule out certain cases and help prevent the innocent from being executed.
Otherwise, your solution is to throw out the whole system. I'm saying, no. In fact, the current system in the US has already been modified so much that it's more expensive to put a person on death row than to just keep him alive for life imprisonment. I think there are enough guilty people on death row to be executed right now. I'd put Charlie Manson at the top of the list but those changes to the death penalty say that he's not guilty by reason of insanity.
I believe OJ is a murderer. HOWEVER, the stench of shit by the LAPD, et al, never left my nostrils. The cop that admitted on tape that he (and other cops) would routinely plant evidence was glaring when he is the one that found all the main evidence. Blood evidence items left in a crime scene van with a broken cooling system.
While I do believe he's guilty, I would vote NOT GUILTY if I was on that jury.
One of the many problems with our justice system. It doesn't mean we should throw out trial by jury, does it?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login