20% of US citizens have a family member killed by a gun.

[ZNP]

Your opposition to abortion and support for Capital Punishment are contradictory.

No, in both cases my guiding principle is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

I have just explained in Post #40 why I would want to be given the death penalty if I was convicted of a crime I didn't do, and I also support the public's right to want to execute a criminal who had committed a crime so heinous that it qualified for the death penalty.

Likewise if I were the baby I would want them to not abort me. However, even if I were the mother I would want someone to explain to me that the stain of the sin of aborting that baby will stay with you your whole life. You will never forget it. You may have nightmares over it. Generally it is simple to arrange an adoption for a newborn baby. If I was in that position I would definitely want to be encouraged to put the baby up for adoption rather than aborting it. I would also point out if she finds a mother early in the process they will generally help pay all her expenses in having the baby.

So in every case however I look at either CP or Abortion I am treating people the way I would want them to treat me.

 

[ButterflyJones]

Do you know why I support capital punishment? If not how can you conclude it is contradictory? When you assume you make an ass out of u and me.

You actually resorted to a ridiculous aphorism to make your point?

You just posted evidence I didn't assume anything.

You're pro-state and federal sanctioned killing.
When you're anti-abortion, state and federally sanctioned killing of the unborn, you aren't pro-life.

Killing people to send the message killing people is wrong is a contradiction.

 

[ButterflyJones]

And Luke 6:31 isn't evidence Jesus supported the death penalty.
Kill others as you would have them kill you, is what leads a jury to convict and sentence someone who killed someone to death.

Jesus wasn't pro-state sanctioned killing. He was a victim of it.
Maybe you should recall Matthew 5:38-39.

 

[ZNP]

You actually resorted to a ridiculous aphorism to make your point?

You just posted evidence I didn't assume anything.

You're pro-state and federal sanctioned killing.
When you're anti-abortion, state and federally sanctioned killing of the unborn, you aren't pro-life.

Killing people to send the message killing people is wrong is a contradiction.

How do you equate the killing of a serial killer who has been convicted in a court of law by a jury of his peers and given multiple appeals and 25 years to clear his name with the killing of an unborn child who has not committed any crime and given no opportunity to defend himself or herself? You are the one making ridiculous comparisons.

 

[ZNP]

And Luke 6:31 isn't evidence Jesus supported the death penalty.
Kill others as you would have them kill you, is what leads a jury to convict and sentence someone who killed someone to death.

Jesus wasn't pro-state sanctioned killing. He was a victim of it.
Maybe you should recall Matthew 5:38-39.

Jesus was a victim?

The cross of Christ was prophesied in the Bible long before that punishment even existed. It was God's solution to sin, the world, the flesh.

Once sin entered the world it was a requirement for dealing with that sin, hence anyone who wants to follow the Lord must take up their own cross.

My Lord, is not a victim, He chose to enter the ring with Satan and death and He defeated Satan putting him to an open shame and conquered death.

Maybe the serial killer who is convicted and on death row should remember that as you have done it will be done unto you. He/she will have 25 years to confess and repent and hopefully get saved, a mercy of the Lord.

 

[ButterflyJones]

How do you equate the killing of a serial killer who has been convicted in a court of law by a jury of his peers and given multiple appeals and 25 years to clear his name with the killing of an unborn child who has not committed any crime and given no opportunity to defend himself or herself? You are the one making ridiculous comparisons.

This will be the last of my replies to you. You don't realize you are not consistent with your pov.

If the alleged serial killer is wrongly convicted on circumstantial evidence alone, and they were actually not guilty of the alleged crimes, their being put to death is murder by the state. With the DA and jury as accomplices.

Whereas, had that wrongly convicted person been sentenced to live in prison while appealing a wrongful conviction, they are afforded opportunity to one day be exonerated. And walk out of prison.

Something that Capital Punishment does not allow.
Further, as to the Constitutions 8th amendment and prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, Capital Punishment is exactly that. Especially for the innocent whom the state kills and then closes the case so that any effort to learn of that wrongful execution is made more difficult if not impossible.

Also, the methods of execution meet the threshold of cruel and unusual punishment.

Killing someone is not by definition https://www.dictionary.com/browse/punishment.




The U.S. Constitution's eight amendment states: 'Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.' A number of state constitutions also contain the same, or similar, provisions.

'A penalty offends the proscription against cruel and unusual punishment when it is 'so disproportionate to the crime for which it is inflicted that it shocks the conscience and offends fundamental notions of human dignity.' (In re Lynch (1972) 8 Cal.3d 410, 424; In re DeBeque (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 241, 248.)ed48.)ed, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."2 min read
The U.S. Constitution's eight amendment states: 'Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.' A number of state constitutions also contain the same, or similar, provisions.
'A penalty offends the proscription against cruel and unusual punishment when it is 'so disproportionate to the crime for which it is inflicted that it shocks the conscience and offends fundamental notions of human dignity.' (In re Lynch (1972) 8 Cal.3d 410, 424; In re DeBeque (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 241, 248.)

It is lethal execution.
And it is both cruel and unusual means of inflicting death upon those deemed worthy by the court.

Lethal injection is cruel, protracted, and unusual. It is not the same process as our beloved terminal pets undergo.

In fact the single shot a vet gives our pet does not instantly kill them. Rather, it slows their heart beat to near stop and eventually the animals heart fails altogether.

Which is why the vet takes our pet out of the exam room and away from us and into the back exam facility. So that the process concludes our of our sight.

The chemicals used to kill people prolong the process. The victim suffers. The paralysis that occurs with the first injection precludes witnesses from seeing that.

Electrocution is cruel as well. Which is why the victim wears an adult diaper and a hood. Very often the voltage causes their eyes to explode while they're conscious.

The gas chamber is horrifically cruel.
The cyanide gas that fills the chamber causes extreme muscle contracture. So much so that the muscle tension counters the joint tendons and ligaments natural resistance.

Which is why the victim is strapped to a steel chair wearing a very lose jumpsuit.And it is why the chamber chair is welded and bolted to the chamber floor.

Were they let to walk into the empty chamber and the gas execution commence, the witnesses to that execution would watch a human beings body .contract on the reverse direction of their natural posture.

A horrific bloody horror show.


Because the cruelty of these execution methods are disguised by chemicals, masks, and restraints, the public who witness the event wrongly assume the victims just go to sleep. They don't.

Abortion is horrific and there is no need to detail that elective
procedure.

Therefore, given the actual facts of execution methods, it is absolutely contrary to reason for someone to claim they are pro-life in matters of abortion, while defending their pro-Capital Punishment advocacy.

I realize you don't understand that.
Mores the pity.

 

[ZNP]

This will be the last of my replies to you. You don't realize you are not consistent with your pov.

If the alleged serial killer is wrongly convicted on circumstantial evidence alone, and they were actually not guilty of the alleged crimes, their being put to death is murder by the state. With the DA and jury as accomplices.

Whereas, had that wrongly convicted person been sentenced to live in prison while appealing a wrongful conviction, they are afforded opportunity to one day be exonerated. And walk out of prison.

Something that Capital Punishment does not allow.
Further, as to the Constitutions 8th amendment and prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, Capital Punishment is exactly that. Especially for the innocent whom the state kills and then closes the case so that any effort to learn of that wrongful execution is made more difficult if not impossible.

Also, the methods of execution meet the threshold of cruel and unusual punishment.

Killing someone is not by definition https://www.dictionary.com/browse/punishment.




The U.S. Constitution's eight amendment states: 'Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.' A number of state constitutions also contain the same, or similar, provisions.

'A penalty offends the proscription against cruel and unusual punishment when it is 'so disproportionate to the crime for which it is inflicted that it shocks the conscience and offends fundamental notions of human dignity.' (In re Lynch (1972) 8 Cal.3d 410, 424; In re DeBeque (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 241, 248.)ed48.)ed, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."2 min read
The U.S. Constitution's eight amendment states: 'Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.' A number of state constitutions also contain the same, or similar, provisions.
'A penalty offends the proscription against cruel and unusual punishment when it is 'so disproportionate to the crime for which it is inflicted that it shocks the conscience and offends fundamental notions of human dignity.' (In re Lynch (1972) 8 Cal.3d 410, 424; In re DeBeque (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 241, 248.)

It is lethal execution.
And it is both cruel and unusual means of inflicting death upon those deemed worthy by the court.

Lethal injection is cruel, protracted, and unusual. It is not the same process as our beloved terminal pets undergo.

In fact the single shot a vet gives our pet does not instantly kill them. Rather, it slows their heart beat to near stop and eventually the animals heart fails altogether.

Which is why the vet takes our pet out of the exam room and away from us and into the back exam facility. So that the process concludes our of our sight.

The chemicals used to kill people prolong the process. The victim suffers. The paralysis that occurs with the first injection precludes witnesses from seeing that.

Electrocution is cruel as well. Which is why the victim wears an adult diaper and a hood. Very often the voltage causes their eyes to explode while they're conscious.

The gas chamber is horrifically cruel.
The cyanide gas that fills the chamber causes extreme muscle contracture. So much so that the muscle tension counters the joint tendons and ligaments natural resistance.

Which is why the victim is strapped to a steel chair wearing a very lose jumpsuit.And it is why the chamber chair is welded and bolted to the chamber floor.

Were they let to walk into the empty chamber and the gas execution commence, the witnesses to that execution would watch a human beings body .contract on the reverse direction of their natural posture.

A horrific bloody horror show.


Because the cruelty of these execution methods are disguised by chemicals, masks, and restraints, the public who witness the event wrongly assume the victims just go to sleep. They don't.

Abortion is horrific and there is no need to detail that elective
procedure.

Therefore, given the actual facts of execution methods, it is absolutely contrary to reason for someone to claim they are pro-life in matters of abortion, while defending their pro-Capital Punishment advocacy.

I realize you don't understand that.
Mores the pity.

The thing you do not understand is you have many more appeals if you have been sentenced to death and this sentence will take 25 years before you are executed. There are charities providing free legal aid and there are many other volunteers to do the forensic research that is necessary.

You don't get the same help if you have a life sentence. Yes, you have the time, but most people in prison are poor. They can't afford the lawyers and researchers. People who are rich like OJ can afford the best legal defense money can buy and they can usually push the needle towards "reasonable doubt".

Your chance of getting a new trial and your conviction overthrown is much greater if you are sentenced to death than if you have a life sentence.

There are exceptions of course, if you were convicted of rape 30 years ago they might not have had the ability to detect the DNA if the sample was extremely small, so you can get them to check your DNA now. But that is simply because with the improvements in DNA they set up a charity specifically to check DNA on people claiming to be innocent.

I have never heard of a serial killer being wrongly convicted. The odds of that would be astronomical. You have evidence on multiple murders, their crime is so unique it would be simple for an innocent person to prove innocence.

 

[ZNP]

I realize many who are reading this will not be familiar with the history of Forensics and so you may actually agree with the superficial arguments of Butterflyjones and others.

So let me point out the following

1. Fingerprints were used in criminal investigations for the first time in a case involving the death penalty. The death penalty was a crucial factor, perhaps even the primary factor in motivating investigators to discover the use of fingerprints as a crime fighting tool.

2. DNA was also used for the first time in solving a crime that could have resulted in the death penalty. The suspect had already confessed to the crime but because it was a potential death penalty investigators wanted to be absolutely sure, motivating them to use DNA for the first time to solve crime. As a result they learned the man who had confessed was innocent and instead discovered the real killer. This person had killed more than one person and it is very plausible that getting the real killer saved others from being killed.

3. The first time fibers were used to solve a crime was in a desperate effort to get a serial killer that they had no other hope of getting.

4. There was another DNA case that involved the DNA of seeds from a tree that solved a case, again a ground breaking case, again a murder case.

The death penalty has been absolutely critical in the vast majority of all the major breakthroughs in forensic science. As a result of forensic science the number of innocent people being convicted of crimes they didn't do has dropped from about 33% in the 1800s to less than 5% today. There are thousands, maybe millions of innocent people around the world that would be in prison today if not for those advances and they have the death penalty to thank for that.

Do not misquote me, I am not saying that we never would have used fingerprints for solving crime if not for the death penalty, what I am saying is the facts are the facts, many of these developments took place specifically because a man's life was at stake and people went the extra mile to make sure they didn't make a mistake. I am also saying that there are millions of man years that were not lost to wrongful conviction. Why is it a terrible crime to take 20 years from a man's life with the death penalty but not a terrible crime to take 20 years of his life with a life sentence in prison?

The idea that a guy with a life sentence will be able to get an appeal is unfounded. Most criminals read at the sixth grade level or less. They would be overwhelmed trying to learn the law and defend themselves and they don't have the money to hire anyone to do it for them. Prisons are filled with poor, illiterate men. They cannot, in general, defend themselves.

 

[ButterflyJones]

And I said I was finished replying to you. 😆

I understand you know very little about the criminal justice system, capital punishment, or the appeals process for DR inmates.

Every defendant sentenced to death upon conviction automatically get a direct appeal.

Many DR inmates get lesser numbers of appeals because very often a DP conviction is overturned.

Not all inmates spend huge numbers of years on death row. Therefore, your claim they have opportunity for more appeals than inmates not condemned to death is in error.

Texas has one of the highest DR inmate populations of all states who prosecute a death penalty case.

The shortest time spent on the Texas death crow, condemned row, is 252 days. That was in 1996. Another inmate was executed 263 days after conviction in 1998.

https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/death_row/dr_facts.html

Lastly, it is untrue that a serial killer in death row has no chance of being exonerated because they were actually not guilty.


Convicted of serial murders, inmate Billy Glaze was given multiple life sentences.

DNA evidence showed he was innocent.

Sadly, Mr. Glaze died of stage 4 lung cancer before he could be set free.

Therefore, it is not impossible for a DR serial killer to be freed by DNA evidence.
Especially when , as you claimed, they have more chances for appeals.

In fact the 47 year resident on Florida's death row, inmate Tommy Zeigler, may be the first.

February 2023: Florida attorney general drops challenge in Zeigler DNA dispute

I won't repeat myself on the topic of abortion. Now, I really am making this my final reply to your postings.

Believe what you want. Even when you're wrong and won't face it.




.

 

[ZNP]

Convicted of serial murders, inmate Billy Glaze was given multiple life sentences.

DNA evidence showed he was innocent.

Sadly, Mr. Glaze died of stage 4 lung cancer before he could be set free.

Therefore, it is not impossible for a DR serial killer to be freed by DNA evidence.
Especially when , as you claimed, they have more chances for appeals.

In fact the 47 year resident on Florida's death row, inmate Tommy Zeigler, may be the first.

February 2023: Florida attorney general drops challenge in Zeigler DNA dispute
.

DNA has improved tremendously since the 1980s. I have already referred to them using DNA to exonerate people as the technology improved. But Billy Glaze is a red herring, he wasn't on death row, so he is simply a person wrongly convicted. I have already said that they estimate 5% of the people in prison have been wrongly convicted. His exoneration was due to improvements to DNA which were almost certainly the result of the death penalty. So he doesn't disprove what I say, he is a case in point. You are so close minded you can't even comprehend what I have been saying. Without knowing more about him or his case I can only make an educated guess, but my guess is that he was unable to afford the best legal counsel, I would not be surprised if he was given a lawyer by the state. The fallacy in your argument about appeals is that most of the people in prison, especially those who are wrongly convicted, is that they cannot afford their own legal counsel. In the US you get the justice you can afford. That is not how it should be but that is how it is. Forensics doesn't change that fact, what it does do is raise the level of the floor so that the injustice is far less than it used to be.

Also, I have made it clear I support the State's rights to decide for themselves whether or not to have the death penalty and in what instances. I have no issue with a state that chooses not to have it, however, I think the debate over the issue should not hide all of the people who have been saved from spending their life in jail wrongly convicted due to advances in forensics for which the death penalty deserves part of the credit. Give credit to whom credit is due.

I think the debate should include all the facts and what I have found with all the ones condemning the death penalty is that they ignore the millions of innocent people who have been saved from being wrongly convicted in part because of the death penalty.

 

[loveme1]

Every day here in England you read about a knife crime.. a young lad lost is life after being stabbed very close to home within the last 3 weeks.. sad times we endure as the darkness gathers above.

The problem isn’t the gun or knife.. it is the person with evil intent that is the problem!

A fallen world governed by dark forces.. we bury our heads in the sand trying to live our best life amongst the evil.

You can remove guns and weapons until kingdom come but that evil intent will remain. The powers that be will tighten their grip also.. destiny awaits mankind.

In the meantime as we abide let us not be tempted to render evil with evil. That is a challenge. GOD will call an end to this madness.

 

[ButterflyJones]

Every day here in England you read about a knife crime.. a young lad lost is life after being stabbed very close to home within the last 3 weeks.. sad times we endure as the darkness gathers above.

The problem isn’t the gun or knife.. it is the person with evil intent that is the problem!

A fallen world governed by dark forces.. we bury our heads in the sand trying to live our best life amongst the evil.

You can remove guns and weapons until kingdom come but that evil intent will remain. The powers that be will tighten their grip also.. destiny awaits mankind.

In the meantime as we abide let us not be tempted to render evil with evil. That is a challenge. GOD will call an end to this madness.

Knives are the #1 offensive weapon in Scotland too.

The travesty in England is that the government disarmed police.
Police have to call for a special unit allowed to carry firearms. Which of course costs valuable response time when encountering armed assailants and protecting unarmed innocents.

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

Knives are the #1 offensive weapon in Scotland too.

The travesty in England is that the government disarmed police.
Police have to call for a special unit allowed to carry firearms. Which of course costs valuable response time when encountering armed assailants and protecting unarmed innocents.

I was watching some British show of clips from CCTV. There were some clips of British traffic cops being assaulted for writing up parking tickets. But the worse of it is they didn't have anything on them to defend themselves and they didn't even arrest the person who hit them!!! I felt so bad for the British police!

❧

 

[ButterflyJones]

I was watching some British show of clips from CCTV. There were some clips of British traffic cops being assaulted for writing up parking tickets. But the worse of it is they didn't have anything on them to defend themselves and they didn't even arrest the person who hit them!!! I felt so bad for the British police!

❧

The world has gone mad.

I know someone who works at the local Walmart. They have an employee who is lazy and dirty.

Their uniform top is a sight. Filthy! My buddy has worked there for 6 months and this guy's uniform top was filthy when they first arrived.

So today they asked a manager if they could tell him to wash it. Because a customer had complained they didn't want him near them.

No.

Why?

It's against the rules. It would be considered interfering with his lifestyle choice.

😳

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

The world has gone mad.

I know someone who works at the local Walmart. They have an employee who is lazy and dirty.

Their uniform top is a sight. Filthy! My buddy has worked there for 6 months and this guy's uniform top was filthy when they first arrived.

So today they asked a manager if they could tell him to wash it. Because a customer had complained they didn't want him near them.

No.

Why?

It's against the rules. It would be considered interfering with his lifestyle choice.

😳

Oh my gosh! That's INSANE! Part of the reputation of a store is how neat and clean the shelves, products and employees are.

So they'd rather lose customers than to tell their employee to change their lifestyle choice to a more hygienic one? Okay....

❧

 

[ButterflyJones]

Oh my gosh! That's INSANE! Part of the reputation of a store is how neat and clean the shelves, products and employees are.

So they'd rather lose customers than to tell their employee to change their lifestyle choice to a more hygienic one? Okay....

❧

It could be part of the trend. Tolerate all, offend none?

They don't teach cursive writing in public schools anymore. Can't read it, can't write cursive either.

Why?

2 reasons. It's difficult to learn. (?)
And, the U. S Constitution and other historic documents are written in cursive.

Get it?
If you can't read the Constitution you don't know your rights.

Sure, you can find their language in straight font online. But what kind is going to bother with that?

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

It could be part of the trend. Tolerate all, offend none?

They don't teach cursive writing in public schools anymore. Can't read it, can't write cursive either.

Why?

2 reasons. It's difficult to learn. (?)
And, the U. S Constitution and other historic documents are written in cursive.

Get it?
If you can't read the Constitution you don't know your rights.

Sure, you can find their language in straight font online. But what kind is going to bother with that?

Yeah, I read that learning script is no longer mandatory in most states which is a shame. It's fortunately still mandated in my state to be taught starting in elementary school and also wisely returned in 2017 to New York City! I know typing is the fastest way to write, but script is still faster than block writing. And it is so expressive and pretty! I still love sending snail mail to people and writing in script! It also comes in handy if power to your computer or mobile device was out and you need to write something (I always keep a small notebook near me or in my purse).

I think people are trying to phase script out because of the technology that we have right now. Most people do our writing on computers with keyboards now. I don't think it's so we couldn't read old and historic documents in cursive. I did hear that idea came from a tik tok video and the idea of it spread quickly.

❧

 

[ButterflyJones]

Yeah, I read that learning script is no longer mandatory in most states which is a shame. It's fortunately still mandated in my state to be taught starting in elementary school and also wisely returned in 2017 to New York City! I know typing is the fastest way to write, but script is still faster than block writing. And it is so expressive and pretty! I still love sending snail mail to people and writing in script! It also comes in handy if power to your computer or mobile device was out and you need to write something (I always keep a small notebook near me or in my purse).

I think people are trying to phase script out because of the technology that we have right now. Most people do our writing on computers with keyboards now. I don't think it's so we couldn't read old and historic documents in cursive. I did hear that idea came from a tik tok video and the idea of it spread quickly.

❧

Your state ps system has common sense. For now.
Parents should teach their children cursive.


I tell ya, it's at times overwhelming to witness how far we're falling as a people. Locally and globally.

For instance, Craig's List is in the bad news again!
Sex trafficking in 2020.
Now, there are driver ads appearing for south Texas. Huge money.
Why? To bring illegals into America. And the ads are supposedly paid for by the Cartels who are the smugglers.

They caught one guy from Houston who had four cartel members related to El Chapo in his car.

It's treason on wheels.

There's more. Social Media is never good news.
Now, God knows who, are cloning people's voices from their SM accounts and making spoof calls to family and friends. They claim to have the person in their custody, kidnapped. And the cloned voice they got off the SM accounts is used to convince the victim that their loved one is in the callers custody.

One woman got a call about her daughter. She could be heard crying in the background.
The caller wanted a million dollars.

Thankfully the mom got hold of her daughter who was safe on a ski trip.

But these spoof scammers scour SM accounts where people are naive enough to make public their whereabouts at all times.

Satan is indeed lord of this world. Man, is he and his disciples busy.

 

[Lanolin]

interesting

Here its probably more motor accidents/car crashes. Dying on the road will travelling over 100km an hour is usually what happens and death tolls are counted every holiday season. Often the cause is that drivers are inattententive or intoxicated. They are never deliberate car crashes.

I dont know if in the US drunk people with guns is counted, or its just accidental deaths or more murder deaths.

 

[Moses_Young]

Anyone who has taken a course in research should tell you that stats and studies often reflect their sponsorship. For instance, in the College of Agriculture, if the chemical company Monsanto funded a study that a professor was hired to work on, he would both teach and come up with a biased conclusion.

When one of the major gun confiscation corporations funds a study, it will provide them with all the ammunition that want to deceive the public into taking away their weapons without too many shots fired. This is an information war. The shots fired might be a C👁️‍🗨️A operative, or an unstable, immoral person they wind up and then amplify the focus on. Their solution is always, "We will outlaw your weapons for your own safety."

I'm a stickler for safety, but not at the expense of giving up my first aid kit and placing my health in the hands of my enemies.

Exactly. How many of the world's population live under tyranny or in fear of government because their family members don't have free access to guns? Far more than 20%. The statistics can be built to provide the answer that is looked for.

How many people who died under state brutality (e.g. Communism) in the 20th century would have survived, had they simply had free access to guns? Probably upward of 80%, because Communists are cowards, and many know where they're headed when they die. As such, they're always trying to ban guns so those who they abuse can't fight back and send them to an early Judgement.