Looks like Kansas is a rad more progressive than it's elected leaders thought!

Democracy at work. The ballot question was REALLY stupid though, a kinda confusing paragraph that could’ve been 1 sentence.

You want to link some FACTUAL evedience where these inocent people were executed. Were any of the inocent aborted guilty of ANYTHING. Most families that have had to go through the trauma of losing a loved one to violence would vehemently disagree with your anti death penalty stance. How many people who have been released and commit more violent crimes?

You must not have lost anyone to violence of a lowlife criminal.


I love your quote...immoral. I guess the crime they committed wasn't immoral. Isn't it funny that states that abolished the death penalty have the least restrictive abortion laws. As I said before the left is obsessed with abortion on demand and will go to any level of violence to support it. Going as far as trying to kill a justice of the Supreme court and violate laws about gathering outside their homes. How many have been prosecuted in regards to this violation of the law and abhorrent behavior??

Abortion is just another form of birth control.
Abortion isn't immoral but capital punishment is...I love that logic. Originally Posted by bb1961

Watch Death Row Stories religiously and you will understand.

More than 185 people who were sentenced to death in the United States have been exonerated and released since 1973, with official misconduct and perjury/false accusation the leading causes of their wrongful convictions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution

1,548 people have been executed in the U.S. since 1973.

https://eji.org/issues/death-penalty...20since%201973.

We use survival analysis to model this effect, and estimate that if all death-sentenced defendants remained under sentence of death indefinitely at least 4.1% would be exonerated. We conclude that this is a conservative estimate of the proportion of false conviction among death sentences in the United States.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1306417111

You should read my post again. I was arguing in favor of the Hyde Amendment. That is, I don't believe taxpayer money should be used to pay for abortions. You probably agree with everything I wrote in that particular post about abortion.

I think we merely need new rules to make damn sure that anybody we execute deserves it. Take for example, eye witness testimony with no other evidence, should never be executed because after years of study we know how un-reliable eye witness testimony can be. We learned that lesson well in the Michael Brown case.


But you catch a person in the act, like some guy ( all alone ) having barricaded himself in a house and has killed a half dozen police officers, you know he is the killer, no other evidence needed. That guy, I execute without batting an eye. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Theoretically I see your point Hedonist. Practically I think that would be darn hard to do. You're just not going to have politicians in death penalty states re-writing the laws that way.

I know about 1% as much about criminal law as you do. But I've watched a lot of episodes of Death Row Stories. And there are more than a few police and prosecutors out there who delude themselves into believing someone is guilty when he's innocent. It's just human nature -- you get something in your head, you make the evidence or data fit what you believe, and then you're reluctant to abandon your belief when you're clearly wrong. The same thing happens in science.

Gotta be a moral dilemma for Republicans to vastly support death penalty but oppose abortion. Is it pro life, or control of women?

What's the dilemma? You libs always frame the question wrong. Yes, some people are absolutists. They think the government should not be in the business of killing citizens for any reason. The vast majority is about due process. A person on death row got due process, an unborn baby does not. Get around that and try to answer. Give the unborn due process as befits a human being and a citizen of this country.

Theoretically I see your point Hedonist. Practically I think that would be darn hard to do. You're just not going to have politicians in death penalty states re-writing the laws that way.

I know about 1% as much about criminal law as you do. But I've watched a lot of episodes of Death Row Stories. And there are more than a few police and prosecutors out there who delude themselves into believing someone is guilty when he's innocent. It's just human nature -- you get something in your head, you make the evidence or data fit what you believe, and then you're reluctant to abandon your belief when you're clearly wrong. The same thing happens in science. Originally Posted by Tiny

I can only suggest how to reform the law, I can't make them do it but to say we can't execute someone whose guilt is not in doubt because you caught them "in the act" as they say, sends the wrong message as far as I'm concerned.


Could we be wrong that Nicholas Cruz didn't kill all those children? Any problem putting Dylan Roof to death? Any possibility at all that they got the wrong guy?

Gotta be a moral dilemma for Republicans to vastly support death penalty but oppose abortion. Is it pro life, or control of women? Originally Posted by royamcr

Dilemma? No, not really. One is an innocent child without the capacity to harm anyone or anything, the other was convicted of 1st degree murder and had it upheld through a decade of appeals. If you see a dilemma there, it’s you who’s got morality issues.

What part of pro life only god can kill don't you understand?

I can only suggest how to reform the law, I can't make them do it but to say we can't execute someone whose guilt is not in doubt because you caught them "in the act" as they say, sends the wrong message as far as I'm concerned.


Could we be wrong that Nicholas Cruz didn't kill all those children? Any problem putting Dylan Roof to death? Any possibility at all that they got the wrong guy? Originally Posted by HedonistForever

I’m going to sound sanctimonious or naive as hell, or both. But I don’t believe the death penalty deters crime. I believe killing people, even mass murderers, is immoral. And the way our system works, the death penalty is a waste of taxpayer money. If you believe in an eye for an eye, you’re going to disagree.

What part of pro life only god can kill don't you understand? Originally Posted by royamcr

The part you pulled out of your ass. Pro-life (aka anti-abortion) has nothing to do with the death penalty, you’re lame attempt to conflate the two notwithstanding.

Boyz, y’all are still arguing the issue, not the outcome of the direct voter decision, which was resounding.

Unless it was rigged, of course.

What's the dilemma? You libs always frame the question wrong. Yes, some people are absolutists. They think the government should not be in the business of killing citizens for any reason. The vast majority is about due process. A person on death row got due process, an unborn baby does not. Get around that and try to answer. Give the unborn due process as befits a human being and a citizen of this country. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Except a fetus is not a human just like an egg is not a chicken.

Are you expecting chicken nuggets out of eggs from your local grocery store?

Of course not.

That is why a majority support access to abortion in the first trimester....even in Kansas.

I’m going to sound sanctimonious or naive as hell, or both. But I don’t believe the death penalty deters crime. I believe killing people, even mass murderers, is immoral. And the way our system works, the death penalty is a waste of taxpayer money. If you believe in an eye for an eye, you’re going to disagree. Originally Posted by Tiny

That's never stopped you before! Your Sanctimoniousness aside...if capital punishment deterred crime....Texas would be crime free!

But this is a thread about abortion rights and if we talk about money , there is a huge savings to the state by providing funding to women's health care which includes condoms and plan b and abortions if needed. That is much cheaper in the long run than forcing a woman to have a unwanted unplanned child who will require care from the state for 18 years and most likely will wind up in jail which is a whole northern huge cost.

That's never stopped you before! Your Sanctimoniousness aside...if capital punishment deterred crime....Texas would be crime free!

But this is a thread about abortion rights and if we talk about money , there is a huge savings to the state by providing funding to women's health care which includes condoms and plan b and abortions if needed. That is much cheaper in the long run than forcing a woman to have a unwanted unplanned child who will require care from the state for 18 years and most likely will wind up in jail which is a whole northern huge cost. Originally Posted by WTF

What he said!

Except a fetus is not a human just like an egg is not a chicken.

Are you expecting chicken nuggets out of eggs from your local grocery store?

Of course not.

That is why a majority support access to abortion in the first trimester....even in Kansas. Originally Posted by WTF

Please never write about biology again as you clearly have no idea what you are saying.
A fetus is a stage of development in the human species and most other mammals. If a fetus is gestating inside a human female that fetus is human. Period. Not because it's inside a woman either. It's because it came from human gametes.
I hope you are arguing economics from a more informed position, though from what I've seen, that doesn't seem to be the case.