• Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
  • FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!

'The hardest decision I have ever made': Illinois governor abolishes death penalty

Re: 'The hardest decision I have ever made': Illinois governor abolishes death penalt

you know clinton bombed iraq too, killed some people.
waco? little kids?
really wanna go there?
it's an irrelevant argument, maybe even a desperate one.
you don't believe in the death penalty fine but don't use such a lame ass argument.

and the "it's racist" argument is ridiculous too.

Clinton had just cause. Bush and Blair made up a story about Saddam having WMD's and that they were ready to be deployed against the west in 45 mins, now millions of Iraqis are dead as well as 1000s of coalition troops, Britain doesn't have the resources to fight a war and we were dragged into it. Bush and Blair need to be held accountable for what they did as they abused their positions as president/prime minister and deployed the troops at their disposal for their own objectives, Britain and the US were never under threat from Saddams WMDs , in fact he didn't even have any WMDs or tanks, planes, ships or anything. And after all that the country's been handed over to Ahmadinejad's best mate Muqtadā al-Ṣadr :facepalm:
 

meesterperfect

Hiliary 2020
Re: 'The hardest decision I have ever made': Illinois governor abolishes death penalt

Ok U.
I don't want to get into an Iraq debate.
And I'm not even defending it, just saying it's not an apt argument against the death penalty.
But Clinton did bomb Iraq in a senseless, half-ass way for exactly the same reasons Bush said.
"If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future."

Mark his words.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/clinton_12-16.html


http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Clint...to_war__Bush_spikes_of_activity_que_0705.html
 
Re: 'The hardest decision I have ever made': Illinois governor abolishes death penalt

Bravo Governor Quinn! Let's get rid of it altogether....one state at a time if need be.

:clap::clap::clap:

I'm right behind Jag on this.
:clap::clap::clap:
 
Re: 'The hardest decision I have ever made': Illinois governor abolishes death penalt

I have a question for everyone who's in favour of the death penalty. Suppose someone lies to the entire world saying a certain country is developing weapons of mass destruction. Suppose that someone also declares war on said country, again, based on lies, and as such is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. I'd call that a pretty heinous crime, a war crime even. Does that person deserve to be sentenced to death?


ace_sgtom_wqdglz1q.gif

 
Re: 'The hardest decision I have ever made': Illinois governor abolishes death penalt

Only if it's keeping perfect time. Which, metaphorically, is actually much closer to the heart of the matter here.

In a world absent of absolute certainly (perfect time), then we can never be entirely certain of guilt, even with confession.

Which means we must either make the decision to take the life based on best belief, or we chose to preserve life in the knowledge that if we are wrong, we ourselves commit an injustice greater than the crime for which a death penalty has been assigned.

Why sentence anyone, ever if we can't be fairly unequivocal of their guilt? There are definitely cases where we can be as unequivocally sure of a set of circumstances as is practical. In cases, where we are merely reasonably assured of the facts the death penalty shouldn't apply. But in situations where guilt of a premeditated murder is unequivocal...they deserve the death penalty IMO.

I have a question for everyone who's in favour of the death penalty. Suppose someone lies to the entire world saying a certain country is developing weapons of mass destruction. Suppose that someone also declares war on said country, again, based on lies, and as such is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. I'd call that a pretty heinous crime, a war crime even. Does that person deserve to be sentenced to death?

I believe GWB is guilty of crimes and should be punished. Even though his actions effected the needless deaths of many I doubt there can be a case made that he knowingly premeditated the killing of innocent people and carried it out.

It would be near impossible to demonstrate GWB knowingly set out to kill innocent people. Especially when what's undergirding his case is the suggestion others believed like he did and the UN sanctioned it.

It's like a prosecutor who withheld exculpatory evidence in a capital case and they find later some misconduct in this way with the prosecutor. The prosecutor may...on the longest of shots get some punishment but it won't amount to being prosecuted for murder.
 

TheOrangeCat

AFK..being taken to the vet to get neutered.
Re: 'The hardest decision I have ever made': Illinois governor abolishes death penalt

Why sentence anyone, ever if we can't be fairly unequivocal of their guilt? There are definitely cases where we can be as unequivocally sure of a set of circumstances as is practical. In cases, where we are merely reasonably assured of the facts the death penalty shouldn't apply. But in situations where guilt of a premeditated murder is unequivocal...they deserve the death penalty IMO.

No judicial or penal system can be infallible. Which means there will always be miscarriages of justice that leave the innocent behind bars; or facing death.

My question is, that given there will always be mistakes, how do you make best efforts to limit the damage of those mistakes to a system we need, and to society as a whole?

The best way to pursue the best interests of justice is to take the death penalty away, because it means no-one ever has to pay the ultimate price for a mistake. I think few would disagree that an unjust death should not be an acceptable cost of the business of law, simply because that death was needed by the system.

With life, there's always a chance for the system to catch its own mistake and evolve; for the wrongly condemned to rejoin their lives and societies; for there to be living witnesses that warn us to be on our guard against complacent faith in 'the system'.

But you see, that is also the point. The dead don't complain, have no rights and cannot reappear to embarrass the system, its architects and servants.

Doctors often joke they bury their mistakes to protect themselves. They might, but so does the legal system, and on a grand scale, its fat ass tamping down the graves of the wrongly and mistakenly dead, making sure they stay out of sight, and out of mind.
 
Re: 'The hardest decision I have ever made': Illinois governor abolishes death penalt

No judicial or penal system can be infallible. Which means there will always be miscarriages of justice that leave the innocent behind bars; or facing death.
True. But is that a case for abandoning justice? Are we to be so paralyzed by the thought that there can always be the possibility of being wrong that justice doesn't get meted out? The imperfection of our justice system is not a case against the death penalty IMO.
My question is, that given there will always be mistakes, how do you make best efforts to limit the damage of those mistakes to a system we need, and to society as a whole?
In order to justifiably punish but also recognize the prospect of fallibility...death sentences should only be ordered in cases where guilt of premeditated murder is unequivocal. There are cases like that out there.
The best way to pursue the best interests of justice is to take the death penalty away, because it means no-one ever has to pay the ultimate price for a mistake. I think few would disagree that an unjust death should not be an acceptable cost of the business of law, simply because that death was needed by the system.
I disagree. That doesn't guarantee a person won't pay the ultimate price for the system's mistake as they could just as likely meet their demise at the end of a inmate's shank. The only thing guaranteed in that case is those guilty of the most serious crime, premeditated murder will not receive deserved sentences commensurate with their crimes.
With life, there's always a chance for the system to catch its own mistake and evolve; for the wrongly condemned to rejoin their lives and societies; for there to be living witnesses that warn us to be on our guard against complacent faith in 'the system'.

But you see, that is also the point. The dead don't complain, have no rights and cannot reappear to embarrass the system, its architects and servants.

Doctors often joke they bury their mistakes to protect themselves. They might, but so does the legal system, and on a grand scale, its fat ass tamping down the graves of the wrongly and mistakenly dead, making sure they stay out of sight, and out of mind.

That's the reason death should only be ordered in cases where guilt is reasonably unequivocal.
 
Re: 'The hardest decision I have ever made': Illinois governor abolishes death penalt

Let's just say that if I were the father of the 5 yr old boy who was molested, murdered and eaten, I'd be all for letting the killer out of jail early.

There would be the slowest death possible for that guy, no remorse, no feelings.

To be honest, if someone were to do something bad to my son, you better make sure the cops catch you first.
 
Re: 'The hardest decision I have ever made': Illinois governor abolishes death penalt

This is a 22 year old case. It's about as relevant as disco. It also led directly to the law being changed to stop this from happening - including confiscating his old age pension

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Keenan

Not only profited handsomely from his crime, he also in the process got the Son of Sam Law struck down in California allowing any criminals whether they be hop heads or serial killers to make $$$$ from their atrocities.

Taking one extreme example is a very bad way of making a point.

Love that you failed to comment on the other cases. Thats right, 21 years for 22 murders, sounds fair.
 
Re: 'The hardest decision I have ever made': Illinois governor abolishes death penalt

This is a 22 year old case. It's about as relevant as disco. It also led directly to the law being changed to stop this from happening - including confiscating his old age pension

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Keenan

Not only profited handsomely from his crime, he also in the process got the Son of Sam Law struck down in California allowing any criminals whether they be hop heads or serial killers to make $$$$ from their atrocities.

Taking one extreme example is a very bad way of making a point.

Love that you failed to comment on the other cases. Thats right, 21 years for 22 murders, sounds fair.

CATFIGHTTTT!! (To the death penalty.)
 
It's simple ...

It's simple ...

Until it cost less to kill someone than to keep them alive for the rest of their lives, I'm against capital punishment. Right now the lawyers love the death penalty, and it costs tax payers far more than just life imprisonment.

The way Texas combats this cost is by limiting appeals and executes far quicker than other states. That goes too far in my view because violates the right to appeals and other due process. So that is not a solution.

The only solution that makes sense both fiscally and of liberties is life imprisonment.

Justice is not an eye-for-an-eye in the US court system, and many will point that out. Yes, the US legal system is original based on many, religious texts, but it is also based on many others. We don't get to pick'n choose.

In fact, our system is purposely designed so the family of victims don't get to define "justice," but the system does.
 

emceeemcee

Banned
Re: 'The hardest decision I have ever made': Illinois governor abolishes death penalt

There would be the slowest death possible for that guy, no remorse, no feelings.

To be honest, if someone were to do something bad to my son, you better make sure the cops catch you first.


I bet your neighbours feel lucky
 

emceeemcee

Banned
Re: 'The hardest decision I have ever made': Illinois governor abolishes death penalt

here's mine:
what the fuck does saddam hussien have to do with it?
A guy that used the death penalty on MILLIONS, innocent, guilty, children babies.


what do Saddam's crimes have to do with the crimes of western leaders?
 

georges

Moderator
Staff member
Re: 'The hardest decision I have ever made': Illinois governor abolishes death penalt

Who are we to decide wether someone deserves to die or not ?
And how do you decide ? Where's the edge separating people deserving to live from people deserving to die ?

I am for death penalty for serial murderers, gang members, rapists, mob bosses and drug dealers. People with enough education and who are responsible can decide if one can live or die according to their justice record. If the guilty has a justice record full of crimes and assaults, he needs to die, end of story. Remember because of who we abolished death penalty in France in 1981? Because of a socialist goddamn Moron called Robert Badinter. I am pretty sure that you are aware that because of such laxism, a horrible murder made by a recidivist happened in France two weeks ago and that recivist was set for free for good behavior some years ago. With these people only a 500 s&w magnum or a 44 magnum bullet in their skull will help.
 

georges

Moderator
Staff member
Re: 'The hardest decision I have ever made': Illinois governor abolishes death penalt

Bravo Governor Quinn! Let's get rid of it altogether....one state at a time if need be.

:clap::clap::clap:

bad decision, you will remark it is also the state where Obama was a senator (Illinois for the case) that has one of the worst criminality rates. Excusing crimes by abolishing the death penalty is being weak and laxist.
 

emceeemcee

Banned
Re: 'The hardest decision I have ever made': Illinois governor abolishes death penalt

Excusing crimes by abolishing the death penalty is being weak and laxist.


Err crimes aren't excused in countries that don't use capitol punishment. There's these things called prison complexes. What do you think life is like in those places Georges? A Fijian resort lifestyle or something?


Show us some evidence that the death penalty does a single thing to bring down crime rates and make a society better.
 
Re: 'The hardest decision I have ever made': Illinois governor abolishes death penalt

emceeemcee said:
Show us some evidence that the death penalty does a single thing to bring down crime rates and make a society better.

He can't because it doesn't. If the death penalty really was a deterrent no murders or other heinous crimes would be commited in countries wich have the death penalty. It's also good to remember you can judge a society not only by how it treats it's weakest members but also by how it treats it's prisoners. It doesn't matter how you try to twist and turn it, state sanctioned killing is still murder.
 

Supafly

Retired Mod
Bronze Member
Re: 'The hardest decision I have ever made': Illinois governor abolishes death penalt

In a way, a lot of the pro-death sentencers remind me of Britney Spears... when she said:

"I am for the death penalty. Who commits terrible acts must get a fitting punishment. That way he learns the lesson for the next time."
 

emceeemcee

Banned
Re: 'The hardest decision I have ever made': Illinois governor abolishes death penalt

That's straight out of the George Dubya book of logic.



Nice one Britt-nay.
 

Facetious

Moderated
Re: 'The hardest decision I have ever made': Illinois governor abolishes death penalt

Bush and Blair need to be held accountable for what they did as they abused their positions as president/prime minister and deployed the troops at their disposal for their own objectives, Britain and the US were never under threat from Saddams WMDs , in fact he didn't even have any WMDs or tanks, planes, ships or anything. And after all that the country's been handed over to Ahmadinejad's best mate Muqtadā al-Ṣadr :facepalm:
Should this cast of characters also be held accountable?

What they said and when they said it-

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and
consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to
take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air
and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to
end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From
a letter signed by Joe Lieberman (D), Dianne Feinstein
(D), Barbara A. Milulski (D), Tom Daschle (D), & John
Kerry (D) October 9, 1998.


"This December will mark three years since United
Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no
doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has
reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate
that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status.
In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery
systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit
missile program to develop longer- range missiles that
will threaten the United States and our allies." Bob
Graham (D), Joe Lieberman (D), Harold Ford (D), & Tom
Lantos (D) December 6, 2001.


"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire
agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered
into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its
weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to
permit monitoring and verification by United Nations
inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of
mass destruction, including chemical and biological
capabilities, and has made positive progress toward
developing nuclear weapons capabilities" Tom Harkin
(D) and Arlen Specter (RINO) July 18, 2002.


"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N.
sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons
of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not
and we will not let him succeed." Madeline Albright
(D), 1998.


"Saddam will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass
destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he
will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since
1983" National Security Adviser Sandy Berger (D), Feb
18, 1998.


"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to
completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction,
and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its
agreement." Barbara Boxer (D), November 8, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October
of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained
some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons,
and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare
capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he
is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved
nuclear capability." Robert Byrd (D), October 2002.

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a
threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons.
He's had those for a long time. But the United States
right now is on a very much different defensive
posture than we were before September 11th of 2001...
He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear
capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads
yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think
our friends in the region would face greatly increased
risks as would we." Wesley Clark (D) on September 26,
2002.


"What is at stake is how to answer the potential
threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation
of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the
past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think
that, over the past four years, in the absence of
international inspectors, this country has continued
armament programs." Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002.

"The community of nations may see more and more of the
very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with
weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or
provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond
today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his
footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." Bill Clinton
(D) in 1998.


"In the four years since the inspectors left,
intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has
worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and
sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members,
though there is apparently no evidence of his
involvement in the terrible events of September 11,
2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked,
Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity
to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep
trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed
in that endeavor, he could alter the political and
security landscape of the Middle East, which as we
know all too well affects American security." Hillary
Clinton (D) October 10, 2002.


"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I
saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the
inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a
warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and
then moving those trucks out." Clinton's Secretary of
Defense William Cohen (D) in April of 2003.


"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess
weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation
with a leader who has used them against his own
people." Tom Daschle (D) 1998.

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to
America and our allies, including our vital ally,
Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has
sought weapons of mass destruction through every
available means. We know that he has chemical and
biological weapons. He has already used them against
his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to
build more. We know that he is doing everything he can
to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he
gets closer to achieving that goal." John Edwards (D)
Oct 10, 2002


"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is
about national security. It should be clear that our
national security requires Congress to send a clear
message to Iraq and the world: America is united in
its determination to eliminate forever the threat of
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." John Edwards (D)
Oct 10, 2002.


"I share the administration's goals in dealing with
Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." Dick
Gephardt (D) in September of 2002.


"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of
the Persian Gulf and we should organize an
international coalition to eliminate his access to
weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons
of mass destruction has proven impossible to
completely deter and we should assume that it will
continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore
(D) 2002.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling
evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a
number of years, a developing capacity for the
production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction." Bob Graham (D) December 2002.

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who
is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire
weapons of mass destruction." Jim Jeffords (I) October
8, 2002.


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is
seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Ted Kennedy (D) September 27, 2002.

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a
serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his
pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot
be tolerated. He must be disarmed." Ted Kennedy (D)
Sept 27, 2002.


"I will be voting to give the president of the United
States the authority to use force - if necessary - to
disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly
arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is
a real and grave threat to our security." John F.
Kerry (D) Oct 2002.


"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It
has been with us since the end of that war, and
particularly in the last 4 years we know after
Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept
them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He
has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these
weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to
lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction
and the issue of proliferation." John F. Kerry (D)
October 9, 2002.

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We
all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so
consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is
miscalculating America’s response to his continued
deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction. That is why the world, through the United
Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice,
demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and
disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons
of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has
been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."
John F. Kerry (D) Jan 23, 2003.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein
is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of
the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United
Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
and the means of delivering them." Carl Levin (D) Sept
19, 2002.


"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical
weapons, biological weapons, and the development of
nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United
States." Joe Lieberman (D) August, 2002.


"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear,
chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994,
despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and
dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that
Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various
reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing
nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to
think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has
actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N.
inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about
biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable.
In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and
later, against its own Kurdish population. While
weapons inspections have been successful in the past,
there have been no inspections since the end of 1998.
There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to
pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass
destruction." Patty Murray (D) October 9, 2002.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am
keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and
biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to
all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the
development of weapons of mass destruction technology
which is a threat to countries in the region and he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Nancy Pelosi (D) December 16, 1998.

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on
highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons
inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological
agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium
perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several
dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as
the means to continue manufacturing these deadly
agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the
highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas
and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery
shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And
Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial
infrastructure that can be used to rapidly
reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production."
Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter (reg D) in 1998.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is
working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and
will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five
years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain
access to enriched uranium from foreign sources --
something that is not that difficult in the current
world. We also should remember we have always
underestimated the progress Saddam has made in
development of weapons of mass destruction." John
Rockefeller (D) Oct 10, 2002.


"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons
capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now.
Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against
Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is
working to develop delivery systems like missiles and
unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly
weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the
Middle East." John Rockefeller (D) Oct 10, 2002.

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the
Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think
there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He
has systematically violated, over the course of the
past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that
has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical
and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This
he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the
mandate and authority of international weapons
inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying
time against enforcement of the just and legitimate
demands of the United Nations, the Security Council,
the United States and our allies. Those are simply the
facts." Henry Waxman (D) Oct 10, 2002.
 
Top