(January 13, 2017 at 2:15 pm)Rhythm Wrote:(January 13, 2017 at 1:53 pm)Shell B Wrote: I'm not overestimating anything. I'm presenting what I think would be ideal situations for the use of the death penalty. We mostly agree. The system fucks up. When and where there is a time when there is absolutely no question about a person's guilt, I'm perfectly fine with the state offing a guy or gal. It's that simple.I like to think that we do mostly agree. I don't know that there's ever a point where we can be 100% (we're not required to be anyway), and even in such a case I'm still not okay with the state offing the guy or gal...but I have objections to it other than the guilt of any specific individual.
Quote:This is a thread about Roof.It seems to have evolved since then, like threads usually do, lol. The case of one person is an insufficient basis around which to form or justify a system which will -and must by law be- applied to many others.
Honestly, I can totally see why people are against the death penalty 100%. I'm almost entirely with them.
As for your second point, sure, it has evolved, but Roof is still the crux of the argument, the reason we're talking about the death penalty. I have made clear a jillion times that, no matter what everyone else is talking about, I'm specifically talking about people like Roof. I also don't see how how a law, which I haven't advocated or proposed, specifically designed to apply to the most heinous of killers with the most specific needs for evidence would have to apply to many others. You could easily write a law that only obtained to certain people. The only problem is A. People who love the death penalty and B. People who hate it. If you wrote it perfectly, one or the other side would just shit all over it.
