Are you for or against the death sentence?

@NativeOregonian

I don't agree because that sets the precedent for people who we're sure did it and are actually innocent to be killed.

@Pikachu That is why there must be zero shadow of any doubt, that the offender acting unremorseful should be taken into account. Take Dylan Roof for example, murdered nine people in a church, premeditated, then asked the cop for Burger King after being arrested. Multiple witnesses verify him as the shooter. If anyone is worthy of a firing squad or the gallows in town square, he is the very epitome of why we need the death penalty, for justice.

@NativeOregonian

Still no good. If it's allowed at all then it's still going to be used against people who are innocent. It's never JUST going to be used on the unequivocal cases. It will be used in the ones that we're damn sure of and the ones that we're fairly certain of.

Innocent people would die. Killing the guilty is not worth even one death of an innocent person and unless you can say with certainty that not even one innocent person would be caught in that net then it shouldn't be allowed.

@Pikachu So then, you are saying that a mother that slowly poisons their child for the attention, or a black widow/er slowly poisoning their spouse for the insurance money should be let go scott free?

@NativeOregonian

[quote] should be let go scott free?[/quote]

Bud...
You speak to me of illogic and then you throw me the most blatant possible example of a straw man fallacy?

No, of course i don't think such people should be let off scot free. The options are not death or no consequences. That's a false dichotomy.

@Pikachu No, it is not strawman or false dichotomy, it is fact. There are truly evil psychopaths out there that need their necks stretched for the heinous murders and crimes against children they commit.

@Pikachu Let me put it to you another way, if someone that you loved with your entire being, heart, and soul, were viciously murdered in cold blood, you would want their killer put to death, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. My own Dad was murdered by my mother's brother, and his death covered up as a suicide. My mother's brother is still walking free, as well as the sheriff that helped cover it up. I know this because I read the report, and heard an audio tape, from the private investigator that my Dad's brothers and father hired to investigate. That PI uncovered tangible evidence, but was warned by the sheriff to skip town or the same would happen to him. My Dad was murdered February 21, 1981, was found three days later, the PI was warned two weeks after that. When one of your own is murdered, you wish justice for everyone.

@NativeOregonian

Sorry dude. That's the textbook example of a strawman. You misrepresented my argument and attacked the misrepresentation.

[quote]So are you saying...[they] ... should be let go scott free?[/quote]

I never at any point suggested that murders should be let off "scott-free".
To suggest that, that was my position is either a blatant attempt to straw man or a misunderstanding of my position.

@NativeOregonian

Yup. I'd want them dead, no question.
That's not the issue.
The issue is that i don't want innocent people to be put to death for a crime not their own.
And that WOULD happen. Or do you reject that?

@Pikachu No, you want them to benlet go scott free, cold blooded murders getting slaps on the hand while those who are murdered do not get the justice they deserve. You are callous to true justice.

@NativeOregonian

[quote]No, you want them to benlet go scott free,[/quote]

Logical fallacies do not bolster your argument.

[quote] Straw man is one type of logical fallacy. Straw man occurs when someone argues that a person holds a view that is actually not what the other person believes. Instead, it is a distorted version of what the person believes.[/quote]

I don't want them to be let off scott free. In fact i demand that they be punished.
Just not with death because that will result in the miscarriage of justice wherein an innocent person is put to death.

And that WOULD happen. Or do you reject that?

@Pikachu And you are NOT paying attention to what I am saying, irrefutable tangible evidence, the accused being unremorseful, no shred of doubt what so ever, that the motive was in cold blood. That is what the criteria should be to be eligible for the death penalty, solid reasonable logic for it, yet you refuse to see it.

@NativeOregonian

Answer me honestly.
Do you claim that "no shred of doubt" would NEVER result in the death of an innocent person? Do you think that the system would be infallible?

Yes or no?

@NativeOregonian

Hmmm. I guess age doesn't necessarily breed maturity.
I guess that concludes the productive portion of this interaction.

Have a pleasant day🙂