Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

MSNBC Debate - Did anyone else hear the crowd clap for the death penalty?

page: 1
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Am I taking crazy pills or was that crowd insane?

People applauding killing potentially innocent people? Rick Perry standing there like he was so proud of this?

Like killing another person is justified?

WTF is wrong with this country? That seriously made me ill.
edit on 7-9-2011 by Dance4Life because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   
I think its perfectly fine in some cases. Whats so wrong about it?



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by chancemusky
 


Really?

Like at least 50% of the crowd was hooting and hollering about killing potentially innocent people. Rick Perry said he has not lost a second of sleep even thinking about killing potentially innocent ( or even guilty ) people.

Do you think this guy would care if he had to kill another 2000 Americans to push his presidential agenda? He wouldn't lose a second of sleep.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   
They were applauding the answer that Gov. Perry gave in response to a question on Texas having the death penalty..

I thought that he gave a pretty good response to a difficult question..

I didn't hear anything about killing innocent people...


These are convicted folks, who have YEARS!!! of available appeals processes..

Does this eliminate the possibility that someone may be executed who is innocent? possibly, but it's a hell of alot more unlikely than the days when you went from conviction to the noose in a short time..

Is capital punishment necessary? Guess it depends on individual states to determine that, and in Texas, they say it is on the table..



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


No, they applauded first when the moderator said he has killed over xxx amount of people over his time in office. People just started to applaud that comment alone first before he said a word.

Edit : I guess you kinda meant the same thing. In general though they were applauding killing people in terrible ways. How does this even seem right?
edit on 7-9-2011 by Dance4Life because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
All thoes people heard was wa wa wa killers wa wa waha killers wa wah wahaaa.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Dance4Life
 


If a jury of your peers that you and your lawyer choose, hear your case, and think you are evil enough to be executed, I doubt very often that they are wrong. There have been a few cases of mistaken convictions, and many more that were questioned. Just getting an entire jury to believe that a man deserves to die is a feat in and of itself. But truthfully how can you deny that there is a portion of the population that absolutely does not deserve to live. And how can you say that society doesn't have to be prudent when dealing with people willing and convicted of committing the worst crime imaginable? Do you think that tax dollars should be spent keeping someone locked in a cell forever to protect a life that was over the day they took there victim's life. I also watched the debate, and while his comments seemed to be like he was bragging about killing people, just like last week when he bragged about how he would expand the war on terror. After taking the entire context of that statement into consideration you have to give the guy props for at least not wavering on a tough question that he absolutely had to know might be a deal breaker.

If a jury decides a person deserves to die, they probably do. Should it be our right to judge? Absolutely not. But it is really expensive to keep people that aren't meant to live in society alive. And it really is a burden they most often do not deserve for us to bare.

EDIT: I think perry is a joke, btw, just think this won't be the item that breaks his campaign. I think mostly the fact that he supports Al gore, more WAR, and his liberal record will break his campaign before his political views on Capital Punishment are even brought up.

edit on 7-9-2011 by no time because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Dance4Life
 


Just reviewed the DVR for that question, and you are correct that there was some applause for the question prior to Perry giving his answer....

I respect your position, but I don't think they were clapping in favor of killing innocent folks..

Clapping in favor of taking the life of convicted criminals? yes?

But that is another debatable issue altogether



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by chancemusky
I think its perfectly fine in some cases. Whats so wrong about it?


It is a whole lot twisted (and very ROMAN) to be cheering over killing a person for killing a person.

You are in fact, cheering the very act which you are condemning.

That is some ape man monkey brain sh!z right there!

YEE HAW burn em all

As long as they bern!
edit on 7-9-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   
As another poster said they applauded because he gave a good answer. Also they may have applauded because some people are ignorant to things in our country and think that killing people who commit crimes is a good thing, so they support it.

I don't like death penalty at all OP. The only advice I can give you is to take it as a grain of salt and brush it off your shoulder. Personally I have thought that keeping them locked up the rest of the time they live on earth is far better as they never get to be with there family or friends again (except for visits, obviously).



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Dance4Life
 


I dont care if a guilty man ,who commited a horrible crime, is killed. I would vote for it.

But ffor the innocent, well, no, but unfortunately, if they are found guilty, chances are, theyre not getting out.
Its multiple life sentences if they dont do the death penalty.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by chancemusky
I think its perfectly fine in some cases. Whats so wrong about it?


It is a whole lot twisted (and very ROMAN) to be cheering over killing a person for killing a person.

You are in fact, cheering the very act which you are condemning.

That is some ape man monkey brain sh!z right there!

YEE HAW burn em all

As long as they bern!
edit on 7-9-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)


But they have chosen to end their life. You kill a man, and know you'll be killed for it in return, well, whos fault is that? We didnt choose for them to murder, but we do make them face the consequence.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Dance4Life
 


Just curious-have you ever had a family member/loved one raped, tortured, or murdered?........



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by chancemusky
I think its perfectly fine in some cases. Whats so wrong about it?

I think the 'whats wrong with it' has been proven at very uncomfortable numbers by the Innocence Project. I used to be 110% pro-death penalty. To the extent that it could be reformed to require very specific evidence rules (like DNA as a bare minimum to even consider the sentence) I'd still back it.

However, when the numbers of men released from Death Row due to DNA evidence of innocence continues to rise, I have to agree that public support is appalling.

Texas specifically has it's share of people that were not simply downgraded in sentence or re-tried on technicality, but proven innocent and released as free men off Death Row.

It's hard to even debate with a straight face that society hasn't executed at least a few innocent men when looking at those numbers.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   



Cameron Willingham Texas Convicted: 1992, Executed: 2004
After examining evidence from the capital prosecution of Cameron Willingham, four national arson experts have concluded that the original investigation of Willingham's case was flawed, and it is possible the fire was accidental. The independent investigation, reported by the Chicago Tribune, found that prosecutors and arson investigators used arson theories that have since been repudiated by scientific advances. Willingham was executed in 2004 in Texas despite his consistent claims of innocence. He was convicted of murdering his three children in a 1991 house fire.

Arson expert Gerald Hurst said, "There's nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire. It was just a fire." Former Louisiana State University fire instructor Kendall Ryland added, "[It] made me sick to think this guy was executed based on this investigation.... They executed this guy and they've just got no idea - at least not scientifically - if he set the fire, or if the fire was even intentionally set."

Willingham was convicted of capital murder after arson investigators concluded that 20 indicators of arson led them to believe that an accelerent had been used to set three separate fires inside his home. Among the only other evidence presented by prosecutors during the the trial was testimony from jailhouse snitch Johnny E. Webb, a drug addict on psychiatric medication, who claimed Willingham had confessed to him in the county jail.

Some of the jurors who convicted Willingham were troubled when told of the new case review. Juror Dorinda Brokofsky asked, "Did anybody know about this prior to his execution? Now I will have to live with this for the rest of my life. Maybe this man was innocent." Prior to the execution, Willingham's defense attorneys presented expert testimony regarding the new arson investigation to the state's highest court, as well as to Texas Governor Rick Perry. No relief was granted and Willingham was executed on February 17, 2004. Coincidentally, less than a year after Willingham's execution, arson evidence presented by some of the same experts who had appealed for relief in Willingham's case helped free Ernest Willis from Texas's death row. The experts noted that the evidence in the Willingham case was nearly identical to the evidence used to exonerate Willis. (Chicago Tribune, December 9, 2004).


www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   
and these are the pro life people.. does it make the public or the state government a murderer if they executed an innocent man? if so give everyone the death penalty if they commit murder.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


No, and those innocent men did not deserve it, and this is why we need to prove beyond a doubt that they commited a crime deserving of death.

It is sad that innocent men get convicted, but its also sad bad men go free. Thats a separate topic though, for this, I am saying its proven beyond a doubt.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by toothpastert
 


No, because we give the power of consequences to the state. If you know what will happen, and you decide to do it anyways, then its not murder, itd be more aptly described as suicide on the part of the criminal



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by chancemusky

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by chancemusky
I think its perfectly fine in some cases. Whats so wrong about it?


It is a whole lot twisted (and very ROMAN) to be cheering over killing a person for killing a person.

You are in fact, cheering the very act which you are condemning.

That is some ape man monkey brain sh!z right there!

YEE HAW burn em all

As long as they bern!
edit on 7-9-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)


But they have chosen to end their life. You kill a man, and know you'll be killed for it in return, well, whos fault is that? We didnt choose for them to murder, but we do make them face the consequence.


Do your thing man

If you can't see the strangeness in that equation, I sure can't help you.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


For sure innocent people have died after being wrongfully convicted. But this sounds awfully like an argument that if your child doesn't do well in school then there should be no school. A free ride for the rest of their life, turns out, is not a very good deterrent to violent crime.





new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join