• drcobaltjedi@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      Hey buddy. Lets roll it back. I’ll fully agree that this person is an asshole. Okay? No one is disputing this.

      However the point I really want to get to is when someone pointed out that many times innocent people are given the death sentence for crimes they didnt commit. Your response was and i fucking quote you “That’s a chance we are just going to have to take.” That means you thibk it is okay to kill innocent people just because some other people did horrid shit.

      So again, why the fuck are you actually okay with killing innocent people? That is what i want to know. You keep dodging around it. Answer the question “Why do you think it is okay for the state to have the power to kill people who have commited no crimes?”

        • starman2112
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          “Committed no crimes” is an objective statement about reality. The state has killed people who committed no crimes, and the state had a right to execute all of them. Both of those statements are true, so their combined form, “the state has a right to execute people who have committed no crimes,” is also true. Personally, I would prefer if we made that statement not true anymore.

            • starman2112
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              A jury of your peers does not determine whether or not you actually committed a crime, they determine whether the evidence against you is sufficient to find you guilty. A jury of Claude Jones’ peers found him guilty based on evidence that was later shown to be faulty. That guilty verdict gave the state the right to execute him. He was innocent. They had the right to execute an innocent man. They could do the same to you.