Whole new meaning to the term "Canadian Bacon"

[T_Bone]

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,9024098%255E663,00.html

" CANADIANS horrified by the discovery of an alleged serial killer in their midst have been confronted with even worse news -- they may have eaten animals that ate the victims."

:seasick smiley:  :-(

[T_Bone]

UGH! I can't get over this, PLEASE send him down here, extradite him to Texas... we'll make him a temporary citizen so we can deal with him in a way only texas knows how! this man needs to die!

[T_Bone]

bloodline wrote:
By all accounts human and Bacon taste very similar, so what are they complaining about?

I thought it'd "taste like chicken"? :-P

[T_Bone]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

He kills, we don't. That's a difference between him and us.

You'll sentence him to a change of address. that'll learn'em. ;-)

[T_Bone]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

T_Bone wrote:
that'll learn'em.

Not much to learn when you're dead.

problem solved! Square with the house :-D

[T_Bone]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

The advasntage of ONLY locking people up, and making it a rule, is that if you lock up someone who is innocent you can let them out. All the innocent people who have been killed in Texas get to stay dead.

That doesn't take the victims into account. In ANY system, the victims ALWAYS stay dead. Where's the man accused of killing the victims? in court, surrounded by bulletproof glass to protect him.

And because it is so permanent, and irreversable, the system has a high motivation for never admitting mistakes so that people can have confidence that innocents are not executed. Unfortunately this is an official fiction and not the truth.

But people don't have confidence that innocents arn't killed, that's why the man is in costody in the first place. This isn't even his first murder charge either. Dozens of people were murdered, because the court was afraid to punish this man for fear he may be innocent when they originally charged him with murder and then let him go.

The question becomes, "what propotion of innocent people are you willing to have executed to maintain the system"? If the question includes the caveat, "one of them being you", the number is probably quite low, around zero.

Why is it a question of proportions? If someone's not guilty, they shouldn't be convicted regardless of the punishment.

[T_Bone]

Cyberus wrote:

T_Bone wrote:

Why is it a question of proportions? If someone's not guilty, they shouldn't be convicted regardless of the punishment.

But innocent people ARE convicted. There are people in the UK who have been convicted of murders and then found to be innocent on appeal - not that they shouldn't have been convicted because there was not evidence, but they were found INNOCENT.

If they were found innocent on appeal, what's the problem? You can appeal with or without the death penalty.
 the death penalty is part of the punishment, it doesn't change the legal process.

[T_Bone]

KennyR wrote:
The death penalty appeals system in the US only exists to make the punishment worse. Not many people get their sentence downgraded or even dismissed using appeals. What does happen though is that they can be on Death Row for more than twenty years.

Although in Texas they've introduced legislation that if there are more than 3 credible eyewitnesses to the murder, you get bumped to the front of the line. The rest of the country it's rare that you'd get the death penalty, but in Texas they're putting in an express lane!  :lol: