Death Penalty

[BmorePat87]

(09-05-2015, 10:03 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So you are admitting there are people that are against religious freedoms? I wonder why you had to ask me who.

No, I think there are people who think that the school allowing this would be an example of the school promoting Islam over their religion, which, to them, would be an attack on their religious freedom.

Quote:As to the rest, the cases were cited and folks can read. The fact that you attempt to justify the actions of those that attempted to restrict religious freedoms just amplifies my assertion.

No, I explained how they were not examples. Next time I make an argument, remind me that I can just cite bad evidence and claim anyone who explains how the evidence is bad is just trying to justify whatever I am arguing against. 

Quote:But just to show there are no hard feelings, let me be the first to wish you and yours an early Merry Xmas

Eid Mubarak. 

Quote:Also to help you in your quest of finding folks that try to restrict Religious Freedoms: The name of the man that wrote the article is Jay Sekulow,  you may want to read about some of the cases he has argued and won, in which, people's Religious Freedoms were violated. Hopefully that will provide you with enough substance, so that you no longer have to go around ignorant of the fact that folks try to restrict Religious Freedoms everyday.

That's cool. I'm not sure how his past somehow means that he can say that colleges not using mandatory fees on religious activities is an attack on religious freedom and we can't question it. 

Quote:But enough about Religious Freedoms in a Capitol Punishment thread. You are the second person to get hung up on those words in a post that was in response to someone that brought up issues not germane to this thread. At least the first one admitted that these were indeed cases of folks trying to restrict religious freedoms; I doubt I'll get the same concession from the second.

So you bring up something irrelevant to the topic, attempt to defend it, and say I shouldn't respond to it because it has nothing to do with the OP?

That's quite an interesting retreat strategy. 

[BmorePat87]

(09-05-2015, 10:21 AM)GMDino Wrote: I do remember reading in many places that the cost of putting someone to death is actually higher than keeping them in prison for life too.  

Death penalty trials alone are far more expensive.

Housing someone on death row is also more expensive than gen pop. 

If you take into account the average age of someone convicted of murder, the time death row inmates spend before being executed, and the life expectancy of those who are in prison for life, it is cheaper overall to give someone life in prison than to execute them. 

[*bfine32*]

(09-05-2015, 10:26 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So you bring up something irrelevant to the topic, attempt to defend it, and say I shouldn't respond to it because it has nothing to do with the OP?

That's quite an interesting retreat strategy. 

So you are going to double down on the assertion that you do not know anyone or examples of where folks tried to restrict others Religious Freedoms?

Even when pointed in the direction of case studies that doesn't count because something about the Lawyer's past.

Classic

[GMDino]

(09-05-2015, 10:24 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It's not the cost of putting them to death; it's the cost of housing and defending them until the sentence is carried out.

Correct.  The cost of the entire process is more than the cost of keeping some in prison for the rest of their life.

[BmorePat87]

(09-05-2015, 10:33 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So you are going to double down on the assertion that you do not know anyone or examples of where folks tried to restrict others Religious Freedoms?

Even when pointed in the direction of case studies that doesn't count because something about the Lawyer's past.

Classic

lol, what? I told you that his past didn't make incorrect assertions true. I didn't say they were incorrect because of his past. Next time you try to insult someone's ability to read, make sure you don't follow it up an hour later by misreading something yourself. 

Anyways, why are you still talking about this? This is a death penalty thread...

[jakefromstatefarm]

I'm personally against the death penalty.

While DNA evidence and other things have made it much easier to show that a person is guilty than ever before, our justice system is still not without flaws. There could be clear evidence that a person is innocent and still found guilty. Over 140 people have been sentenced to death and later had their convictions overturned. None of this even mentions the cost associated as has been discussed above.

[fredtoast]

(09-05-2015, 10:59 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: While DNA evidence and other things have made it much easier to show that a person is guilty than ever before, our justice system is still not without flaws.  

Even when dealing with DNA evidence there is a chance that the DNA evidence was just cooked up or bogus.  That has happened many times.  

Jurors feel that DNA can prove a case 100% accurately, but they don't realize that some state crime labs just spit out whatever result the prosecutor wants.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-05-2015, 11:34 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Even when dealing with DNA evidence there is a chance that the DNA evidence was just cooked up or bogus.  That has happened many times.  

Jurors feel that DNA can prove a case 100% accurately, but they don't realize that some state crime labs just spit out whatever result the prosecutor wants.

Agreed.

There's too much "black or white" so to speak in our justice system in my view.  Aside from serious crimes, prosecutors rarely even know the people they are prosecuting. 

They just lump all people charged with a crime as guilty regardless of what really happened or why.  Don't get me wrong, a crime is a crime.  But even without any evidence whatsoever they're more than happy to convict innocent people or overcharge people hoping for a plea deal so they can put a tally down on their resume.  

[Belsnickel]

(09-05-2015, 12:28 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I hate these types of ambiguous posts; don't you? I think you have said so much in the past.

If I recall correctly, I said I found it funny. I also didn't think it was very ambiguous given there is only one organization that falls into that category that has been brought up and only by one person. Plus I expressed the reason why it was an issue. But hey, whatever floats your boat.

[*bfine32*]

(09-05-2015, 04:31 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: If I recall correctly, I said I found it funny. I also didn't think it was very ambiguous given there is only one organization that falls into that category that has been brought up and only by one person. Plus I expressed the reason why it was an issue. But hey, whatever floats your boat.

No doubt when you do it, it is better than when others do.

[Belsnickel]

(09-05-2015, 08:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No doubt when you do it, it is better than when others do.

No doubt that you have a problem understanding the differences between scenarios.

But hey, whatever floats your boat.

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-05-2015, 08:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No doubt that you have a problem understanding the differences between scenarios.

But hey, whatever floats your boat.

Yeah, the journalistic fallacy seems to be his favorite.

[*bfine32*]

(09-05-2015, 08:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No doubt that you have a problem understanding the differences between scenarios.

But hey, whatever floats your boat.

In your eyes, yes I do. But the situations are exactly the same.
 
My boat would be floated if you were to quit being such a liberal Winnie and become a responsible conservative. You must now do that because you said whatever.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-04-2015, 11:14 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Which assumption was that?

Care to share with us which religious freedom is being threatened that *isn't* the freedom to infringe on others' rights?

He is assuming you know. Ironic.

[Blutarsky]

(09-05-2015, 12:19 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't think I will take advice on religious liberties from a man whose organization uses tactics against Muslims they rail against when used against Christians and that supports laws that implement the death penalty for the LGBT community.

 I guess i'll have to accept the fact that my reading comprehension isn't what it used to be.

[Belsnickel]

(09-05-2015, 09:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: In your eyes, yes I do. But the situations are exactly the same.

No, definitely not. There really was no ambiguity with regards to my post. But believe whatever you choose to,
 

(09-05-2015, 09:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: My boat would be floated if you were to quit being such a liberal Winnie and become a responsible conservative. You must now do that because you said whatever.  

I always find it funny when people think I am a liberal. I guess being for individual liberties, reduced federal government, and putting our own citizens first, I am a liberal.

[*Nately120*]

(09-05-2015, 10:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I always find it funny when people think I am a liberal. I guess being for individual liberties, reduced federal government, and putting our own citizens first, I am a liberal.

People have a tendency to accuse those who disagree with them of being a brain-washed member of the extreme other side of the spectrum.  

[*bfine32*]

(09-05-2015, 10:09 PM)Nately120 Wrote: People have a tendency to accuse those who disagree with them of being a brain-washed member of the extreme other side of the spectrum.  

Why would you equate being called a liberal to being a "brain-washed member of the extreme other side"? Never mind, don't answer that.   

[Brownshoe]

I think we should have the Death Penalty, but only for extreme cases.

[Blutarsky]

(09-05-2015, 09:50 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Their dress code prohibits gang symbols. The district had issues with gangs using rosaries. It was a bad policy and rightfully overturned, but the school wasn't discriminating against the student because of his religion.

A government school was worried about whether or not they could include a religious message in something they publish but decided to risk it and include it? Sounds like no one's religious freedoms were infringed upon, though the school did set itself up for some trouble if anyone had an issue with a bible verse. 

• A principal was worried about whether or not they could permit a student to promote religion in school and deferred the issue to their superior who decided that it was ok because the school wasn't promoting it? Sounds like no one had freedoms infringed upon.
• A principal was worried about whether or not they could permit a student to promote religion in school and had parents complain that it was going on? Sounds like the principal made a decision based on the concerns of the parents who felt religion was being forced on their kids through the school. I agree with the superintendent that it was ok because it reflects the action of the student and not the school. 
• This has nothing to do with religion. The Bible is a pretty poor historical reference. I disagree with this decision. 
• The teacher was worried about what content could be included in class. Sounds like it was all fixed and she now knows that this won't get her in trouble if she permits students to write freely on religion.
• He was allowed to drop the class. The principal reversed the decision. The kid then explained why he felt the class conflicted with his beliefs and the principal then allowed him to drop the class. Sounds like the principal respected his religion once he understood that it was really a religious decision.
  
  

So the principal decided to not promote religion, thus respecting all religions equally?

The problem with most of these is that they involve schools trying to enact policies that ensure that the school is not promoting one religion over another. In cases where it was determined that the policy actually violated a student's rights and that the school did not have to worry about being seen as promoting religion, the correct decision was made. 

I'm going to assume here, but I imagine people would have HUGE issues if these bible verses were replaced with the Quran. 

Just by having to explain away the many charges of violating religious conscience points to the fact that there has been a heightened attack on religious conscience, wouldn't you agree?
Your explanations only means the perps knew they couldn't get away with it.
Have fun with these...
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/other-examples-of-attacks-on-religious-conscience-and-free-exercise

You won't have to explain away this one...its been explained: Drawing of a crucifix deemed "violent" and child needs to undergo psychiatric evaluation. :crazy:
http://www.tauntongazette.com/article/20091215/NEWS/312159872/?Start=2