Abortion - States Rights

[Amppax]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1305137340' post='2240137']
I'm generally a believer in states' rights and limited federal government, but I also believe the right to life is so fundamental and so vital to any justice in law that I believe concern for protecting the right to life should trump concerns with federalism and limited government, and a human life amendment to the Constitution would have my full support, and I believe is a goal towards which pro-lifers should work. I think it would be the only thing which would finally end the monstrosity which is the Roe v. Wade decision.

I also believe that Roe v. Wade was a horrible decision on not just moral, but Constitutional grounds, and directly violates that Tenth Amendment. It essentially imposes protection of murder on all the states, without even going through the due legal process of amending the Constitution. Judicial activism at its absolute worst.
I would support overturning Roe v. Wade, and returning control over abortion laws back to the states, though that would be an incomplete victory. However, it would certainly be an improvement over federally-mandated abortion on demand as the law of the land.

Section I of the 14th Amendment states in part that "nor shall any State deprive any person of[b] life[/b], liberty, or property, without due process of law."
While you could argue that abortion laws do not involve the state directly depriving people of life, allowing a class of persons to be killed at will certainly amounts to that.

How many here would argue in favor of state laws allowing for the killing of people of a certain minority any time for any reason? In that hypothetical case, would you be opposed to the federal government intervening against those laws?

I think that's ultimately what's at stake here
[/quote]

I agree with this, I think that the ideal is that things are mostly done at the state level, but this is just such a huge issue, and such a divisive one, that it needs to be solved at the federal level.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1305166015' post='2240332']
I agree with this, I think that the ideal is that things are mostly done at the state level, but this is just such a huge issue, and such a divisive one, that it needs to be solved at the federal level.
[/quote]

It has been, The federal government has demanded by unconstitutional power, that we allow children to be murdered at thier mothers request.



THe fact is that without an amendment to the constitution(which will never get through congress, though it might make it through 3/4's of the states if it got to them) the Federal government will never protect the unborn. I agree that the 14th amendment is applicable, but since the Fed refuses to recognize the unborn as persons this will not happen.

By returning it to the states we could at least limit abortion to a very small number of states, and then thos places could be targeted for conversion.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305165881' post='2240330']
can you please cite a case regarding what you are talking about?[/quote]

Sure, Claude Jones was executed on Texas Death Row. What was the evidence admitted in his court case? It was a single piece of hair and his body fitting a general description. As it turns out, the hair was never DNA tested. His lawyers asked for a stay of execution to test it for DNA, it was denied by then Gov. George W. Bush. After it was tested, long after his execution, it was found to not belong to him, but rather the victim himself.

Richard Cartwright was executed on Texas Death Row and one piece of evidence that was never accepted in court, was a letter that the real killer had written to his girlfriend, admitting to the crime. There are many cases of the state of texas not testing samples for DNA, in many cases not wanting to know, and if they do know, not allowing it to be presented as evidence in court.

[quote]I ask becuase Texas Capital murder law is very, very demanding. Having read Wisconsin's statue from first degree intentional homicide I would much, much rather be tried in Texas.
[/quote]

I'd have to disagree, it's not demanding. If they can convict a man of murder based upon a single hair without testing it for DNA, that is not "demanding". As for Wisconsin, it's noteworthy to mention that Texas has a much higher murder rate then Wisconsin, although Wisconsin doesn't have the death penalty. Norway has the lowest murder rate of any country in the industrial world, yet they also do not have the death penalty and their maximum jail sentence is 25 years. If I'm not mistaken, the Pope himself is against the death penalty, as it is unnecessary in the modern world.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]Sure, Claude Jones was executed on Texas Death Row. What was the evidence admitted in his court case? It was a single piece of hair and his body fitting a general description. As it turns out, the hair was never DNA tested. His lawyers asked for a stay of execution to test it for DNA, it was denied by then Gov. George W. Bush. After it was tested, long after his execution, it was found to not belong to him, but rather the victim himself.

Richard Cartwright was executed on Texas Death Row and one piece of evidence that was never accepted in court, was a letter that the real killer had written to his girlfriend, admitting to the crime. There are many cases of the state of texas not testing samples for DNA, in many cases not wanting to know, and if they do know, not allowing it to be presented as evidence in court.[/quote]

Well you don't have to have any physical evidence to convict anyone of anything... As far as i know that is true in every state. In somestates they have convicted people of murder without even having a body or any evidence a murder was committed... Pennsylvania I'm looking at you.

Texas evidenciary law allows circumstantial evidence as just as valid as any other, this comes from Common Law and is also true in most if not all states.

Texas allows testimony of a witness to count just like any other evidence, in fact you can be convicted of anycrime based solely on the testimony of one other person, this also comes from Common Law,as well as Roman and Judaic Law. There was eye witness testimony that he did it, the fact that you 22 years after the fact think that that testimony was not credible is really not a judgement on the Texas legal system, but apparantly, on the jury system. The Jury heard his accusers testimony and convicted him.

As for Cartwright, he was an active participent in the robbery where Nicholas Moraida was both stabbed and shot to death, he never denied being part of that robbery. In Texas that makes you guilty, he intended to go and rob an innocent person and when the man did not give up his money but ran, one of them stabbed him and one of them shot him. Both of his fellow robbers testified that it was he whopulled the trigger, they both got lighter sentences, 20 years and 50 years respectively. In Texas they could have all been sentenced to death as they were all responsible.

[quote]I'd have to disagree, it's not demanding. If they can convict a man of murder based upon a single hair without testing it for DNA, that is not "demanding". As for Wisconsin, it's noteworthy to mention that Texas has a much higher murder rate then Wisconsin, although Wisconsin doesn't have the death penalty. Norway has the lowest murder rate of any country in the industrial world, yet they also do not have the death penalty and their maximum jail sentence is 25 years. If I'm not mistaken, the Pope himself is against the death penalty, as it is unnecessary in the modern world.[/quote]

Indeed Texas does have a higher murder rate, in 2009 it was 5.4 murders per hundred people vs Wisconsons 2.5 but I doubt that has much if anything to do with not having the death penalty. Wisconson has always had a lower crime rate and always had less violence, Wisconsin is a very different place.

Actually Iceland has the lowest murder rte in the industrial world, but they don't have the Death Penalty either, . Singapore has a lower rate of murder than Norway, and it is certianly industrialized,it has the death penalty. But what exactly does being industrialized have to do with anything Oman and Lebonan also have the death penalty, and lower murder rates than Norway.

El Salvador does not have the death penalty accept under military law during wartime, and yet it has the highest murder rate of any country in the world.

And the Holy Father said :There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion, even among Catholics, about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not, however, with regard to abortion and euthanasia.” H.H. Benedict XVI

What his personal opinions a man, or even as a theologian are onthe subject i do not know, but as POPE he has not said it is unacceptable.


P.S. Did you read the statutes in question?

Edited May 13, 2011 by Don John of Austria

[4588686]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305089458' post='2239973']
Look we agree on something.. this should be recorded in the Annals of Phatmass Hasan and Don john areed on a matter of some minimal substance...

May 11, In the Year of Our Lord 2011!



While the 9th and 10th amendments do reserve rrights to the people as well as the States, however, there were previous tothe 13th and 14th amendments no limits on what the states could do within their own borders, they could take away all of those rights that the Constitution allowed to be retained.

Can you name me a restriction on the powers of States that was independent of a comparable grant of power to the federal government?
[/quote]


You made a claim about the [b]current[/b] constitutional relationship between the states and the federal government.

[i]States have the right to do EVERYTHING not specifically granted to the Federal government.[/i]

The relationship between the central government and the states was substantively different before and after the civil war. If you want to discuss antebellum federalism I'm fine with that, but it's a different matter altogether.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1305259709' post='2240723']
You made a claim about the [b]current[/b] constitutional relationship between the states and the federal government.

[i]States have the right to do EVERYTHING not specifically granted to the Federal government.[/i]

The relationship between the central government and the states was substantively different before and after the civil war. If you want to discuss antebellum federalism I'm fine with that, but it's a different matter altogether.
[/quote]


Your right, I should have been more clear. That is my fault, and my mistake.

For the record I concider the first 10amendments tobe effectively part of that document, as they were demanded bya majority of states as a condition of Ratification. I tend tothinkof the other amendments as more flexable modifications. That is not anexcuse mfor my slip up, just an explianation.

That said, the application of the 14th amendment is a matter of contraversy, I would concede however, that that amendment places restraints on the states regarding the rights explicitly given to the people. THose however are very few and apply to the Federal government as well so they only serve to increase the rights of the people, not the the rights of the federal government.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305258044' post='2240719']
Well you don't have to have any physical evidence to convict anyone of anything... As far as i know that is true in every state. In somestates they have convicted people of murder without even having a body or any evidence a murder was committed... Pennsylvania I'm looking at you.

Texas evidenciary law allows circumstantial evidence as just as valid as any other, this comes from Common Law and is also true in most if not all states.

Texas allows testimony of a witness to count just like any other evidence, in fact you can be convicted of anycrime based solely on the testimony of one other person, this also comes from Common Law,as well as Roman and Judaic Law. There was eye witness testimony that he did it, the fact that you 22 years after the fact think that that testimony was not credible is really not a judgement on the Texas legal system, but apparantly, on the jury system. The Jury heard his accusers testimony and convicted him.[/quote]

I understand what the laws are, but in the state of Texas, an innocent man was put to death. In Wisconsin, he'd only have been in prison, in which if he was found innocent, could have his judgement reversed and been compensated for the mistake. In Texas, what's the point in being acquitted if you're already dead? This is just one case, there are many just like it, and often worse.

[quote]As for Cartwright, he was an active participent in the robbery where Nicholas Moraida was both stabbed and shot to death, he never denied being part of that robbery. In Texas that makes you guilty, he intended to go and rob an innocent person and when the man did not give up his money but ran, one of them stabbed him and one of them shot him. Both of his fellow robbers testified that it was he whopulled the trigger, they both got lighter sentences, 20 years and 50 years respectively. In Texas they could have all been sentenced to death as they were all responsible.
[/quote]

He did admit to being part of it, but he denied that it was his plan [the others admitted that it was theirs in court] or that he was the one responsible for killing the young man. The man that admitted to it in a letter to his girlfriend did not get the death penalty and as hard as his girlfriend tried to get it admitted into court evidence, it never was. All evidence is supposed to be admitted. In other cases we have evidence of lawyers falling asleep in court, in which the case is capital murder charges, etc.

[quote]Indeed Texas does have a higher murder rate, in 2009 it was 5.4 murders per hundred people vs Wisconsons 2.5 but I doubt that has much if anything to do with not having the death penalty. Wisconson has always had a lower crime rate and always had less violence, Wisconsin is a very different place.[/quote] I think that it does have something to do with it. However that's irrelevant, as the real question is, "is it moral"?

[quote]Actually Iceland has the lowest murder rte in the industrial world, but they don't have the Death Penalty either, . Singapore has a lower rate of murder than Norway, and it is certianly industrialized,it has the death penalty. But what exactly does being industrialized have to do with anything Oman and Lebonan also have the death penalty, and lower murder rates than Norway.
[/quote]

I would not put Singapour in there, compare them to nations that truly are industrialized and you'll find problems. If you'd like to put Oman or Lebanon in there, the problems that you'll find is that they do not keep adequate track of their murders, etc.

[quote]And the Holy Father said :There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion, even among Catholics, about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not, however, with regard to abortion and euthanasia.” H.H. Benedict XVI
[/quote]

That is true, but [His Holiness] Pope John Paul II [May he rest with G-d] said,

[quote]

"This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God's plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is "to redress the disorder caused by the offence."(46) Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfills the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people's safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated.(47)

It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the [i]nature and extent of the punishment[/i] must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent. In any event, the principle set forth in the new [i]Catechism of the Catholic Church [/i]remains valid: 'If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.'"[/quote]

Sorry but Texas doesn't qualify if they are convicting men and putting them to death, in which we find out later they are innocent. More so they don't qualify if they have the means of protecting society through other means but chose not to do so.

[quote]What his personal opinions a man, or even as a theologian are onthe subject i do not know, but as POPE he has not said it is unacceptable.

[/quote]

Notice that in my citation of [H.H.] Pope John Paul II, he was citing Catholic Teaching, not his own opinion.

[quote]P.S. Did you read the statutes in question?
[/quote] Yes I did and I responded accordingly, if you go back and re-read what I wrote in my first responses.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote] I understand what the laws are, but in the state of Texas, an innocent man was put to death. In Wisconsin, he'd only have been in prison, in which if he was found innocent, could have his judgement reversed and been compensated for the mistake. In Texas, what's the point in being acquitted if you're already dead? This is just one case, there are many just like it, and often worse.[/quote]

You KNOW he was innocent? Did you recieve a personal communication from God about this? Our court system never declares on innocent, only not guilty, there is a reason for that.


[quote]He did admit to being part of it, but he denied that it was his plan [the others admitted that it was theirs in court] or that he was the one responsible for killing the young man. The man that admitted to it in a letter to his girlfriend did not get the death penalty and as hard as his girlfriend tried to get it admitted into court evidence, it never was.[/quote]

He intentionally set up a man to rob, he intentionally brought a deadly weapon to accomplish it with, and the man was killed during the course of it. He forfieted his right to life. I have no horror that he was executed even if he did not pull the trigger, just like I would have no problem if Nicholas Moraida had pulled out a gun and killed all three of them. Moriaida was gay and trying to hire male prostitutes but neither of those are punishable by death.
For the record, I believe in the Principle of Forfieture, which ahs a long standing tradition in Natural Law and has always been supported by the Church.

[quote]All evidence is supposed to be admitted.[/quote]
Why? All evidence is not admissible, we have vey complicated legal system, but the fact that all " evidence" is not admitted seems one of our more reasonable rules. Anyone can write a letter and say anything.

[quote] In other cases we have evidence of lawyers falling asleep in court, in which the case is capital murder charges, etc. [/quote] THey should be disbarred, and I agree a new trial should be given, but that does not call into question the death penalty itself.



[quote]I think that it does have something to do with it. However that's irrelevant, as the real question is, "is it moral"?[/quote]
Well thats easy, according to the Tradition of the Church-- yes.


[quote]I would not put Singapour in there, compare them to nations that truly are industrialized and you'll find problems. [/quote]

Well I would, they are kind of the poster child of industrialization. 26% of their GDP is manufacturing, what exactly makes you industrial if not that?
[quote]If you'd like to put Oman or Lebanon in there, the problems that you'll find is that they do not keep adequate track of their murders, etc.[/quote] what is adequate track? They appear to count attempted murder in thier stats, which Norway does not, so that should make them seem to have a higher murder rate than they do.

And how about El Salvador? How does she fit into your theory?

[quote]That is true, but [His Holiness] Pope John Paul II [/quote] JPII is dead and not the Pope, his statements are certianly valid but no more valid than any other dead pope, he is not a Church Father nor a Doctor of the Church, this is not a material dispute, but a comment a people tend to use JPII as if he had the authority of a Council, he is not. Unam sanctum is equally valid as an encyclical from JPII.

That saidI rejectthe idea that kkeping a man in a box for 40 or 50 years is more in keeping with hman dignaty than is killing him. I also reject the notion that bloodless means of protecting society are equally effective.
[quote]Sorry but Texas doesn't qualify if they are convicting men and putting them to death, in which we find out later they are innocent. More so they don't qualify if they have the means of protecting society through other means but chose not to do so.[/quote] T

Hat is your opinion, which you are entitled to, even though it is wrong. See above about bloodless means.

[quote]Notice that in my citation of [H.H.] Pope John Paul II, he was citing Catholic Teaching, not his own opinion.[/quote]
This statement is proceeded by an if.... if alows disagreement. As the current pope, His Holliness Benidict XVI said.

[quote] Yes I did and I responded accordingly, if you go back and re-read what I wrote in my first responses.[/quote]
Well you are a strange person, becuase Texas requires much more to be found guilt of Murder than does Wisconsin.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305310037' post='2240927']
You KNOW he was innocent? Did you recieve a personal communication from God about this? Our court system never declares on innocent, only not guilty, there is a reason for that.[/quote]

I don't need to have a "personal communication from G-d", for we have the DNA evidence, that proves that piece of hair wasn't his and as for the witness testimony, that wasn't what convicted him by itself, as he only fit a general body description.

[quote]He intentionally set up a man to rob, he intentionally brought a deadly weapon to accomplish it with, and the man was killed during the course of it. He forfieted his right to life. I have no horror that he was executed even if he did not pull the trigger, just like I would have no problem if Nicholas Moraida had pulled out a gun and killed all three of them. Moriaida was gay and trying to hire male prostitutes but neither of those are punishable by death.
For the record, I believe in the Principle of Forfieture, which ahs a long standing tradition in Natural Law and has always been supported by the Church.
[/quote]

Well much of what you wrote is speculation, however if he gets the death penalty in texas, then the other two should also have gotten such. However the most important part is the letter to the girlfriend for which was not admitted into court evidence, when it should have been.

[quote]Why? All evidence is not admissible, we have vey complicated legal system, but the fact that all " evidence" is not admitted seems one of our more reasonable rules. Anyone can write a letter and say anything.
[/quote]

That could be, but in this case we know that the letter was beneficial. It wasn't just "some random letter", it was a letter that one of the men on trial wrote to his girlfriend.

[quote]THey should be disbarred, and I agree a new trial should be given, but that does not call into question the death penalty itself.
[/quote]

Yes it does, if a man is on trial and his life is at stake and his lawyer falls asleep, that man is inturn executed, that poses problems for the justice system, including the death penalty.

[quote]Well thats easy, according to the Tradition of the Church-- yes.
[/quote] Not just Church Tradition.

[quote]Well I would, they are kind of the poster child of industrialization. 26% of their GDP is manufacturing, what exactly makes you industrial if not that?
what is adequate track? They appear to count attempted murder in thier stats, which Norway does not, so that should make them seem to have a higher murder rate than they do.
[/quote]

That doesn't make them a modern industrialized nation on the same course as Finland, France, the US, the UK, etc.

[quote]And how about El Salvador? How does she fit into your theory?
[/quote]

She doesn't and doesn't have to do to the fact that she's still poor.

[quote]JPII is dead and not the Pope, his statements are certianly valid but no more valid than any other dead pope, he is not a Church Father nor a Doctor of the Church, this is not a material dispute, but a comment a people tend to use JPII as if he had the authority of a Council, he is not. Unam sanctum is equally valid as an encyclical from JPII.
[/quote]

Well he was speaking from the position of the Church. He was not just some random guy with an opinion, he invoked the Church itself.


[quote]That saidI rejectthe idea that kkeping a man in a box for 40 or 50 years is more in keeping with hman dignaty than is killing him. I also reject the notion that bloodless means of protecting society are equally effective.
[/quote]

So that puts your opinion against Pope John Paul II, good job your authority trumps.

[quote]THat is your opinion, which you are entitled to, even though it is wrong. See above about bloodless means.
[/quote]

That's not my opinion, it's the facts.

[quote]This statement is proceeded by an if.... if alows disagreement. As the current pope, His Holliness Benidict XVI said.
[/quote]

Heres the difference, what Pope Benedict said doesn't go against what Pope John Paul II said, rather your interpretation of what he said does.

[quote]Well you are a strange person, becuase Texas requires much more to be found guilt of Murder than does Wisconsin.
[/quote] I'm a strange person? For saying that we shouldn't put people to death without DNA testing the evidence? Man, you got issues...love...not hate...love...not hate. Love doesn't put people to death without knowing beyond the shadow of doubt.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote][/quote][quote]I don't need to have a "personal communication from G-d", for we have the DNA evidence, that proves that piece of hair wasn't his and as for the witness testimony, that wasn't what convicted him by itself, as he only fit a general body description.[/quote]

That is not true, he fit the general discription of those who witnessed from accross the street. Those who commited the crime with him testefied that it was him. You may doubt their veracity, that a legitement point of view, but for some reason the Jury did beleive them. Again your problem seems to be with juries.


[quote]Well much of what you wrote is speculation, however if he gets the death penalty in texas, then the other two should also have gotten such. However the most important part is the letter to the girlfriend for which was not admitted into court evidence, when it should have been.[/quote]

Agian bothof those who also purpertrated the act testified that it was him. Whether they got a seperate trial with a seperate jury ( whichin Texas is who decides punishment not the judge), or were charged with a lesser crime, or were cut a deal in exchange for their testimony, I do not know, but everyone does not have to be punished equally, Texas law allows juries to give sentences based on culpability.


T[quote]hat could be, but in this case we know that the letter was beneficial. It wasn't just "some random letter", it was a letter that one of the men on trial wrote to his girlfriend.[/quote]
Do you know on what grounds it was not admitted?

[quote]Yes it does, if a man is on trial and his life is at stake and his lawyer falls asleep, that man is inturn executed, that poses problems for the justice system, including the death penalty.[/quote]
I agree it is a problem with the justice system. I do not see it as a problem with any particular punishment. All punishment against an innocent is terrible.

[quote] Not just Church Tradition.[/quote]

Fine I'll stand with The Doctor of the Church St. Thomas Aquinas and the Ecumenical Councils Of Lateran Councils III and IV (thats off the top of my head). The death penalty is moral.

[quote]That doesn't make them a modern industrialized nation on the same course as Finland, France, the US, the UK, etc.[/quote]

I asked you what did then, do you have an answer? If you are defining something you need a definaition
[quote]She doesn't and doesn't have to do to the fact that she's still poor.[/quote]

Oh so poor counries are just full of savages and such? What does poor have to do with anything?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]Well he was speaking from the position of the Church. He was not just some random guy with an opinion, he invoked the Church itself.[/quote]

He did, and the Lateran councils [i]WERE [/i]the Church Herself. Thats wrong, the Councils [i]ARE[/i] the Church Herself.

HE did not declare it as pope, he ded not define it as a doctrine of the Faith, he did not even reqire that all agree.

[quote]

So that puts your opinion against Pope John Paul II, good job your authority trumps.[/quote]

Authority has nothing to do with it. You obviously do not understand the concept of Authority, I suggest You read Frederick Wilhelmson's On Christ or Chaos, it has a very good explianation in there. JPII had all Authority, he could have at anytime declared that the official teaching ofthe Church was that one should never use the death penalty, but he did not. Had he, we would not be having this discussion, because thoughIwould disagree I would submit.

However, my opinion of this matter differs from his, he chose not to invoke his Authority on this matter, but toallow disagreement with his opinion. His opinion should be wieghted heavily, but popes canbe wrong on issues of a private nature.

[quote]That's not my opinion, it's the facts.[/quote]
No it is your opinion. You beleive that Society can be protected bloodlessly, that is your opinion, I do not share it, nor domany other faithful Catholics. I resent the implicationyouhave repeatedly made that one is somehow disobediant becuase they disagree with you on this matter. The Pope has already said that this is not so,and that disagreement is legitement. You are contradicting the sitting pope.
Isn't that disobediant?

[quote]Heres the difference, what Pope Benedict said doesn't go against what Pope John Paul II said, rather your interpretation of what he said does.[/quote]
What myinterpretation of "there can be legitement disagreement on..." how exactlywould you interpret that?
[quote] I'm a strange person? For saying that we shouldn't put people to death without DNA testing the evidence? Man, you got issues...love...not hate...love...not hate. Love doesn't put people to death without knowing beyond the shadow of doubt.[/quote] Unless one was there, one can never, ever know anything beyond a shadow of doubt.
The standard of justice inthe US is Reasonable Doubt. Ithink that standard is high enough assuming that the juryis acting in good faith and if their not, well no standard willhelp you.

Edited May 13, 2011 by Don John of Austria

[Don John of Austria]

Let me ask you RezaMikhaeil, have you ever had tosit ona jury in a murder case? I realize that becuase of where youlive you would not be on a capital murder case, but any 1st degree intentional murders?

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305329717' post='2241074']
That is not true, he fit the general discription of those who witnessed from accross the street. Those who commited the crime with him testefied that it was him. You may doubt their veracity, that a legitement point of view, but for some reason the Jury did beleive them. Again your problem seems to be with juries.[/quote]

It doesn't matter because the piece of hair that was important in the case was never DNA tested. The justice department admits this now.

[quote]Agian bothof those who also purpertrated the act testified that it was him. Whether they got a seperate trial with a seperate jury ( whichin Texas is who decides punishment not the judge), or were charged with a lesser crime, or were cut a deal in exchange for their testimony, I do not know, but everyone does not have to be punished equally, Texas law allows juries to give sentences based on culpability.[/quote] Chances are they wouldn't have convicted him if they'd have known that piece of hair wasn't his.

[quote]I agree it is a problem with the justice system. I do not see it as a problem with any particular punishment. All punishment against an innocent is terrible.[/quote] If you truly felt this way, then you'd recognize that Texas is not careful about who they sentence to death.

[quote]Fine I'll stand with The Doctor of the Church St. Thomas Aquinas and the Ecumenical Councils Of Lateran Councils III and IV (thats off the top of my head). The death penalty is moral.[/quote] Different context, you're not taking the context for what Pope john Paul II said into account.

[quote]Oh so poor counries are just full of savages and such? What does poor have to do with anything?
[/quote]

I didn't say that, you did. Poor has to do with alot, it has to do with police not being as available, drugs being more rampant, education being not as advanced or available, etc.

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305330238' post='2241080']
Let me ask you RezaMikhaeil, have you ever had tosit ona jury in a murder case? I realize that becuase of where youlive you would not be on a capital murder case, but any 1st degree intentional murders?
[/quote]

No I haven't and it's irrelevant to this. I gave you a specific instance in which a man was put to death, for which DNA evidence was not admitted into his court case, yet would have proved that a hair used to convict him, was not his. It's quite simple, you're trying to overcomplicate it.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1305323275' post='2241024']
That could be, but in this case we know that the letter was beneficial. It wasn't just "some random letter", it was a letter that one of the men on trial wrote to his girlfriend.
[/quote]
Why would it matter that he wrote a letter to his girlfriend? He could still lie in a letter to his girlfriend.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]It doesn't matter because the piece of hair that was important in the case was never DNA tested. The justice department admits this now.[/quote] THe crime happened in1989 , no DNA testing wasnot all that in 1989, it onlycame into commercial use in 1987. THe DNA techniques in use were not all that good and so on. DNA was not even admissable as evidence in Texas until 1991, yeah I am shocked it wasn't checked for DNA.



[quote] Chances are they wouldn't have convicted him if they'd have known that piece of hair wasn't his.[/quote]

Well they didn't becuase it was not admissable as evidence, becuase it was not deemed trustworthy.


[quote]If you truly felt this way, then you'd recognize that Texas is not careful about who they sentence to death.[/quote]
Texas does not sentence anyone to death. Juries do, please learn something about Texas law before criticising it.

On that note, you said George Bush refused to grant a stay,that is true,you failed to mention that Bush’s staff failed to mention to him that Jones wanted to test the hair for DNA.

[quote]Different context, you're not taking the context for what Pope john Paul II said into account.[/quote]
Yes they have a differant context,also have a differant level of authority, and not in your arguments favor.

[quote]I didn't say that, you did. Poor has to do with alot, it has to do with police not being as available, drugs being more rampant, education being not as advanced or available, etc.[/quote]

No I didn't say that, you said that thereason EL Salvasdor had the highest murder rate in the world was that they were poor..... THAT is what you said.
[quote]No I haven't and it's irrelevant to this. I gave you a specific instance in which a man was put to death, for which DNA evidence was not admitted into his court case, yet would have proved that a hair used to convict him, was not his. It's quite simple, you're trying to overcomplicate it.[/quote]

I just asked, it had to do with your opinion on the Statutes, not anything else. I have, and I will say again,I would rather be tried under the Texas statute.

DNA evidence was not admissable when he was tried,so that arguement is irrelevent.
I am not complicating it,I am just showing that your simply so sure of your own rightousness you don't want to listen about the realities of the cases.

Edited May 14, 2011 by Don John of Austria