Skip to main content

View Diary: The Disturbing Obliviousness of Kossacks About an Impending Execution: An Innocent Man Will Die (317 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

    As far as idiocy goes, it's still your exclusive domain here. I'm not the one who's ok with killing someone without evidence of guilt.

    •  what are you talking about? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      liquidman

      This guy has been convicted and has appealed for 20 years. He was not convicted over nothing. No one is required to keep proving his guilt to you forever and ever.

      SwordsCrossed "To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

      by EnderRS on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:45:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And how is he supposed to prove his innocence? (0+ / 0-)

        Should he need to have the prosecution's case fall apart? Done.

        Should the witnesses against him recant? Done.

        Should the witnesses who recanted indicate prosecutorial misconduct? Done.

        Should the witnesses who recanted indicate that one of the witnesses who didn't recant is the actual killer? Done.

        Should there be absolutely no physical evidence to connect the condemned to the murder? Done.

        Should someone have to prove guilt forever and ever? No -- provided that the evidence stands up to scrutiny. In this case, it doesn't. And yet you still want to kill this guy. That's what I've been talking about the entire diary. If you can't grasp that very simple concept, then follow through on what you said you were going to do before and stop arguing with me.

        •  whose scrutiny are we talking about? (0+ / 0-)

          Your scrutiny? That is laughable.

          It's entirely possible that after all these years some witnesses don't want to have man's death on their hands, they might've changed their position on the DP, they might be lying to save his ass. Why did all of them lie during the trial and appeals?

          This is absurd. Also not all the witnesses recanted. And conviction for any case does not require physical evidence. There are other ways to show someone guilty so that is a worthless point.

          I don't want to kill this guy. I just don't care because the process has run through. The parole board will decide and I will agree with whatever they decide. They have all the evidence before them.

          SwordsCrossed "To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

          by EnderRS on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:54:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Again... (0+ / 0-)

            ...you're ok with killing someone absent absolute certainty he's guilty. That means you're ok with the potential for killing an innocent person.

            And don't give me that bullshit about the parole board having all the evidence before them. If you're not as disingenuous as you appear, you know that clemency is political poison and the members of the parole board are political actors. They're going to do what they perceive to be politically expedient, whether or not it turns out to be the just thing to do.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site