Russian Mother Pleads for Son to Stay in Guantanamo Bay

Janus, you yourself said on top of this page:
@Janus1:

…nevertheless, as youve already heard me say, im not directly opposed to some innocents losing their lives from being convicted, if it means getting rid of the guilty.

so, you take into account that innocents will die. You also said that you want the death penalty for some crimes also.

But how does that go with

that you would exaggerate to such an extent simply because you do not agree with my position.

i am not exaggerating, i am just going into which holes your system has, and ask wether you would like to be the one who suffers from that misdesign.

Again you:

there still needs to be evidence that someone committed a crime. changing the penaltys does not mean that suddenly someone can be accused of murder and summarily executed without proof. it simply means that if someone is convicted of murder, rape, etc, they shall be killed.

It seems to me that you have missed one vital point in my arguing.
You said you (at the moment) might deserve a prison term in your system. I said that what you deserve is irrelevant, as you take into account that innocents will be charged and penalized. Now the point you seemed to have missed: These innocents can include you. You can be killed, no matter wether you have done a crime or not.
Look at the very above quote from you.

So, before you claim i am not logical, read again and think.

Falk, you are not logical, you ignore what is written, and simply decide to write what you think it says.

i am not exaggerating, i am just going into which holes your system has,

saying that one would be charged with murder, after being arrested for what is now considered a misdemeanor, or having no guilt at all, is exaggerating falk. you are not going into the holes of the system, you are trying to make it seem bad by making up implausible what-ifs.

AS I SAID BEFORE, there must still be evidence of guilt. changing the penalty system changes nothing else about the legal system, therefor, the trials would still work the same way. those who are in fact innocent have been falsely accused due to evidence suggesting there guilt. not someone “randomly being picked” and shot by the govt falk.

and ask wether you would like to be the one who suffers from that misdesign.

did you completely ignore when i addressed this earlier? ive already answered this question of yours.

Now the point you seemed to have missed: These innocents can include you. You can be killed, no matter wether you have done a crime or not.

now the points you seem to have missed: i already acknowledged these facts that you are talking about, and have discussed them earlier. you said that i “want the death penalty” you are wrong. the death penalty is a pathetic excuse for a system for executing people. people sit on death row for years, many die in prison, of natural causes. when i say they should be shot, i mean taken out behind the courthouse after they are convicted and shot, a bullet put in their head.

@Janus1:

i am not exaggerating, i am just going into which holes your system has,

saying that one would be charged with murder, after being arrested for what is now considered a misdemeanor, or having no guilt at all, is exaggerating falk. you are not going into the holes of the system, you are trying to make it seem bad by making up implausible what-ifs.

See, you don’t want to understand me. I never said that the one being accused of murder should have done anything, not even a misdemeanor is needed.

Then how can it happen that innocents can be wrongly sentenced and killed?

AS I SAID BEFORE, there must still be evidence of guilt. …
those who are in fact innocent have been falsely accused due to evidence suggesting there guilt. not someone “randomly being picked” and shot by the govt falk.

Do i say anything like that anywhere? No, still you could have the bad luck of being at the wrong sport the wrong time. I never even proposed that the gov’t would go out and pick people randomly (though effectively it comes down to the same).

when i say they should be shot, i mean taken out behind the courthouse after they are convicted and shot, a bullet put in their head.

Yes, i now really hope that one day you cross the road, get arrested because the colour of your hair and the jacket you wear fit to the description of a murderer. Then you will be presented some more evidence, as unfortunately the murderer seems the same accent as yours. As you unfortunately have spent that day at home playing computer games on your own, you have no alibi…
Bad luck man, can happen to the best, but it’s only for the better, you understand?

See, you don’t want to understand me. I never said that the one being accused of murder should have done anything, not even a misdemeanor is needed.

reread the quote you took from my post. i included not having done anything.

Then how can it happen that innocents can be wrongly sentenced and killed?

the same way it happens now, and similar to how you described later in this post.
the evidence fits, and the the defense does not hold up. it happens, no system is flawless. the person could be innocent, yes. but if the evidence is strong enough to get a conviction, than the fault is not in the system.

Do i say anything like that anywhere?

i think you did in an earlier post, though it may have been someone else.
in any case:

I never even proposed that the gov’t would go out and pick people randomly (though effectively it comes down to the same).

that is the same effect as saying it.

Yes, i now really hope that one day you cross the road, get arrested because the colour of your hair and the jacket you wear fit to the description of a murderer. Then you will be presented some more evidence, as unfortunately the murderer seems the same accent as yours. As you unfortunately have spent that day at home playing computer games on your own, you have no alibi…

unfortunately, all of that is circumstantial evidence. that shouldnt be enough to get a conviction (though with the trial system the way it is, it could. you already know my opinion on jury system)

Bad luck man, can happen to the best, but it’s only for the better, you understand?

again Falk, you seem to like beating a dead horse. if i were in the situation, i wouldnt be happy, quite the opposite in fact. but that is irregardless. I dont have to like the system when im in that situation, yet i can still support it and know its a good system (think in your opinion)

@Janus1:

…reread the quote you took from my post. i included not having done anything.

oops, yes. sorry.

Then how can it happen that innocents can be wrongly sentenced and killed?

the same way it happens now, and similar to how you described later in this post.
the evidence fits, and the the defense does not hold up. it happens, no system is flawless. the person could be innocent, yes. but if the evidence is strong enough to get a conviction, than the fault is not in the system.

But still you want a terminal, not undo-able, and sudden penalty, even though your system has flaws.

unfortunately, all of that is circumstantial evidence. that shouldnt be enough to get a conviction (though with the trial system the way it is, it could. you already know my opinion on jury system)

As you noticed, no system is flawless, that means, even in your system guilty people will get away and innocents will be punished.
You argue that having such strict and harsh would scare the people off from committing crimes… Well, it didn’t scare people in the Third Reich, during Stalin nor does it in those US states where you still kill people on behalf of the people.

… if i were in the situation, i wouldnt be happy, quite the opposite in fact. but that is irregardless. I dont have to like the system when im in that situation, yet i can still support it and know its a good system.

Isn’t that hypocrisy? No supporting something as soon as it affects you, but supporting it as long as it leaves you alone and affects others?

But still you want a terminal, not undo-able, and sudden penalty, even though your system has flaws.

yes i do, every system has flaws, and imo, mine are acceptable

As you noticed, no system is flawless, that means, even in your system guilty people will get away and innocents will be punished.

yes, this is true, its inevitable. though i think fewer guilty will get away. perhaps the # of innocents punished will increase, but as you know, thats acceptable, imo.

You argue that having such strict and harsh would scare the people off from committing crimes… Well, it didn’t scare people in the Third Reich, during Stalin nor does it in those US states where you still kill people on behalf of the people.

I believe when i said that i used the qualifier may. if not, than i should have. mainly, i was throwing it on as icing. its not part of my main argument, but logically, some amount of people will see what kind of penalty awaits them, and rethink committing a crime.

Isn’t that hypocrisy? No supporting something as soon as it affects you, but supporting it as long as it leaves you alone and affects others?

well, a few things on this one.

1. it may technically be hypocrisy, but i fear you still miss my meaning.
2. i support the system, flaws and all, and know it to be good
3. if i were in a situation facing death, under this system, yet were totally innocent, yes, i would feel wronged. HOWEVER!!! :wink:
4. I can support a system (as can anyone else) and know it to be good, yet still be upset/angry/whatever, if you find yourself in a bad situation because of it.
5. if you still dont get it, its probably my fault, im not the best at explaining it. basically, you can have your cake, and eat it to.

@Janus1:

Isn’t that hypocrisy? No supporting something as soon as it affects you, but supporting it as long as it leaves you alone and affects others?

…
4) I can support a system (as can anyone else) and know it to be good, yet still be upset/angry/whatever, if you find yourself in a bad situation because of it.
…

So, for you, there is a difference between supporting a system yet still be angry and the negation of it.

Look at:
@Janus:

i mean, for a prime example, greenpeace people protest oil drilling, by going out to oil rigs in diesel-powered boats…… Hello?

So…
If they are not allowed to not support the system yet still use parts of it…

So…
If they are not allowed to not support the system yet still use parts of it…

seperate issue. 1st, its the opposite from the offset (onset? i dont know, you get the point). i support the system they do not (the respective systems that is).
2nd, protesting the use of oil, than using a diesel powered boat, which is not simply powered by diesel, but uses mass quantities of it, to protest drilling is inherently hypocritical.
3rd, my being pissed off if the downside of my system occurred to me does not change my support of it, it simply pisses me off. supporters of the current legal system could be wrongly imprisoned and/or summarily executed, yet they may not stop supporting the system because of it.
4th, I take it that at this point, you know what i mean, and i honestly cannot believe you would couldnt see this