https://youtu.be/LZAFo4jXhW0

I should download an IRC client. Is mIRC still around?

No, that was the 2001 election webpage. You’re thinking of tubgirl.

illustrates the complexity of state voting laws.

But, are they, though?

It’s like poetry, it rhymes.

“You want your money? Then get out there and march!”

If a person murders another person, what should their punishment be? What if they murder 2? 3? 10? 20?

Ok, so you are anti-death penalty. So are a lot of people. You seem to be trying to make an argument by preaching the to choir. No one here is saying that the death penalty is a good idea. No one is arguing that with you, at all. I’m really not sure what you are getting at.

I guess if you want some dark humor about it, you could twist around the old idiom: The best time to abolish the death penalty is before we kill an innocent person, the second best time is after.

Ok, if that is the direction you would like to take this discussion, then we can go that route. I have no issues with looking at the extremes.

So, we’ll say that there is the defendant, and they have been accused of murder so foul by the witness that in their jurisdiction the death penalty is sought.

There are many outcomes to this, but for the sake of the discussion you want to engage in, we’ll look at three of them, and for each, we will assume that the witness has maliciously, and falsely accused the defendant of this crime.

In the first outcome, the defendant is found guilty of the crime and put to death. The witness is not discovered, and goes on living their life.

The second outcome is that the defendant is found guilty and put to death, but after they have been put to death, the witnessn is discovered to have falsified their testimony.

The third outcome is that the defendant is not found guilty because during the trial the witness was found to have lied.

Now, we have three ends to the scenario, each very different. Do you believe that in each scenario, the witness, who has maliciously falsified their testimony each time, should be punished differently depending on the outcome of the scenario? If so, what should their punishment be after each outcome?

I never said I was for the death penalty, and this discussion isn’t about it. It is about a person who maliciously accused another of something, and was given a sentence that I feel does not match the crime. If you would like to discuss the death penalty, I’m open to that, but that isn’t what we have been talking about, and not where this conversation started from.

Because the judges an the prosecutors are (we hope) acting in the best interest of the general public, and want to see justice served. They are not the instigators. That’s like saying that your team lost a game because the referee called the rules as they were written. The judge and the prosecutor are (again, we hope) bystanders and only there to help move justice along.

Because if the sentence for the innocent person would have been carried out as the death penalty, then an innocent person would have died. Thankfully, in this case, the justice system worked, but if it hadn’t, the outcome would have been the figurative end of that person’s life. The weight of the accusation, especially a malicious one (which this was), should be born by the accuser, should it be proven false.

Not long enough. That’s not what he would have gotten.

Yep. My only issue is finding fun key caps for the Ctrl Alt and Fn keys that are smaller than normal.

They weren’t saying that Der Spiegel was fake news, they were saying that their own sentence above was likely false. Could have just used /s or something, but yeah, they weren’t calling out Der Spiegel

A trillion is larger than a billion, so half a trillion is a more rage bait headline.

Just like it’s spelled.

Does that maintain paragraph breaks?

The US hasn’t been relying on US code for decades.

I love that there are people that even know So, I Married An Axe Murderer.