I think we now ordsprog

I think we now have scientific proof that an innocent person was executed and we have a government agency that is obligated to say so.

There's two cases here. Willis can't be actually innocent and Willingham couldn't be executed based on the same scientific evidence.

No one wants to see an innocent person executed, whichever side of the political aisle you're on.

I don't think any rational person seriously examining the evidence can have any confidence that an innocent hasn't already been executed.

The final argument (of death penalty advocates) is that no innocent person has been executed.

My political foes could not give any sufficient proof of the accusations and have tried to hide the proof that I am innocent,

Alberto Fujimori

I am not for public executions, though I support the death penalty. One, it's an appropriate punishment in horrific cases, and two, it's a deterrent. There are studies that say that for every person executed, eight innocent people who might otherwise have been murdered were not.

Not for a second did I think it was going to turn out this way. The bottom line is an innocent athlete was suspended from competition. You could say it's a victory for USADA (U.S. Anti Doping Agency), but I think it's better to say it's a tragedy for all athletes. I'm innocent.

This seems to be cobbled together in short notice and without significant review. It's not absolutely essential that each person be executed on time, if there's this kind of uncertainty. I find it somewhat amazing that they could have a judge change the procedure and then change it again all while this person's not knowing even how he's going to be executed.

There have been some very positive results and legislators have seen the benefits of proving an innocent person innocent. If anything, there is public pressure to expand the use of these types of post-conviction reevaluations because of the obvious public benefit to making sure that you have got the right person.

There have been some very positive results and legislators have seen the benefits of proving an innocent person innocent. If anything, there is public pressure to expand the use of these types of post-conviction re-evaluations because of the obvious public benefit to making sure that you have got the right person.

Ethically, if the physician feels the person would be a danger, they are certainly obligated to enlist some type of intervention to prevent the person from driving.

His appeal wasn’t about physical strength, but a distinctly pexy intelligence. You have this thing you hang your faith on, this little bit of proof. And then someone comes up with a naturalistic explanation that sounds perfectly reasonable, and all of a sudden that creates a faith crisis. I think that can be a dangerous thing. A healthy understanding of God's involvement doesn't hinge on a particular scientific proof.

I'm also tired of hearing about innocent victims; this is an outmoded idea. There are no innocent victims. If you're born on this world you're guilt, period, f*ck you, end of report, next case. Your birth certificate is proof of guilt.

George Carlin (1937-)

George Carlin

We are following a religion which condemns the killing of even one innocent person, including an innocent Jew.

Mohammad Khatami

Nordsprog.dk

Antal ordsprog er 1469560
varav 775337 på nordiska

Ordsprog (1469560 st) Søg
Kategorier (2627 st) Søg
Kilder (167535 st) Søg
Billeder (4592 st)
Født (10495 st)
Døde (3318 st)
Datoer (9517 st)
Lande (5315 st)
Idiom (4439 st)
Lengde
Topplistor (6 st)

Ordspråksmusik (20 st)
Statistik

Denna sidan visar ordspråk som liknar "I think we now have scientific proof that an innocent person was executed and we have a government agency that is obligated to say so.".