devilwolf wrote:And MA, it is not the govt. who gives that punishment, it is a jury of 12 who hear the trial, and after deliberation, hand down the sentence. Also, before it is carried out, there are at least 5 levels of appeals that *most of the guilty use before it is carried out.
Yea, that's what I feared. In stead of objective professionals whose job it is and who have been trained to make objective assessments you've got 12 people who'd rather be watching Oprah and who are riddled with biases and logical fallacies.
No wonder there've been people wrongfully murdered by the justice system.
Dave34 wrote:It's illegal to kill an inoccent person, but it isn't illegal when you go through judical process and the person is convicted of the crime and sentenced to death. Your doing the world a favor by eradicating the worthless being from exsistance, once you kill and inoccent person, you are no longer considered a human in my eyes. So in my eyes it isn't killing another human.
I'm not talking about what is legal or not. I'm talking about what is right or wrong. The law can be wrong. Once it was legal to hold people in slavery, and then the law changed.
Why this distinction between "innocent" and "guilty"? It's completely arbitrary. Depending on the criteria everyone is guilty and everyone is innocent. A great philisopher once said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". He was right. In a way we're all guilty and all innocent. Who's to say a murderer would've still murdered if society had a safety net that would've protected him from abusive parents? Who's to say a murderer would have still taken the life of a police officer if he didn't have the misfortune of living in California and being on this third strike? Who's to say a woman would steal if she had welfare to fall back on? Who's to say an addict would rob someone for money if someone would pay him trough detox? Who's to say someone would turn to crime and not be a productive member of society if they didn't have substance abuse on their permanent record just because they smoked pot when in the wrong country?
There are so many situations where it's obvious society is inherently unfair and yet we act as if people honestly have a choice. We completely disregard everything that wrongfully influences people. Why? Because otherwise we'd have to admit we're in part to blame. And we're too wild and crazy guy to admit that.
With DNA testing this will be a decreasing argument for this topic. No human has the same DNA, so it is increasingly hard to convict people whom are inoccent of a crime.
Oh, so let's forget those who were murdered just because they were convicted before DNA testing was developed?
And you're just hoping DNA testing will absolve your guilty conscience. Completely ignoring the fact that not all crime scenes have DNA evidence.
Lazerus wrote:Sorry for Double post.
Solution. In some islamic states and indo-chinese cultures.
Commit a crime, get an appendage chopped off.
problem solved and great detterent not to commit again
In actuality these people have no choice but to turn to petty crime and begging, unable to be productive members of society. After all. They've been marked as criminals AND they can hardly work anymore.
