One related to the joke thread controversy

[LX_Emergency]

Of course you can't unring a bell but you can release a man from prison and you can restore him to his life as best you can but until we can create life itself, we should not be so arrogant as to take it away.

Regarding the other, it is the same. If you think it's okay to mistakenly take the life of an innocent while attempting to eliminate violent crime, I ask you, would you still feel that way if you were that inncoent victim? Would your family shrug their shoulders and say. "Well its not a perfect system and every now and then someone innocent must die in order to catch the guilty." If you want to limit the arguments to only those on your terms, well, I guess you are right, it is then your ball and we will have to play by your rules.

Actually, I would be ok with that.

It's a very different thing if now and then someone by a fluk gets caught up in the system. The thing is though that I might not be a good representative on this issue. This being because I very strongly believe that a person is not extinguished on death.

But that's a completely different topic.

[JimR]

I know I'm outnumbered, and that we as a species haven't progressed morally in the whole of human history. I'm resigned to being outnumbered.

But I'll leave this last bit of information and a question.

Since the death penalty was re-established in the USA in 1973, 130 men have been released after being sentenced to death because they were proved to be innocent. This proof was found by people who were OUTSIDE the justice system in almost every case. That's 130 people for whom the justice system failed, and their lives were saved only by the voluntary efforts of ordinary people. Far more than have of these have been in the last 15 years, with the growing acceptance of DNA evidence in the field of law. Before DNA, who knows?

In the cases of 10 people, there has come to light very very strong evidence that they were innocent AFTER execution. They will never be exonerated, though, because courts don't retry cases after people have been executed. Looks bad, donchaknow.

So the court systems do fail, and innocent people are sentenced to death, and very likely some of them die. And they get no retribution.

So how many is too many for you? How many wold it take for you to admit that the system is flawed beyond acceptable tolerances?

For me, it's one. But I'm meaningless.

[LX_Emergency]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that the system is right. I didn't say anything about the system.


I claimed that Death Penalty is a....hmmm....good doesn't sound right and acceptable sounds too cold....needed measure.

I do agree however that it's largely dependant on the justice system backing it up.

[JMS]

I know I'm outnumbered, and that we as a species haven't progressed morally in the whole of human history. I'm resigned to being outnumbered.

I'm sorry Jim. I didn't realize you were making an argument from a morally superior position. Silly me.

[JimR]

I'm sorry Jim. I didn't realize you were making an argument from a morally superior position. Silly me.

Ahhh, Mark. An excellent way to dodge the point.

*Golf Clap*

[Rajagra]

So the court systems do fail, and innocent people are sentenced to death, and very likely some of them die. And they get no retribution.

So how many is too many for you? How many wold it take for you to admit that the system is flawed beyond acceptable tolerances?

A system is flawed if it takes more innocent lives than it saves.

Here are some facts.

"just over six per cent - of mandatory life-sentenced prisoners who were released between January 1 2003 and February 17 2009, were recalled and found guilty of a further offence"

If you read the details, the picture is even worse than that.

We need to compare the percentage of murderers who you believe are wrongly convicted against that 6% chance of a freed killer reoffending.

Some freed killers kill again. So how many is too many for you? How many would it take for you to admit that your system is flawed beyond acceptable tolerances?

EDIT> Just a reminder the above quote is about mandatory life-sentenced prisoners. Arguing that keeping them in prison for life solves the problem is no use unless they are actually kept in prison for life!

[jockeys]

I know I'm outnumbered, and that we as a species haven't progressed morally in the whole of human history. I'm resigned to being outnumbered.

morality is a human construct. people haven't changed, morality has. morality is no more or less than a set of made up rules that the majority agree to play by. over the millenia the ideas of the majority have changed and so has the idea of morality.

[JMS]

Ahhh, Mark. An excellent way to dodge the point.

*Golf Clap*

I wasn't dodging the question. I just never like it when someone insults others who aren't of the same opinion as them by suggesting that their opinion is the morally superior one.

[Oglethorpe]

morality is a human construct. people haven't changed, morality has. morality is no more or less than a set of made up rules that the majority agree to play by. over the millenia the ideas of the majority have changed and so has the idea of morality.

I'm with Jockey's on this one. Morality is right and wrong as described by the populous. You can't even expand this to "humanity" because in other places in the world, the penal systems are much harsher than ours. Does that make them less moral?

I say no. I say that as a people, they are just less tolerant of "rabid dogs" as GW says.

And as a 2nd point. Capital punishment isn't the problem. Corrupted prosecutors and legal systems are. How many of those cases of innocent death row'ers, Jim, are the result of a cop / detective / prosecutor / judge who were more concerned with "getting their man" than paying attention to the evidence and a fair trial.

Read Grisham's Innocent Man. That's a perfect example.

[JimmyHAD]

morality is a human construct. people haven't changed, morality has. morality is no more or less than a set of made up rules that the majority agree to play by. over the millenia the ideas of the majority have changed and so has the idea of morality.

I've got a book,"HANG BY THE NECK The Legal Use of Scaffold and Noose, Gibbet, Stake, and Firing Squad from Colonial Times to the Present". What is interesting is the difference in the public perception of execution. It was something like entertainment in days of old. If you've seen the movie True Grit, the scene where Mattie witnesses the multiple hanging was typical. The crowd included children sitting on their parents shoulders to better view the spectacle.I'm not advocating public execution, just commenting on how times changed.