It looks as if the numbers seem to be decreasing in this new age of technology. I would also venture to guess that many of those exonerated were still guilty. Its just that the legal system has so many flaws that they have ways to get out of things. Hell even OJ got off.....
ONE IS TOO MANY.
Alright Im going to take the blame for getting this thread to somewhere it shouldnt be. My origional post was to show my point about not caring how creul lethal injection is.
There really is no point in arguing about if the death penalty good or not. Its a subject where its nearly impossible to change anyones mind.
OK, I will chime in real fast. I am 100% for the killing of convicted murderers and especially those involving pre-meditated murders, kids, rape, etc. But that doesn't seem to be what the real issue in this thread is.
My issue is that of the fact that there are those who are innocent who get convicted. And (obviously) I am against the killing of innocent people (what I am not a menace or anything) .
My stance on this is that there are always imperfections in any system. You try to eliminate them as much as possible, but you will never be completely sure 100% of the time. One is too many, yes, but I'll be damned if I gave up capital punishment as an option because an innocent man, presumably, could die. What's the difference between an innocent man being killed versus spending the rest of his life in jail. They're both wrong. I don't want to eliminate an option just because someone might be wrong. Someone will be wrong. But someone will be wrong either way. One way you just feel a little worse about the end result.
Omaha Red Sox wrote:My stance on this is that there are always imperfections in any system. You try to eliminate them as much as possible, but you will never be completely sure 100% of the time. One is too many, yes, but I'll be damned if I gave up capital punishment as an option because an innocent man, presumably, could die. What's the difference between an innocent man being killed versus spending the rest of his life in jail. They're both wrong. I don't want to eliminate an option just because someone might be wrong. Someone will be wrong. But someone will be wrong either way. One way you just feel a little worse about the end result.
The difference is that a man spending life in prison can be released if new evidence finds him not guilty, while the dead man is still dead.
This simple difference means we can NOT afford to kill anyone. NOT ONE PERSON should ever, ever be killed by the state for a crime he did not commit.
They are both wrong, but one wrong is irrevocable, while the other is at least partially revocable.
knapplc wrote:The difference is that a man spending life in prison can be released if new evidence finds him not guilty, while the dead man is still dead.
This simple difference means we can NOT afford to kill anyone. NOT ONE PERSON should ever, ever be killed by the state for a crime he did not commit.
They are both wrong, but one wrong is irrevocable, while the other is at least partially revocable.
I guess on the scale between caring if a monster is alive and an innocent man is dead we stand separately. Don't get me wrong, I think we should do everything in our power to grant any man the best trial possible. But I am more adamant about the justice of a killer than I am sympathetic for the wrongfully accused. Sounds cold and heartless in black and white, but I would much rather see 1000 dangerous men and 1 innocent man killed than all 1001 still breathing.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by TN_Titans_05 » Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:37 am 
