| Subject: The thread in question... |
Author:
Wyldchilde
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 14:19:01 06/12/01 Tue
In reply to:
Wyldchilde
's message, "Re: The Death Penalty" on 14:05:38 06/12/01 Tue
>Racial inequites run across every branch of the legal
>system. So it is not a problem with the death penalty,
>but with juris prudence. Now as far as guilt or
>innocence... if you went to any prison anywhere in the
>world you would find that nearly every inmate woudl
>tell you they were innocent, tell you they were
>framed, or railroaded. They would tell you they
>shouldn't be there, and they may very well be right.
>So should we let them go? Say that all their trials
>and appeals can be overturned by taking their word for
>it? Incarceration, forced labor, or the death penalty,
>we are punishing them because our legal system
>determined they should be punished. You can't just
>overrule this decision, or that one. You either have
>to accept it's validity and work within that system or
>toss it out entirely and let out those who are guilty
>of their crimes as well as those falsely accused.
If I understand you correctly, it seems to matter little that innocent people are executed, and by that I don’t mean those professing their innocence, but those that after their death’s have been found not guilty. If a legal system is so unsafe, surely it is unwise to pursue the death penalty. Can you really sit there and say “oh it doesn’t matter if we execute a few innocent people as long as we have the pleasure of killing those that did commit heinous crimes, such as Timothy McVeigh”?
I see the word "you" twice so I think it's fair she's referring to me, and saying that I am saying.
“oh it doesn’t matter if we execute a few innocent people as long as we have the pleasure of killing those that did commit heinous crimes, such as Timothy McVeigh”?
So here is my responce.
No, I'm not saying that at all, and I am NOT saying it is a pleasure. In fact you seem to be attributing that to me because of the popular view that proponents of the death penalty are blood thristy. What I am saying is that you argue one punishment is too harsh you also attack the very right to punish. If someone could be cleared of a capital crime after 10 years what about the hapless individual who has been imprisioned for 10 years? He may be alive, but there is a good chance their life is in tatters. So do we start scaling that back to? My point is that you're not going to find criminals who are going to confess. So even if you imprision them for life you have to do it forcefully. Or would you have our legal system turned into the honor system?
Now here is what you posted.
I do not attack the right to punish, and any legal system will suffer miscarriages of justice from time to time. I attack the use of the death penalty because of the atrocity it clearly is. Better to release a man/woman wrongly convicted after 10 years, than to murder someone who might be innocent, or subject ANY human being to such inhumane treatment. Human beings are not dogs to be put down in order to satisfy a blood lust. Responding to barbarism with another act of barbarism is not the hallmark of an advanced and civilised society.
Again you call me bloodthirsty. So now I will call you irrational. You assume that anyone who doesn't agree with you must fit into this limited sterotype. So of course anyone who believes in the death penalty must be bloodthirsty. There is no way they could see it as the form of punishment for the crimes that demand no less. Even if McVeigh got life with out parole those are years his victims will never see. As I see it by putting value on his life you devalue theirs.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 