|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 10/19/2009 : 01:13:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
I suppose one could argue trials, by their nature, are too imperfect to allow for such a drastic decision -- though I am not sure I agree a life sentence or deciding a disputed presidential election, for examples, are much less drastic or important. |
You might think it was more drastic and important if was your ass wrongly sentenced to death row. A life sentence can be commuted if exculpatory evidence is later uncovered. Death is permanent. Considering that mistakes do occur with disturbing frequency (the number of convicts exonerated by new DNA evidence techniques attests to that), the death penalty really is recklessly immoral.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2009 : 04:19:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by The Rat
Strange that most death penalty advocates are the type who don't trust the government to handle anything properly, but they'll trust them to get it right when it comes to killing someone.
|
Isn't that ironic or what?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2009 : 15:30:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Should screening of juries routinely include a general question about whether they put personal (including religious) ethics above the law? If they did, I don’t know if we’d have enough people left over to put on a jury.
I really don’t know what to conclude about these difficulties. I’ve never liked the idea of a “jury of peers”, but at the same time I don’t have an idea for a better alternative that I’m confident about.
|
Well at least the juries we'd have would be better. I have been on one jury (a relatively small civil case) and most of the other people on the jury had no clue about how to properly evaluate and analyze evidence and compare it to the law as the judge gave it to us. Their response was almost completely intuitive and / or emotional. It was a very frustrating experience. I believe we reached the correct conclusion, but not by doing it the right way. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2009 : 01:37:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Machi4velli
I suppose one could argue trials, by their nature, are too imperfect to allow for such a drastic decision -- though I am not sure I agree a life sentence or deciding a disputed presidential election, for examples, are much less drastic or important. |
You might think it was more drastic and important if was your ass wrongly sentenced to death row. |
It would be extremely important to me if I was wrongly sentenced to life in prison as well, not sure how to weight the difference. Regardless, those arguing for the death penalty would necessarily have to accept the chance that an innocent person could be executed (if they support it and do not accept the chance, there is no rational argument that cannot be extremely easily overturned [i.e. a list of trials that have resulted in false convictions]).
| A life sentence can be commuted if exculpatory evidence is later uncovered. Death is permanent. Considering that mistakes do occur with disturbing frequency (the number of convicts exonerated by new DNA evidence techniques attests to that), the death penalty really is recklessly immoral. |
If there is no deterring effect, or there is one but it is countered by negative consequences of the death penalty (brutalizing effect?), then certainly anyone would have to accept that argument. If a small degree of deterrence does exist, the cost/benefit analysis argument still works, at least for those who keep score to decide what's morally right. (I don't accept the argument even in this case, but I don't think it is an irrational one.) |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 10/21/2009 01:44:45 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
TX jurors consult Bible deciding death penalty
