Originally posted by Seagoon
The argument that the possibility that one could make a potentially deadly mistake means one shouldn't act at all would effectively put an end to every indirect fire mission, and use of medicines that could produce a potentially fatal reaction. Not to mention putting a swift end to sports like Skydiving or careers like Steve Irwins.
Hmmm, voluntary risk, sorry but that argument just doesn't fit.
Justice is not about taking risks and reaping rewards, but the upholding of what is just, impartial and fair, the act of determining rights or guilt based on facts.
Originally posted by Seagoon
In any event as a society, we need to be willing to do that which is just, even when there is the potential for something to go wrong. When a man rapes and kills a young girl, he has earned the death penalty and it is not justice to refuse to carry it out.
I did not argue the deserved punishment for a child rapist and murderer.
What I do argue about is ability of our legal system to determine guilt without a doubt and as long as our legal (can't force myself to call it justice) system is broken, I can't support death penalty.
Justice can not be served with collateral damage.
As for the case of Stockelman, fact remains, he escaped death penalty because of guilty plea deal. If it was so clearly cut case, supported by ironclad evidence (DNA), why did the prosecutor feel the need for such a deal?
Similary, just year and a half ago, everybody was convinced Hickman was the guilty one.
If not for few lucky turns in investigation, he could easily be the one to hang instead.