|
Welcome to Political Fever - The Political Debate Forums. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest with limited access. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. You can also take part in our Private Debates where you can test your skills against an opponent. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us. After you Register the advertisements will disappear on the site! |
|
||||||
| Civil Liberties and Civil Rights Discuss Civil Liberties and Civil rights here. Also discuss discrimination against minority groups as well, and ways to solve these issues. |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
||||
|
as every state is seeking ways to keep up with less from the Federal Govt. (see thread on what the war costs per state: Cost of War per state - Political Fever - The Political Debate Forums)
I really think at governors gathering and in many higher levels these things are just tossed around and then decisions are made, and implemented. But I could be wrong too. Quote:
__________________
Yea can't keep the words of your great leader. Prophet Muhammad - “Do you love your creator? Love your fellow-beings first.” Last edited by mlurp : 04-17-2008 at 01:26 AM. |
|
|||
|
The criminal justice system works on probability.
When someone is found guilty after a trial the logic is that they're probably guilty. The phrase used is a formulation along the lines of, "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Note that. It's not "beyond a doubt". It can never be "beyond a doubt" simply because the jury who hear the evidence presented in a trial have no idea what really happened. I don't have a problem with the formulation in theory, it works pretty well. But the criminal justice system is sometimes apt to get it spectacularly wrong. It's pretty easy for the police, for example, to lie and to falsify evidence and to plant evidence. The videotaping of interviews with suspects and in some cases (particularly murder) much of the investigation is videotaped as it happens by the police. Videotaping interviews came about because police gradually lost the trust of the courts that they would always tell the truth in court and never produce falsified evidence. Prosecutors can get things wrong and sometimes they can be malicious, particularly in jurisdictions where they are political appointments and need to be politicians to keep their jobs or advance themselves. The same goes for judges. So, given all this I, time and time again, can't do anything but come to the conclusion that putting a convicted defendant to death is far too risky. I'll always oppose capital punishment on these grounds. Yes, some people may have committed such horrific crimes that we want them to die. But that assumes the right person was convicted. And we'll never know that the right person was convicted beyond any doubt. At least if someone is banged up for life we can let them out if we find out later they didn't do it. |
|
||||
|
I oppose the death penalty for religious/moral reasons. The last time I was called for jury duty, I was questioned as a prospective juror for a capital murder trial. The state was seeking the DP. I expressed my opposition to the DP and was excused.
Having said that, when I hear of a particularly heinous murder, my gut reaction is to want to see the perp who did it fry. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states...Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds." ~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. |
|
||||
|
The "acceptable" part is subjective. Get it out of your head, it isn't a logical argument.
__________________
"Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states...Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds." ~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. |
|
||||
|
It is acceptable cost of having a justice system. There will be mistakes, not many. It applies to all punishments. If you want a justice system that is the cost you pay. I say that is better than vigilante justice.
|
|
|||
|
How would you feel if you were one of the acceptable mistakes?
|
|
||||
|
I would feel pretty damn ****ty being a mistake of the judicial system. But humans are not infallible. We can not just let everyone go free because we may accidentally make a mistake once in a while. Until we can become judicially infallible it mistakes in the judicial system must be a necessary evil, just like taxes.
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|