DaddySatyr
Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011 From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: barelynangel Maybe if people sooo concerned about the death penalty would instead of worrying about the death penalty put that effort into working to stop the crimes of which the death penalty is a sentence, imagine this -- a society that has the death penalty but it is soo rarely used because the citizens were more worried about correcting the crimes that constituted the death penalty, so the death penalty while viable wasn't needed. It's a bit rambling but, I think you're saying we should just put our energy into preventing murders? That's a really nice thought on the surface but, what would that take, I wonder? 24/7 video surveillance of everyone's home? A police officer posted on every corner? Oooooh! We could put people into their own little "security cells", when they're not working. You cannot completely prevent any kind of crime. The one's that stem from the deepest passion will be the toughest to wipe out. I would posit that we can almost never know, without any doubt whether someone is innocent or guilty. It's only possible in the rarest of cases. I would be lying if I said otherwise but, have you ever thought of how many people have to be convinced of someone's guilt/did they get a fair trial before they're put to death? Police investigators, prosecutors, grand jury (23 people on a grand jury, alone, in some places), trial judge (Can set aside a jury verdict, if he thinks the jury arrived at the wrong verdict), the jury, state court of appeals, state supreme court, circuit court of appeals, SC. I am not saying mistakes don't get made or that I wouldn't like to see them eliminated. I just don't know what it would take for us to be "sure" of anything. As you know, I'm sure, it is almost impossible to prove that one didn't commit a crime. Proving a negative is quite a daunting task. It's why our system was set up with the burden of proof resting squarely on the state's shoulders. I forget the fellow's name but McVeigh's partner? I happen to think he wasn't all that guilty. In fact, we heard very little about his actual involvement and both of them had remarkably swift trials and executions. Almost as if someone didn't want their side of the story investigated. Now, that, is the only argument I could ever make against the death penalty but, since I only have questions about suspicious government dealings and I am not yet frothing at the mouth, I do not yet fall squarely into the "conspiracy theorist" camp. I am not sure what it would take to prove people dead-bang guilty, either. I do stand by my earlier statement, though; those three crimes should always carry a death penalty (IMO). Peace and comfort, Michael
_____________________________
A Stone in My Shoe Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me? "For that which I love, I will do horrible things"
|