On 27 Jul 2002 at 13:26, Blunderov wrote:
> joedees@bellsouth.net wrote
> <snip>
> If it upsets you that much for someone who rapes and murders a five
> year old girl to have to take what he dished out on one count, then I'm
> in favor of just executing him and having him take what he dished out
> on the other count.
> <snap>
>
> [Blunderov]
> I'm not so sure that I'm in favor of that either. How would you feel if,
> some years after throwing the switch, he was discovered to be innocent
> after all? Perhaps, a la Oz, he could have been forced into making a
> false confession, or some other human error(s) crept into the
> proceedings. This sort of thing, according to Amnesty International,
> happens on a fairly frequent basis.
>
I'm in favor of depending upon DNA evidence, O.J. notwithstanding.
> Or is any price, including the death of the innocent, justified in the
> protection of the innocent?
>
The death of the guilty is certainly to be preferred to the death of further
innocents, or even the death of others guilty of other, perhaps much
lesser, crimes whom the murderer might subsequently kill in prison.
>
> Seems weird to me.
>
> Warm regards
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:16 MDT