On 28 Jul 2002 at 0:57, Blunderov wrote:
> David McFadzean [david@lucifer.com]wrote
> <snip>
> Maybe we weren't talking about innocents before, but I wanted to bring
> it up because there will be mistakes in any conceivable practical
> justice system.
> <snap>
> [Blunderov]
> This is the point that I was hoping to make: if the state is permitted
> to run a death industry there will, inevitably, be mistakes. Individual
> felons may be as guilty as all hell (DNA is very convincing I agree) but
> the fact remains that, if we permit this institution, we have reconciled
> ourselves to certainty that someone who is innocent will be executed.
>
If the alternative is less than life with no possibility of parole, we are
resigning ourselves to freeing sociopaths who, at least half the time, will
murder innocents again.
>
> There is also the very considerable possibility (some might say
> certainty) of bias - some population groups are routinely perceived to
> be "more" guilty than others by criminal justice systems, even when
> there is little or no substantive difference between the crimes
> committed.
>
I am of course in favor of egalitarianism in conviction and sentencing
criteria.
>
> If there was a justice system that could guarantee [em]absolute[/em]
> fairness and [em]absolute[/em] infallibility, then such a system might
> be able to justify applying the [em]absolute[/em] sanction. Maybe.
>
No system can do so generally, although their success rate can be very
high (usually bought at the cost of some guilty being acquitted - and
killing again); in many individual cases, however, there is not the
shadow of a scintilla of a doubt.
>
> Warm regards
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:16 MDT