On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 13:26:10 +0000
David Cantrell wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 09:59:00AM +0000, d wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 20:01:14 -0800 (PST)
john b wrote:
things they nonetheless deserve, such as a fair trial, due process,
and the absence of torture and deliberately degrading treatment.
Why do they deserve that?
Because until they've had that we don't actually know that they are
scumbags. Until YOU'VE had that when accused of a crime we don't know
that YOU'RE not a scumbag.
People convicted of heinous crimes should suffer, badly.
But to be convicted with any degree of certainty that the conviction is
valid requires due process, absence of torture, and a fair trial. I
I'm talking about unpleasentaries AFTER they're convicted , not before.
The law recognises that even the fairest of trials and duest or
processes can sometimes produce the wrong result. Several convictions
every year are overturned after the victim has spent years in prison.
Usually because the original conviction was on a balance of probabilities,
not on hard evidence.
If we were still the sort of barbarians who thought the state should
murder people, then those victims would be *dead* instead of being
released and helped to put their lives back together.
The state still does "murder" (a very emotive word , used in its wrong
context as usual) people - its called war. I see no moral difference
between a soldier executing someone or a hangman.
And state execution being barbaric is merely your opinion, not a fact.
If you would not wish someone like Huntley to be executed simply for moral
reasons then your mind is almost as warped and debased as his is.
IMO of course.
B2003