|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 22, 2006 1:47:39 GMT -5
Ah I see, that's some fine work there then Dusty. Also the point about being unrehabilitatable is also untrue then, so legalised murder is an even less tennable position.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 22, 2006 2:42:14 GMT -5
I yield the floor to Dusty. ;D
Yeah been there here's the quote again for all those who like to ignore tennants of their own faith:-
But woe unto you that are that are rich, for you have recieved your consolation.
But woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger
But I say unto you which hear, love your enemies, do good to them which hate you.
Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which dispitefuly use you.
And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other.
For if you love them which love you, what thank have ye? For sinners also do even the same.
And if ye lend to them of whom you hope to recieve,what thank have ye? For sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
But love ye thy enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the highest: for he is kind unto the thankful and to the evil.
Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father is also merciful.
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged:condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.
And not exactly an original idea, tackle the routes of crime and the rest will sort itself out. Surprising how difficult this seems to be.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 22, 2006 10:29:09 GMT -5
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged:condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.
That's fine for an individual; but it can't work for a society. Can you imagine the chaos if a society accepted this literally?
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 22, 2006 12:59:45 GMT -5
I agree a society can't live by subjective rules, what I'm saying is you live in a democracy if everyone comes to the conclusion that those ideas both religous and moral should influence the law then you get an objective law passed by the majority.
This is something that will happen inevitably in America sooner or later IMO. I sugest you get used to the idea of life sentences instead of the death penalty; this creeping liberalism you fear so much is actually just concensus of opinion about the immorality of "legalised murder"
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 22, 2006 21:34:02 GMT -5
Is it "revenge" or a desire for "justice"?
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 23, 2006 1:02:30 GMT -5
Well if someone just kiled your eldest son would you not sugest that your motivation would be revenge? And would you sugest that if the crime was horific the jury wouldn't be thinking the same thing, burn him, fry his brains, kill the scumbag?!?!
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 23, 2006 8:14:39 GMT -5
Individual emotional reactions are irrelevant when it comes to "what should society do".
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 23, 2006 8:18:43 GMT -5
Yeah agreed but there is a growing concensus of opinion that your ignoring or labeling as liberals.
|
|
|
Post by ajerzguy on Jan 23, 2006 8:22:58 GMT -5
First of all if the DNA was tainted it wouldn't convict the person. Second I didn't say I would rape their daughter, I said I would castrate the offender.
Last but not least show me one thing in life that man/woman has to do with that is "perfect". Mistakes are always made, however in todays criminal investigations those occurrences are far less, The problem here is that you only read about the "one" mistake not the 10,000 correct findings.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 23, 2006 8:30:04 GMT -5
No I just said that's what might happen if you leave justice in the hands of the victim. And I already know of cases of wrongful convivtion where the DNA matched the subjects even though it wasn't him and he wasn't there and in fact he was in a different state at the time in one case, it should be incredibly rare that DNA matches in any but identicle twins, but it happens, and people go to jail or are killed. Contrary to popular belief DNA tests are not infalable.
As for contamination people at the scene sometimes mix up DNA evidence from someone who was there at the time of the crime and someone who was there at some time; since most murders are done by people who know the victim there are a lot of false accusations.
Were currently deciding whether it is morally right to kill someone in the name of justice, and whether it is just, so the half of a dozen people who have gone to the chair are very relevant. Not to mention the fact that it may of happened a number of times but it has never come to light.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 23, 2006 8:32:01 GMT -5
Let's say the DNA evidence is contaminated by faulty procedure. This is statistically impossible. The chances that DNA is contaminated and the evidence points to a suspect is in the trillions. Perhaps you mean that the suspect's DNA was collected from somewhere other than the crime scene.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 23, 2006 8:36:02 GMT -5
No it has happened that either at the scene or in the lab DNA has become contaminated. Say someone cut their finger and blood of his is found at the scene along with the victims, quite by coincidence. or the method of collection has led to material other than the victims being mixed up, hair fibres are found on the victims but are coincidental, the victims blood is found on the accuseds clothing but in fact it is there because of an inoccuous reason, whatever the case.
And statistically unlikely as it is, in America alone two people have been aquitted after it was found there DNA matched but later found they could not have possibly done the crime, that is a matter of fact. In fact I read about it in New scientist so unless they decided to make it up I'm assuming it's true.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 23, 2006 9:56:23 GMT -5
No it has happened that either at the scene or in the lab DNA has become contaminated. Say someone cut their finger and blood of his is found at the scene along with the victims, quite by coincidence. or the method of collection has led to material other than the victims being mixed up, hair fibres are found on the victims but are coincidental, the victims blood is found on the accuseds clothing but in fact it is there because of an inoccuous reason, whatever the case. And statistically unlikely as it is, in America alone two people have been aquitted after it was found there DNA matched but later found they could not have possibly done the crime, that is a matter of fact. In fact I read about it in New scientist so unless they decided to make it up I'm assuming it's true. These are not examples of DNA contamination pointing to a suspect. Of course a DNA sample can become contaminated; but not in a way that it provides evidence against a suspect. In your latter example, just because a jury acquits doesn't prove the accused is innocent.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 23, 2006 12:34:50 GMT -5
Well of course, but I think the point is that the innocent do get and have gotten wrongly killed by this system because of shoddy trials and contaminated evidence etc etc.
It's not a point I wanted to turf up really, it's apoint everyone knows but the conversation kinda went that way.
|
|
|
Post by ajerzguy on Jan 24, 2006 0:52:11 GMT -5
Sidhe you're worried about such a minuscule number of examples and have forgetting that every murder victim didn't even have the chance to live.
Take this guy in New York that killed his daughter (age 6) because he couldn't control her. In my book when he is found guilty his life should end. It won't bring the child back but it will prevent him from ever killing again.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 24, 2006 0:58:37 GMT -5
Most likely so would a life sentence in prison(I don't see the relevance of that point) and as Dusty and I said in seperate points said if someone kills someones son it wont bring him back, revenge doesnt bring peace, killing him wont give the family any meaningful repayment: at least if the criminal in question is given the chance to atone for his crimes the family can get something from the deal other than watching a man murdered by an archaic law that the western world almost in it's entirety has chosen to abolish.
If one innocent man out of a hundred thousand dies and the other 99,999 are guilty and are put to death, as far as I'm concerned that's one too many.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 24, 2006 9:46:40 GMT -5
DNA has exonerated many, but there has never been a proven example of someone innocent being put to death. Many opponents of capital punishment believe that a vial of evidence held in the lab of forensic scientist Ed Blake in California might be the first real proof that one man was killed in the face of scientific proof of his innocence.
Roger Coleman was convicted of raping and murdering his sister-in-law. His inexperienced lawyers failed to present all the evidence, and a clerical error kept him from winning an appeal. He was electrocuted in 1992.
Now, modern DNA techniques can prove his guilt or innocence, but the state of Virginia argues the "doctrine of finality," and wants no further inquiries in the case.
The decision to test or not is now in the hands of the Virginia Supreme Court. Scientist Ed Blake says he will not test it without the court's permission, but he also says that he will not send it back to Virginia, whatever the court decides. "Nobody can force me to send it back," Blake says defiantly. "At issue here is the public's right to know."
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 24, 2006 11:46:11 GMT -5
All that says to me is that he has something to hide. Sounds to me like he's sitting on a pandoras box. I would doubt that in your history not one person has not been unfairly put to death, out of all the people ever executed that is too many.
But I digress this is not really the issue, the issue is is in todays society execution moral, that is at the heart of the argument if it is not, then are you acting in a morally dubious manner and if so aren't you digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole?
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 24, 2006 22:11:09 GMT -5
Well said Dusty. I wouldn't bother trying to change Whiplashes views. No matter how much they lack the karitas that christianity advocates. And I don't mean this in a nasty way either, but sometimes you do have to ask what is behind a mentallity that condemns rather than forgives and that seeks to use examples from an old testament rather than a new to justify his case. And that even asks what examples from the new testament naysay the rules of the old despite the words of the bible This is not ignorance it is denial. I have no bad will towards funementalists per se(not all of them are conservative in their religion as well as there idea of justice) just the damage maintaining staunch defiance in the face of reason can do. And the damage blind adherence to established codes can give birth to. Think WWJD not what would Moses or Abraham do and that should be your guide, if not then Take the word Christian from your mantle and replace it with orthodox antireformist judgemental conservative self righteous incorrigable intransigent follower(for though you may not see yourself as such that is in fact what you are IMHO)
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 24, 2006 23:23:17 GMT -5
Dusty, what have I said that suggests this man is innocent?
And Sidhe, you don't even know what my views are. I've not stated them here. I've only posed the question "what should society do?". I've not offered my own opinion on the question. I've just acted as the moderator of the debate on the question.
|
|