Re: Apple IIe seen in Discovery Channel documentary "2057: The Body"

[pausch@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter)]

In article <1179116036.468252.271680@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
mdj  <mdj.mdj@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 14, 4:16 am, "Michael J. Mahon" <mjma...@aol.com> wrote:
> 
>> I agree that fallibility is the ultimate argument against an
>> irreversible punishment.
> 
> I don't agree it's the ultimate argument at all. It's certainly a good
> logical position to take against those who are supporters of capital
> punishment, but from my point of view, the whole point of the justice
> system is *not* to punish the guilty, but to protect the innocent: If
> you choose to violate the laws of our society, we will deprive you
> (for length of time x) the right to participate in it because the
> needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Does your "protection of the innocent" also include those who are
innocently sentenced to severe punishments by courts making mistakes?
 
> To me the ultimate argument against capital punishment is that not
> killing each other is a cornerstone of civil society. Logically
> speaking, the societies we now enjoy would not exist without; it's
> irrational to have state sactioned exceptions to sociological axioms.

That's another very good argument against capital punishment.

>> Would it be appropriate for the "universe" to be called as a "fair
>> witness" to determine what actually happened whenever there is reason
>> to doubt the accounts of the participants?  The continuing trend
>> toward detailed forensic evidence analysis would suggest that many
>> people think this is an appropriate direction.
> 
> The unfortunate reality is that despite the objectivity of scientific
> data, there is still the reliance upon the forensic system to be
> completely ethical. It's easy to imagine situations where the
> prosecution were so desperate to obtain a conviction that the process
> is subverted, resulting in false information being accepted as fact by
> a jury.
> 
> Consider the scenario where somebody was convicted of murder based on
> forensic evidence and sentenced to death. Several years later a
> conspiracy is uncovered and the evidence falsified. The state is now
> liable for a murder conviction, but who do you try, and who do you
> kill, when you've uncovered 'the truth' ?
> 
> I agree the system is fundamentally flawed, but I think there's a real
> danger when considering changing the 'relative truth' of any peice of
> evidence that you potentially end up with a system even more flawed
> than the one that exists now.
> 
> Matt
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter,  Grev Turegatan 40,  SE-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
e-mail:  pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW:     http://stjarnhimlen.se/