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

[mdj <mdj.mdj@gmail.com>]

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.

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.

> 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