On May 14, 5:43 pm, pau...@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
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?
My ideology certainly does :-) Our own judicial system falls short of
my expectations in recompensing falsely imprisoned people. I find
arguments about how much money an individual should receive after
spending 30 years behind bars for murdering their own children (for
example) to be quite distasteful, when you consider the psychological
damage that's just been wrongly inflicted.
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.
Despite being full of spelling and grammatical errors :-S
"Same breeds same" as the saying goes, and it's obvious "who" should
be leading by example and breaking the cycle.