On Tue, Apr 18, 2000 at 05:37:56PM -0700, Zero Powers wrote:
> Although I tend toward the "bleeding heart" end of the spectrum, I look at
> capital punishment as a cost vs. benefit analysis. You got a human scum
> (say, Charlie Manson) who has amply demonstrated that he will never be good
> for anything except warming a prison cell. Do we keep him alive for no good
> reason until he wastes away, at a cost of umpteen thousand dollars per year,
> or do we put him and us out of our mutual misery by killing and cremating
> him at a cost of a few thousand and be done with it? The answer to me seems
Unless you take into account the possibility that he might be innocent
but wrongly convicted. Here in the UK, they've tightened up the appeals
and miscarriages-of-justice process a bit in the past few years, and
added DNA testing to the battery of forensic techniques available.
The result is that roughly 10-15% of historic "guilty" verdicts are
being overturned, in crimes as serious as murder.
Face it, the judicial system is a system created by human beings. As
such, it is fallible -- even without side-issues like police corruption
and political interference.
Think of that nice warm prison cell Charlie Manson sleeps in every night
as YOUR personal insurance premium against being summarily executed for
a crime you didn't commit.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:35 MDT