It is not a moral dilemma for me.

I am not willing to support a system that allows the state to execute one innocent person.

Amen, and amen.

Good for you.

There is, of course, reasonable doubt as to the guilt of one Bruno Hauptmann. However, there had to be closure on The Crime of the Century, in the public eye.

IMO, shrugging it off as a moral dilemma and a "good for you" is a cop-out.

Just admit that you are willing to accept that an innocent person can be put to death to preserve a flawed system of justice.

Well thats no fun. Way to kill a discussion.

Me and Redux sure can clear a room. ;)

I brought lunch!

Kung Pao Chicken.

Trade you my salad...

Even death row inmates deserve a better lunch than salad.

You can't answer "no" to that question unless you knowingly choose to exit the realm of reality. If you accept that the system is not 100% infallible, and you accept that said system has the power to take a human life, and you support said system, then you have to answer "yes" to the question, i.e. it must, logically, be acceptable to that an innocent person could be put to death by the state. You can choose to ignore this, but palming it off on "society" doesn't make it go away, or remove you from taking responsibility for your own position.

Why? It is my right as an individual not to care.

Apparently so.

No no no no no no no no no.

Ideally, this is a good solution and I used to fully support this but with this setup, it becomes profitable for the government to have more prisoners. If we had this setup, what social control would we have to prevent rampant classist laws from rounding up all the people that are doing nothing for our economy (unemployed, etc) and putting them in prison on bullshit charges?

Remember the story a while back where a large amount of teenagers were sent to a private juvenile detention facility on bullshit charges because the judge was paid off by the detention facility? The risk of this happening is too large for me to trust any prison system that works for profit, private or public. I don't care how much of social burden someone is, as long as they stay within the law, they should not have their freedom taken away.

To answer your question in another thread. Yes, I think this position qualifies you for the official heartless bastard sticker in the largest available size.

Fair enough. When that bothers me I'll let you know.

I don't subscribe to the "it is better to let a thousand guilty people go than to convict one guilty person" philosophy. I believe that if you find that one innocent person you should fight for them with everything you've got, rather than scrapping the system because someone fell through the cracks.

If that seems cold and calculating, it is, but this is just these are just words on the web. If you introduced me to a real flesh and blood person I might articulate my belief differently, but the point would still be the same.

I dont recall reading any post here that suggested letting any guilty person go free.

Life imprisonment w/o parole is not freedom and allows for the correction of the worst act the state can undertake....executing an innocent person.

alright, if it makes you feel better keep them in prison til they rot. when i'm dictator i'll off who i see fit. til then we'll just have to work with the system we have.

Or work to change the system so that the criminal justice system in the US resembles every other western democracy w/o capital punishment and not tin pot dictatorial governments.

After that, we go for your guns ;)
(j/k about the guns...I dont want another UG lecture on how a nation w/o a guaranteed and unlimited right to bear arms is on the road to mass genocide of its people.)

No, you are wrong. I can answer it any way I choose and you are free to read into it. I don't have to answer it any way other than I did. I fully support the Death Penalty as punishment. I have not "palmed" it off on anyone. I have stated that it remains a moral delima for the legal system and society at large when innocent victims are accidently put to death by the system. I have not shirked my responsiblity for my position, merely stated the facts as they now exist.

WOW, I am shocked.

Not really.

But see your opinion of my opinion is really not important to me. I thought we already established that premise.

At this point I am not willing to support the death of an innocent person nor am I willing to remove the notion of Capital Punishment for those who deserve it.

And if they don't deserve it but the court mistakenly believes that they do :P

My condolences. Sorry for the loss. Truely. A bad day for our imperfect system of justice.

Cheap attempt at semantics?

I didnt say you were willing to support the death of an innocent person.

I said you were willing to accept the death of an innocent person.

Its a fact, not my opinion. If you support the current system of capital punishment, you accept the fact that an innocent person can be executed.

Not semantics. It is a fact. It happens. But I am not willing to get rid of the system because errors occur. The errors are few and far between, unless you can prove other wise. They are rare.

Right...its a fact, not my opinion, that you are willing to accept it.

I'm curious.

If one wrongful execution is acceptable, what is the limit? What do you consider rare?

How many innocent people have to die at the hands of the state execution system before it becomes unacceptable?

Provide me with evidence that there is a huge disparity between those put to death wrongly and those who deserved it. I am certainly not going to box myself into some number game. Innocent people die all the time in many situations. I am sorry for it. It is not my place to put a limit on it. It is a very sad situation for that one person, his family and all his or her connections to the eventual death. As I stated earlier these are questions for the legal system to tackle and a moral quandry for society at large. In the meantime, I will continue to support Capital Punishment as a form of ultimate punishment. Do the time do the crime.

I never disputed the fact that it happens.

Is it more or less acceptable for a soldier to be killed in action than for an innocent person to be executed?

If you believe in one or more deities, then the chances are you believe that an executed innocent has gone to better place, and if you don't, then the chances are you believe the executed innccent no longer exists, so why do they matter any more...so what's the problem?

If you reject CP on the grounds that it is irreversible and cruel, in what way to you envisage years of wrongful maximum security detention less irreversible and less cruel?

Just askin'.....

Absolutely.

Why?

One is a volunteer.

They are dying for a cause and they know what they are getting into.

So the executed innocents...... are they not dying for a cause?

And did they not volunteer by living and voting/not voting in a state with CP? ANd even if they're anti CP and protest violently about it, what were they doing that made them a suspect? isn't doing something dodgy in a state with the DP akin to volunteering?

I know that the following isn't a difficult idea to understand. Once again:

If 1) you know that the system isn't perfect (i.e. that the possibility of the execution of an innocent person exists), and 2) you choose to support the practical reality of that system, then 3) it must, logically, be acceptable to you that an innocent person could be executed. This is clear, stark logic.

As regards the formulation of your own, personal position, this isn't a moral dilemma for "society" at large, it clearly is a moral dilemma you must face within yourself. The honest, adult response would be to state "I am okay with the possibility of the execution of an innocent person."

If you feel strongly that this is the right position, you shouldn't be ashamed to just say so.

It is completely a moral delimma for society at large and the legal system. I don't execute people. They do it within the framework of the legal system. I am not ok with the execution of an innocent person. But I still support the idea of Capital Punishment as a useful tool to punish those rightfully convicted.

If you support capital punishment in an imperfect system then you are okay with the possible execution of an innocent.

This is a dilemma which only you can decide for yourself: facing facts, weighing pros versus cons, and forming a position.

That is not what I said. You said that.

There are numerous moral questions like this in life. This one is no different. It is not black and white it is gray.

I accept that it happens. I don't accept that it is ok.

When you state two contradictory positions as if they can work together, this indicates that a problem exists in your logic.

2 + 2 = 4. If your position requires it to be 3 in one instance and 5 in another, the logical contradiction indicates a problem.

That's right. My problem is the glaring disparity between the statements you are making and their logical consequences.

You support capital punishment + Capital punishment means an innocent could be executed = You are okay with that.

Your support of capital punishment logically means that any possible death of an innocent that "happens" is "ok."

Do you support the killing of innocent people in Afganistan by US troops? Probably not. But I bet you would support the troops and understand that they have to do a job and sometimes innocent people get killed, as bad as it may be. It is not a black and white 2+2 situation. It is not a simple logic equation question.

It is the very fact that it is not a black and white logic equation which makes it a moral dilemma for society and the legal system, which eventually is responsible for prosecuting and sentencing these people to death.

The question isnt whether you support an innocent person being killed. The question is are you prepared to accept the execution of innocents, which is the somewhat inevitable consequence of having capital punishment. Given that no system is infallible, you either support capital punishment and accept the reality of innocent people being executed. Or, you don't accept the execution of innocent people in which case you cannot support capital punishment. You cannot support capital punishment without accepting that innocent people will be executed.

Lookout at least has the strength of his convictions (if you'll pardon the pun).

It is not just a moral dilemma for society. It is a moral dilemma for you, as a member of that society and for you as a voting citizen.

When facing a decision you evaluate all possible aspects and weigh them against each other to form your postition. This can be a tough choice, but one of the things you cannot do, in reality, is simply ignore the parts that make you uncomfortable. If a less desirable aspect falls on the side of the position you support, you cannot disown it. As an honest person, you cannot repeatedly deny that it exists when asked to account for your position.

I have stated that I understand it happens but I am not "ok" with it as that is how the question was poised to me. And whether you like it or not it remains a moral question for society and our legal system because there is evidence to suggest that innocent people may have been put to death wrongly and yet we still have Capital Punishment.

I have disowned nothing. I have not denied that it happens. I have accounted for my position completely.

They are dying as a punishment for their convicted actions. I do not consider that a cause unless you consider "making an example out of someone" as a cause, which I don't.

So someone is just suppose to leave their entire life and move to a different state/country that does not have capital punishment just because of the extremely small possibility that they might go on death row? I do not call that rational. I call that paranoia.

You can be a suspect just from being in the wrong place at the wrong time or even by your skin color or dress. Is it likely? Hell no. Can it happen? Yes.

Define dodgy. And no.

In reality, doing something out of the norm will make you a suspect and that must be recognized by everyone who wants to stay out of trouble. That is how the world works. Is that fair or just? No. But, I would prefer a justice system that is as just as realistically possible. So because of this, I strongly disagree that doing something dodgy in a state with the death penalty is akin to volunteering. Its just being stupid.

Especially given that 'doing something dodgy' might actually be as simple as driving yourcar along a road where a murder has occurred. Or being the stepfather of a child who is later killed. Or, probably more a factor 50 years ago, being a black man in a town where someone has been killed by a black man.

What if the executioner is on a treadmill?:p

Texas Governor Rick Perry doesn't want you to know that Texas executed an innocent man.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&so...-8&sa=N&tab=wn

Honestly, Mo, I can't remember your stance on capital punishment.
I suspect it's the majority Brit opinion. Which is narrowly NO - despite Telegraph and Mail attempts to skew it otherwise.

But I've answered your questions as if they were posed by someone I didn't know (which I always do when it's something I have a strong opinion about) because even if you're playing devil's advocate, I'll choose my ownside anyway.

There is choice and subsequent payment involved. And it seems (only from my reading here) that there is some underlying belief too. An innocent executed - has no such belief, no such drive, no such meaning. An atheist executed in such a way simply has their single chance at life terminated.
Shoot them all and let God sort them out is one of the most awful mottos of those who want to abrogate their actions. Thou Shalt Not Kill, should be a hard and fast rule. It was a Commandment handed down by God himsef. That's pretty damned important. Jesus said Turn the Other Cheek. HE was the Son of God. He preached a parable about the Samaritan (untouchable) where the man who was blessed was the man who did not pass on by. And yet some of the modern churches embrace those who want to hurt gay people, claim the devil's influence or other derogatory term for not believing in their sect/ religion, call other religions dirty names, form militia.

I've isolated Christianity here, but I include all the major religions that judge people on sexuality, differences because of gender and books written in another country before your great great grandmothers were born. Murder, rape, theft - yeah we all know those were bad. But if we're going back to Leviticus for our opinions on gay sex, why not have the same rules across the board? Dwellars are well read enough, and intelligent enough to know what I mean. I wish the rest of th country was.

A good point.
America would not be welcomed into the EU on that point.
I know you're not really bothered.
But it means you're denied entry to the Eurovision Song Contest.
Ah well, you wouldn't win anyway. We know - we have an even better record in Euro Pop than American artists (we know the market exists for a start) and we still get nul pointe.