I'm not trying to sway you. I'm assuming that you have given this all necessary thought and have gamed out the consequences to your satisfaction. Working on that assumption, I just want to know what are the consequential and moral differences between killing the wrong man in personal vengeance and killing the wrong man in state-sponsored vengeance.
I'm just not comfortable with executing innocent people and since there are now a number of posts complaining not just about the lack of sufficient numbers of executions but that the convicted get appeals and are housed in comfort while they wait, one cannot help but get the feeling that what people would prefer is that people are convicted, sentenced, taken out and executed directly.
I'm not talking about a case where someone *actually* committed the crime, I'm talking about a case where someone *didn't* commit the crime but are executed none-the-less. I'm also very uneasy about the punishment fitting the crime. Here's why:
Man breaks into home, kills everyone in the home. There are signs that rape and torture occurred. He gets the death penalty.
Man breaks into home, kills everyone in the home. There are signs that rape and torture occurred. He gets 50 - life.
The difference? It works like this:
White perp/white victim. Second scenario.
White perp/black victim. Second scenario.
Black perp/white victim. First scenario
Black perp/black victim. Second scenario as likely as first.
Now, I'm not saying that whites never end up on death row--obviously they do. I'm not saying blacks always end up on death row--obviously they don't. However, statistically, if you hold the relevant details of the crime constant what you see sketched above are the most likely scenarios.
If folks were talking about innocent beyond any reasonable doubt, perhaps but that's not the general sense I’m getting. Rather, I have the feeling that folks would prefer a judicial system that was even more stacked against the defendant than it already is, where it is far more speedy, where the police have far more leeway, where the prisons are closer to medieval dungeons than they are currently, and where the courthouse and the executioner are right next door to one another.
Cheers
Aj
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gemme
I'm not saying that I wouldn't want the accused to go through the system and have good representation and the benefit of the doubt. I do believe in innocent until proven guilty. But I also don't want to not give the death penalty 'in case' he really didn't do it.
Each case is individual.
If there is sufficient proof that a person killed another, then why is it MY moral responsibility? S/he did it. May their punishment fit their crime.
The thing about posting in these type of threads is that the debate gets heated and, inevitably, someone tries to prove their point and sway others.
I won't be swayed on this matter.
|