i am a policitcal conservative, at least a fiscal conservative and sociel moderate.
i support the death penalty, but i agree that our judicial system needs to overhaul how wwe treat criminals to achieve better rehabilitation results.
and of course, withhold the death penalty in cases where there could be doubt.. in mcveigh's case, i believe that he deserves the death penalty.
To Englishman:
Please excuse me if some of this was covered in a thread titled something like "Yanks vs Brits", or something. (I didn't happen to read that one.)
QUESTIONS:
Do you maintain that Britain is not a religious Society? How is the U.S. more a religious society than Britain?
May we assume that you would not support killing people of another nationality for political reasons (war).
Ros
"A religion that teaches lies cannot be true"--The Watchtower, 12/1/91 pg. 7
i am a policitcal conservative, at least a fiscal conservative and sociel moderate.
i support the death penalty, but i agree that our judicial system needs to overhaul how wwe treat criminals to achieve better rehabilitation results.
and of course, withhold the death penalty in cases where there could be doubt.. in mcveigh's case, i believe that he deserves the death penalty.
Reply to JanH:
I'm sure O.J. Simpson would agree with you.
If you are 51% certain that a particular defendent "did it", he or she is probably guilty. This is how it often works in civil cases, because one or the other party is right or wrong.You've been reading too many math theory books, Jan. You can't put a viable percentage value like 51% on guilt vs. innocence in a person's mind. If you are going to try to figure it on percentage, the closest you could get is a 58.31% opinion of probability in a 12-person jury if the vote was 7-to-5, assuming each person on the jury was 100% certain about their vote.
For my conscience, determining guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" is where the clay is in the legs of the judicial system when it comes to capital punishment. I support that circumstantial evidence that is not conclusive for guilt, and should NEVER NEVER be sufficient to impose a death penalty. From all that I have heard about McVeigh, there is no room for ANY doubt whatsoever, "reasonable" or otherwise, much less a mere 51%, if that's the way you figure it. I would not impose the death penalty if probability of guilt were even only 95% if it meant 5% odds of taking an innocent life.
On the issue of freeing "probably guilty" people:
If you figure "probably guilty" (YOUR term--not a legal one) as 51%, then what percent do YOU set for "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
But let's use your percentage way of figuring these things for the sake of illustration. Considering whether "probably guilty" people should be set free, you said:
Of course, if you imprison people based on what you think they probably did, just under half the prison population will end up being innocent people.Jan, that is a totally absurd statement! Talk about a "straw man"! That assumes that every prisoner in the penal system was sent up on 51% evidence of guilt. Ridiculous! The way you figure, if one guy got strung up on 95% certainty of guilt, that would conclude that out of every 20 executions one was innocent!
Let's put "probable guilt" (to use your term) at a little higher percent--say the 95% certainty, allowing a 5% margin that the accused could have been framed by the real killer, and therefore there is a 5% possibility that the guy is innocent. Let's say the crime is abducting, raping, and torturing 10 different kids on 10 different occasions. The accused claims to be innocent. Given a 5% margin of error, the guy is "probably" guilty, but there is no absolute proof, because that would require 100% certainty. Proof means proof.
Are you saying you would set this guy free, on the 95% chance another child(ren) would be brutally assaulted and murdered because the guy's only "probably" guilty? I'm not saying he should be executed, but are you saying he should be released?
It requires proof beyond reasonable doubt to convict. That is a principle of justice universally agreedThen that is where the flaw in the system is. Conviction is one thing, but sentencing for capital punishment should have to go beyond the margin between "reasonable doubt" and absolute proof for my vote. In purest terms, "proof" should have to be 100% certainty. (Try to imagine the word "proof" now in the terms that you would require to believe in God. :-) Anything less than 100% ranges from "probably guilty" down to "innocent". "Beyond a reasonable doubt" requires a judgement call by its own definintion. Who decides what's "reasonable". Unless there is a strict legal definition for "reasonable doubt" to mean absolute certainty beyond any doubt whatsoever, then it allows conviction on "circumstantial evidence" which does not constitute "proof". I will say that I would never support capital punishment for anyone convicted on what is legally defined as "circumstantial evidence" no matter how convincing it might seem. That--in my opinion--is how innocent people get executed. However, if the crime is serious enough, with evidence indicating a high probability of guilt, the individual should be incarcerated. I don't believe you can put lives at a high percentage of risk in spite of the inevitability that there will be the rare unfortunate occurrence of an innocent person being unjustly imprisoned. Some things just are not perfect and never will be. Boils down to the principle of the "lesser of two evils".
Ros
"A religion that teaches lies cannot be true"--The Watchtower, 12/1/91 pg. 7
i am a policitcal conservative, at least a fiscal conservative and sociel moderate.
i support the death penalty, but i agree that our judicial system needs to overhaul how wwe treat criminals to achieve better rehabilitation results.
and of course, withhold the death penalty in cases where there could be doubt.. in mcveigh's case, i believe that he deserves the death penalty.
Hi, Jan:
You seem to suggest a two-level verdict system for murderers: innocent, probably guilty and proven guilty, and where the "proven guilty" are executed and the "probably guilty" are sent to prison. Can you imagine the increase in innocent people being sent to prison? I hope you have just not given this any serious thought.I don't think so. My contention only addressed the case of proven sadistic murders. If I understand what you are suggesting, you would support liberating the "probably guilty"?
Going beyond the point of whether capital punishment is murder or not, and getting into the ridiculousness of the whole judicial process is another entirely different discussion. Even more so than religion.
Your attempt to make this into a question of money just makes me sick. "Kill them because it's cheaper!" Don't you have any morality whatsoever?Hey, did I say which way I would vote? As I've said, my solution would be a penal colony on a remote island in the Pacific. Jan, obviously my point in suggesting a vote for taxation was tongue-in-cheek since we are reasonably sure such a thing will never happen. My point was not which way I would vote, or "kill them because its cheaper", but to point out that imo the morality of most people is in their pocketbook. (I COULD be wrong--and certainly there are exceptions, no doubt like yourself.)
Ros
"A religion that teaches lies cannot be true"--The Watchtower, 12/1/91 pg. 7
i am a policitcal conservative, at least a fiscal conservative and sociel moderate.
i support the death penalty, but i agree that our judicial system needs to overhaul how wwe treat criminals to achieve better rehabilitation results.
and of course, withhold the death penalty in cases where there could be doubt.. in mcveigh's case, i believe that he deserves the death penalty.
Hi, Farkel:
If what you say is true, then I would be neutral on the issue. I definitely draw a sharp moral distinction between thrill-murder and execution. Execution not revenge. Most of the people involved in the trial and execution of a murderer had no personal involvement for revenge. Revenge would be, in McVeigh's case, since he blew up the Federal building killing innocent people and children, causing indiscribeable grief to their families and relatives, we would have the homes of his relatives blown up to cause him the same kind of grief. That would be revenge on McVeigh. Swatting a fly is killing, but it is not murder. Executing a wanton murderer of children is killing, but it is not murder. IMO.
However, let me say that my preference by far would be the penal colony on a remote island in the Pacific.
Ros
"A religion that teaches lies cannot be true"--The Watchtower, 12/1/91 pg. 7
i am a policitcal conservative, at least a fiscal conservative and sociel moderate.
i support the death penalty, but i agree that our judicial system needs to overhaul how wwe treat criminals to achieve better rehabilitation results.
and of course, withhold the death penalty in cases where there could be doubt.. in mcveigh's case, i believe that he deserves the death penalty.
Okay, how about this for a solution on whether or not to have the death penalty:
Submit the issue of capital punishment for PROVEN wanton murderers to popular vote of the citizens--with one caveat:
If the death penalty were voted out, only those who voted against it would be taxed for the construction, housing, employment of guards, cooks, utilities, medical expenses, etc. etc. to keep them. Anyone who voted for the death penalty would not be taxed for the livlihood of PROVEN wanton murderers.
I would be agreeable to the abolition of the death penalty for PROVEN wanton murderers on those terms.
i am a policitcal conservative, at least a fiscal conservative and sociel moderate.
i support the death penalty, but i agree that our judicial system needs to overhaul how wwe treat criminals to achieve better rehabilitation results.
and of course, withhold the death penalty in cases where there could be doubt.. in mcveigh's case, i believe that he deserves the death penalty.
Question for JanH:
Hi, Jan:
Personally, I would not object to an alternative solution to the death penalty. I mainly don't oppose it in the case of someone like McVeigh (WHERE THERE IS NO ROOM FOR ERROR OF GUILT) because I don't see why a nation of people should have to be taxed to feed and provide living quarters, hire guards and weapons, towers to watch, etc. etc. for extremely dangerous people. For that reason, I don't oppose the death penalty for wanton and serial murders, particularly of children, but really anyone. If there were some sort of penal colony, like a remote island in the Pacific, where these beasts could be safely put away to forage for themselves among themselves, that would be fine with me.
The questions:
Of the four or so nations that you mention who enforce the death penalty, isn't it true that crime is very low in those other nations (China and the Arabic nations?)
Isn't the high crime rate in the U.S. due to the fact of so many laws about so many things?
If the murder rate is higher than in other countries, that would make an interesting study. The reasons why, if that is true, probably have no particular relevance to the death penalty. In other words, I doubt that if the death penalty were abolished that either the rate of murders or crime in general would be decreased.
Why do social activists necessarily OPPOSE the death penalty for wanton serial killers or someone like McVeigh? Do you see execution as being in some way different than, for example, going to war to "fight for your country"?
This is not meant to be argumentative--I'm just interested in the REASONING of your point of view.
Ros
"A religion that teaches lies cannot be true"--The Watchtower, 12/1/91 pg. 7
i just got home from a dinner sponsored by the senior citizens counsel, an organization funded by the taxes of our city and county.
they have many programs to benefit the senior people in our area.
i hate to admit it but i qualify.
Hello, Undecided:
Isn't it wonderful to discover all those nice people out there. I wan't raised in JWs, and my parents were never JW, so I was never totally separated from "worldly" associations, and I guess I missed their drift about that. I always felt like one of the newbies in JWs because I was a convert. On the other hand, I never experienced the paranoia about "worldly" associations. Guess that was my undoing, huh?
I got a bowling award for an office "off-site" a few years ago. It was for the lowest score and the most gutter balls.
in the book faith on the march by alexander h. macmillan, page 43 it states:.
"in october, 1902, i attended a convention in washington, d.c., where i was married.
my wife and i then spent a year in california, returning in 1904 to allegheny.".
As a matter of interest, I understand from what I consider a very reliable source, that Schnell upon discovering that he had a terminal illness applied by letter to WTS headquarters for resinstatement--and was denied (or the appeal was ignored).
are any of you going to the brci conference in waterloo, canada?
it should be coming up soon, in a matter of weeks.
they are a really good group of x's.
Reply to Norm:
Norm: Please refer to a new post titled "To Norm" for a reply to your post. Its kind of long and I thought this thread is long enough, and deviating away from the topic. Thanks.
i am over 30 and have been out of the "organization" for almost 14 years now.
my father is an elder who's main concern is kissing up to the c.o.
so he can move up the ranks and be important.
Dear Professor:
Your anger is wholly warranted imo. I believe the Watchtower's shunning policy is among their most abominable practices, and I for one would be willing to bring them down over that one issue if it were in my power. Shunning is the root of their totalitarian hold over their members. IMO, it is the most incidious of their practices, for if that were lessened, people would make wiser decisions in other areas without fear of repraisal.
Shattering family relationships is right up there with blood prohibition and protecting child abusers imo.
Are there other exWitnesses in the region where you are?
