Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (81666)	6/14/2000 8:39:00 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

A car accident is never defended as justice Neo. The analogy is not apt.

To: Neocon who wrote (81666)	6/14/2000 8:40:00 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

A car accident is an accident. An execution is not. Refusing to kill prisoners does not mean that justice and accountability are being tossed by the wayside. "Justice" does not exist in the abstract: what is just is simply what we collectively declare to be just. What was thought just in the middle ages is not thought just today; what is thought just today may not be thought just in a thousand or a hundred or ten years. The argument that removing the gravest end of the scale of punishment would ruin the whole scale is, frankly, a little absurd. All we are proposing is that the scale be recalibrated, with life imprisonment without possibility of parole at the deep end. This does not eliminate the scale, it simply acknowledges that allowing an inherently fallible system to impose an irrevocable penalty is not consistent with our moral beliefs. Since "justice" is our creation, why should we not adjust our views of justice to conform to our views about fairness and morality?