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: CharleyMike who wrote (82821)	6/23/2000 10:49:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 108807

>>Mr. Graham robbed with a pistol over a dozen people, shot a couple of those victims and left 'em for dead, raped at least one 57 year old woman and admitted all of the above but denied shooting the victim for whose murder he was executed." I don't know the case in question, but armed robbery, aggravated assault, attempted murder and rape are not capital offenses. Using "three strikes and you're out" laws, he should not be on the streets, however.

To: CharleyMike who wrote (82821)	6/24/2000 2:35:00 AM
From: nihil	Respond to of 108807

You miss the point of a good system of justice. People should only be punished for what they do. Hamlet pointed out that if everyone got what they deserved who'd scape whipping? I remember a famous statement of Judge Scalia discussing the death penalty on TV anent a man being executed for a crime he didn't commit -- "Well, he probably deserved execution for other things he did." As a general rule, I would prefer to live in a country in which people were punished for things they were proved to have done, not for other things.

To: CharleyMike who wrote (82821)	6/24/2000 9:10:00 AM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 108807

How can you justify your belief that he should have survived? Would you prefer that he should have been allowed to continue his escapades? You seem to be saying here that there was no alternative between killing him and permitting him to continue his escapades. Since that is obviously not the case, perhaps you wish to rephrase?

To: CharleyMike who wrote (82821)	6/24/2000 12:39:00 PM
From: Father Terrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

So then you do not respect the sanctity of human life, the rights of the individual, nor the supreme right of the right to life -- which even the State does not have the right to terminate (except in self-defense, a right which any individual also has). Instead you call the innocent "martyrs?" They are not martyrs -- martyrs volunteer their lives, sacrifice it to a cause. Are innocent people fighting their own execution "volunteers to the cause?" Ha! I see you hold the mob and a faceless State above the rights of the individual. Congratulations: this irrational, bromide-spouting society has programmed you well.