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 : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (3724)	3/20/2002 7:00:41 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

That was a rather sarcastic response to a well intentioned post I was not responding to the intention. I was responding to the dismissiveness of your remark, and to the fact that it was gratuitous, unfounded, and deceptive. Most importantly it was irrelevant to the question of innocence, and was prejudicial and suggestive. "Any one who has even fringe knowledge of the justice system knows that persons convicted and sentenced for felonies typically have a long record of criminal violations" I know nothing about the truth of such an assertion; nor, I suspect do you. I do know that approximately 25% of women murder victims are killed by a spouse or boyfriend, and 20-30% of the time the result of an argument; often drugs are involved. Why I should presume that these spouses typically had a "long record of criminal violations" simply on your rather flippant sayso, I do not know. It is a red herring anyway, and I am perplexed as to how you think a prior conviction ought to inform the guilt or innocence of a person charged with an offence, or to recommend for or against the death penalty. The courts have always held such information to be prejudicial except in special circumstances of modus operandi or pattern. My intention was not to hurt your feelings but rather to highlight how inappropriate, arrogant, and presumptive were your implications. "A death that is quick and painless resolves all issues for the heinous criminal" It also resolves all issues for the innocent person--which, in case you had forgotten, was my point. "The cruelest treatment one human being can hand to another is to deliberately cause suffering or to torture another. Life in prison is an unending regime of both. It is a very unpleasant decision we must make on behalf of our society and for the protection of innocent loved ones." Firstly, to advocate killing someone to prevent their being tortured in prison is rather lazy as well as being unconscionable. I agree that torture has sometimes occurred, but your solution is more than outrageous. A person sincerely desiring to comfort the cruelty and suffering of another would ask THEM whether THEY wished to be killed, or to remain in prison. If THEIR suffering was your true concern you could have incorporated that idea into your post--which you did not. Nor did you acknowledge that an innocent person (such as the five innocent Canadians I previously mentioned) would undoubtedly wish to endure prison while hope for justice remained to them...rather than to be killed to satisfy your God-like perspective on suffering. Indeed, I can tell you that they did fight for justice, and that they were returned to their families and "compensated" (ha) for the Hell they went through as a result of incompetence, corruption, and prejudice. "As someone who has had a lot to say about keeping heinous criminals alive, explain to me what you see as the purpose of their lives after conviction?" I have said nothing about keeping heinous criminals alive. My discussion was about ensuring that innocent persons are not executed. To this end, I cited 5 Canadian cases of convicted murderers who would have been killed by the State but for circumstance of birthplace and fortuitous technology. You may well ask yourself what was the purpose in keeping them alive, and you may profitably consider whether or not the purpose was served by their return to their families. You will note that hundreds of people have been released BEFORE execution as the State became satisfied as to their innocence. If you are extremely perceptive, you will discern that not even one such person has been released AFTER they were killed. Such a juxtaposition may or may not suggest something to you. Finally, Jewel o the West, when innocent people die for the crime of another...the other is still in society and possibly capable of killing again...