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: Lazarus_Long who wrote (16161)	6/30/2002 8:12:22 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

"Good faith" doesn't make it for me. How about "if they acted in spite of specific evidence that suggested that further investigation might have proven the prosecution theory was wrong and might have therefore resulted in a different outcome for the deceased." You can't prove what's in anyone's heart. You can only look at what they did and failed to do, and conjecture, if there was something in it for them to have been less conscientious and scrupulous than they might have been, whether motivation played a role in their sloppiness or not. If their sins of omission or commission resulted in a death that would otherwise have not occurred, what should the penalty be? My point is simply that if mistakes resulted in prosecutions of those who made the mistake instead of just in unjust executions, the death penalty would probably be rarely sought.