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.

Politics : Long Live The Death Penalty! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: louisebaltimore who wrote (290)	1/15/2003 10:05:41 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 828

There is no flaw in his reasoning. Putting to death might be deliberate, making the mistake in inadvertent. The analogy holds......

To: louisebaltimore who wrote (290)	1/15/2003 10:27:09 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 828

I've read that study. Have you? It claims no proven innocents. They focus on trial error and non-contemporaneous conflicting evidence. They claim that out of all those executed in the past hundred years, a few might possibly have been innocent. The pretentiousness of the claims, as if unanimous juries and years of appeals and evaluations for clemency are all somehow totally incompetent, is laughable.

To: louisebaltimore who wrote (290)	1/19/2003 8:00:59 PM
From: Solon	Respond to of 828

"There's an obvious flaw in Van den Haag's reasoning. If an innocent person dies while driving a car, it is ordinarily the result of negligence — an "accident." If an innocent person dies at the execution of a death sentence, it is always deliberate" "Flawed" is being overly generous, IMO! The fact that free people are willing to VOLUNTARILY drive a car or build a house, risking possible injury or death (against the extreme likelihood of a positive outcome), lends absolutely no support to an argument that the exposure of innocent people to a firing squad (where MANDATORY substitutes for voluntary, and the CERTAINTY of death substitutes for a miniscule risk of injury) is by such specious argument justified. To pretend that the fact that all human activity entailing risk has any relevance whatsoever to the question of whether or not a PARTICULAR action justifies a PARTICULAR risk is simply to demonstrate a deficiency of thought. Analogies may be merely misleading or they may be ludicrous. In this instance we have people impressed by the "argument" that SOME people are willing to accept the risk of voluntarily driving a car, therefore any other thing which has risk is supportable! Truly a marriage of the absurd and the gullible! The question of whether a particular act justifies a particular risk stands alone and apart from the truism that risk is intrinsic to all acts. So...good response.