by Steve James on Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:26 pm
Well, all convicted criminals are by definition "guilty." I'm talking about the "wrongly convicted." Murdering a murderer is not as disturbing (to me) as murdering a person who has been wrongly convicted.
No, there's no logical necessity to assume that all convicts are innocent. However, there is also supposed to be a "presumption of innocence" until the crime (of murder) has been proven "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Now, if you want to debate the morality of the death penalty, fine. Hey, in the Bible, people were stoned to death for adultery. Er, well, there was this one heretic, by the name of Jesus, who said "Ok, let the one of you who hasn't sinned cast the first stone." Or, something like that, but here's where I agree with the others that this issue is all about emotion and not justice or reason. Of course, Jesus couldn't get away with that nowadays. There'd surely be someone willing ... who didn't even know the husband or wife, but was just in favor of the punishment. "A Tale of Two Cities" comes to mind.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."