selfbnd411
Posts: 598
Joined: 7/23/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sinergy The point I am trying to make is that any possibility higher than 0 invalidates a system set up to promote fairness and justice, etc. I dont really have any emotional investment in whether you agree with me or not. Feel free to continue dodging the question or attacking me, but I want to point out that I am a polite, nice, non-violent pacifist who teaches full-contact self defense. From a psychological or emotional standpoint about me, as Zaphod Beeblebrox pointed out, "I have weirder things in my breakfast cereal than the rest of you are." Then there is no justification for doing anything, because the possibility of a negative outcome is > 0% for anything humans do. Putting an innocent person in prison is a travesty, whether it be for a day, a decade, or a century. They can never have that time back, and they can never be cleansed of the psychological scarring of being wrongfully prosecuted. We know that innocent people go to prison all the time. If error invalidates the system, and humans are incapable of perfection, then convicting anyone of anything is logically invalid. The probability of error is what matters, not the possibility. Everything is possible. Not everything is probable. I would not argue with a person's religious or moral objections to the death penalty. Doing so is unwise and unproductive. If a person says their beliefs indicate that executions are never acceptable, then it doesn't matter whether the error rate is 0% or 100%. They object and that is it. It doesn't make for good discussion material, though! And nobody's attacking you. I have no problem with questions, but the problem with incessant questions is that the questioner is never forced to advocate a position himself. It's also unfair to the questioner, because he/she misses the opportunity to present his/her case and receive feedback.
|