Neldo wrote:
BigRigRob wrote:Like I said, it works here, if you kill someone, we'll kill ya back!
Quoted for the sheer ridiculousness of the statement. What the fuck makes you (or yours) so infallible?
Courts have been influenced in one way or another since courts began, nobody should be allowed the death penalty when there has been evidence of corruption at all levels all the way through history and sometimes they just plain get it wrong, as a world we've seen this happen time and time again. It's a ridiculous notion. Rob, if the world worked on the premise "an eye for an eye" we would all be blind.
It's my honest belief that anyone pro-death penalty is a bit of a trigger happy nutcase and if you want blood spilled you should head off and start shooting at each other, far away from the civilised world where the thinkers realise that death is no way to solve any problem.
Imagine you're convicted of a crime you didn't commit, cirumstance is stacked against you, the people involved in trying you could take personal exception to you & alter or plant evidence - all of which has happened in the past but if you kill somebody then what chance of a reprieve are they to have then? Their family? You would have taken away a father/mother/sister/brother. The blood of an innocent is then on your hands. That fact alone is enough to warrant it's abolition.
If the crime committed is of a nature similar to this where I don't believe any jury would be completely unbiased, given the suggestion of what's been done, you could have been set up to end up in this situation, etc etc - you'd be singing from a different song sheet then, let me tell you! Like that boy, Scottish lad, Kenny Ritchie. Spent 20 years on death row, always protested his innocence, could have gone for a plea and spent 11 for arson and manslaughter but refused and plead not guilty so they put him on death row for a crime he did not commit, again it involved a child. He had to go for a plea of no contest (to not only avoid a 2nd death sentence but to gain the freedom he was denied due to sheer and utter incompetence) which was as close as you'll get to the courts admitting they were wrong. Infallible? I do not think so, you very nearly put one of my countrymen to death for your own judicial fuck ups. That sticks in my craw and it sticks in my craw even more that people support an archaic practice like that. 'scuse my french, but it's fucking barbaric.
Before you decide to reply, rob, ask yourself the question I posted above. What makes you and yours so infallible? The entire court process is run by humans and that, almost by definition, makes it prone to mistake. Mistakes cannot be tolerated when you are dealing with human life. You wouldn't want it with your own life, why should others have to deal with the most outdated of laws next to slavery and the criminalisation of weed? It really is up there with those bad-boys of the ancient world. Start living in today, not yesterday. Use your head, not your sword. etc.
* stands down *
