you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

One of those times I wish the deah penalty were legal in the UK (as there is appropriate evidence &c). Taxpayers shouldn't pay this person.

[–]Trajan 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

I'll consider death penalty once there's a government with the competence and virtue to be trusted to execute only the bad 'uns. That'll anyway be tendered academic as at that point we will be well on our way to evolving into beings of pure energy.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Depends on the evidence, as I've noted. It's not rocket science.

[–]Trajan 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

You might want to look into this a bit more if it seems that simple.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

You might want to re-read my comment if you think I referred to legal process as simple.

[–]Trajan 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

I didn't see you referring to the legal process beyond simplifying it down to 'depends on the evidence' and 'suitable evidence'. Evidence is not simple. For example, eye witness evidence is one of the more common forms of evidence seen in convictions, yet by far the most common in overturned convictions. While DNA or other forms of physical evidence may place a person at a scene, or in prior contact with a victim, it doesn't necessarily mean they are guilty of the crime, yet people are convicted on this kind of evidence.

I don't think we're anywhere near being confident in establishing conclusive guilt that'd justify the state killing someone. The idea that somebody's life would hang on an adversarial system of justice, where the state's role is to secure a conviction, doesn't make much sense. Perhaps it'd begin to make more sense where the prosecution is replaced by a role whose purpose is to find the truth one way or the other?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Evidence is addressed in the legal process (ie. not in a discussion online). Yes, there are problems with some kinds of evidence. Yes, there are problems with arrangements for the death penalty. I'm not promoting a Saudi Arabia or a Texas legal process.

[–]Trajan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

What are you proposing that'd result in 100% accuracy?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Only a few cases would be accurate, with a strict approach to the types of evidence required. The potential for it to be rigged is still dangerous, so there would have to be also a reliable check and balance scheme, previously managed with lawyers in court.

[–]Trajan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's pretty a pretty vague proposal for killing people.