----- Original Message -----
From: "Ronn Blankenship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 6:02 AM
Subject: Re: Human Rights
> At 04:56 AM 5/31/01 -0500, rob wrote:
>
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 11:15 PM
> >Subject: RE: Human Rights
> >
> >
> > > Yes, but I make a distinction between something being a "human right"
and
> > > simply being something that States shouldn't do. I think the United
> > > States should abolish the death penalty. I don't think, however,
that
> >the
> > > United States is abusing human rights by executing Timothy McVeigh.
> > >
> >I think the US should keep the death penalty, but restrict its use to
mass
> >murderers and serial murderers.
>
>
> Does that mean there will be a quota, like the lines in the supermarket
> reserved for "8 victims or less*"?
>
> (*Which should really read "8 items or _fewer_," if one wanted to be
> grammatically correct.)
>
> If so, how many victims should qualify one for the death penalty?
With the presumption of guilt a given, I would trust the decision of a judge
and/or jury. Every situation is different and I would think it better if
there were flexibility built into the system.
Generally I am a death penalty opponent. But on the other hand I think there
are people who deserve the death penalty who's guilt is undeniable and who's
crime was an atrocity.
>Should
> it make a difference if they are young children or police officers?
Children, Yes, Law Officers, No.
>How
> about the perpetrator's criminal record?
>
Its my understanding that a criminal record is always considered already. Am
I wrong?
xponent
rob
