Brent, your argument is fine and it is less likely that 'family members' of a killed one will KILL the wrong person than in a lawsuit where lawyers lie ad libitum. Furthermore a "revenge killing" may sooth the emotions of family members (maybe not so close ones, but as getting to someone related to the alleged killer) it is only a SECONDARY solution. The dead party has nothing to gain anymore. Another word in this maze of the 'judicial farce' we live by: the B A I L system. Certainly the roots go back to the medieval system to incarcerate those who owe money. In most today 'bail' systems whoever has money goes free - whoever has not, goes to jail. No matter how pius and good-sounding justifications are presented. I don't even dare mention another travesty of legal mishaps: if a policeman has no compelling evidence against a person for having committed a crime, he cannot get the approval of a "judge" to collect the evidence for such. (Circulus vitiosus?) - And if he nevertheless obtains evidence without such, it may be thrown out of court, no matter how strong material evidence that would be to show the guilt. Now the further ones - just for the fun of it: A judge is apponted for matching POLITICAL opinions, not for impatially judging cases according to their merits. Also: a prosecutor should never point to the guilt of an accused before a sentence, according to the Constitution. (Think of the million "alleged"-s) John M
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 7:36 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6/4/2014 12:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 04 Jun 2014, at 00:40, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: > > No family, then it depends on the nature of the crime. Sparing a killer > for a price? This reminds me of why the US doesn't have race riots anymore, > like the LA Rodney King riots. Most often, there are "settlements" as when > police do unlawful killings, because the family opts for the settlement. I > am feeling that those nation states that do not have death penalties, are > opting, as a cultural norm, Out of a sense of sqeamishness, which is > understandable, rather than real justice or mercy. "well, if we just don't > have the death penalty, we won't have to think about the victim." > > > Death penalty does not make sense. I can understand personal individual > revenge, and could acquit a parent killing the one who has been violent > with his/her children, but I can't swallow the idea that a state coldly > kill someone. This is close to nonsense and barbary. It does not deter > people to kill, > > > It has it's historical basis in deterring revenge killings. The state > forbade revenge killing, and it order to make that palatable to the > families of persons murdered it was necessary to impose the death penalty > as judicial punishment. Having the state kill someone coldly, meaning > with deliberation and in accordance with laws and evidence is certainly > preferable to family members taking revenge based on snap judgements > blinded by emotion. > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
