Printable View
I see a difference in ethics..the murderer has no problem taking innocent life. I do have a problem with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
I am fine with your belief that all killing is wrong even though i don't share that belief.
I don't accept the rest about risk of executing innocent people as my criteria requires reform to eliminate that risk
Edit:
If you oppose it on moral grounds why would you need a second reason? :unsure:
No you don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Unless you think you can make such judgements by reading newspapers and watching television. Which would just be bizarre.
How many such case have you actually sat thro' the whole proceedings. I would venture very few.
You are therefore basing this "no doubt" on a "beyond reasonable doubt" verdict, allied to what you have seen in the media.
Which would mean that there was "no doubt", in your opinion, based on reporting.
I don't think that vidcc has no doubt (based on the above) = absolutely no doubt.
You can't go killing people based on opinion. Well you can in the US, but we don't do it in the UK. Which is what we're talking about.
Yeah, tough luck indeed if you've been convicted of something you didn't do.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
As far as I'm concerned the only case where there would be absolutely no doubt would be one where everyone responsible for the conviction of the guilty party had witnessed the crime, and where they all agreed on what happened and all forensic evidence (gathered by infallible methods) pointed to the same.
Witnesses can be unreliable, policemen can be corrupt, dna analyses can fail. So much can go wrong, because it is all run by human beings, who are, by nature, imperfect.
A case can look as if there is no doubt whatsoever at the time, but there may be a million reasons as to why it really isn't as certain as everyone thinks it is.
And an appeal won't always do, if you aren't lucky.
No legal system in the world is good enough for us to be absolutely certain everything is set right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
:lol: :lol: :lol:
What is that supposed to mean.
Do you mean like assasinate.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
How could an innocent person be convicted with no doubt?... my way is a safer route for the beyond reasonable doubt people.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
to start with the witnesses can't be the jury. but lets say the crime was captured on live tv...up close so the accused could be clearly seen and all the forensics matched your standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
that ok?
but again I ask if "no doubt" is impossible to achieve why are you so adamant that an innocent person could be convicted?
So by your reconing I have set the standard so high that there will be no executions.
He has a doppelganger.
Well you think killing is wrong full stop...I am correct in this?Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
So if it is wrong full stop you don't need any other argument to oppose it.
If any killing is wrong why would you need to say it's also wrong because we make mistakes....the first covers everything.
As I said I accept the moral view even though I don't agree with it....
Still it killed an afternoon
:pinch:Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
If no doubt really means no doubt, I haven't got a problem. However, I don't think that's realistically possible, not if you are thinking of being able to execute people. 'cos if the notion of no doubt was followed to the letter it wouldn't be possible to convict anyone to a death penalty.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
As for live tv, I think it's possible to get the wrong idea as we'll never be able to see the scene in full or have the full context.
As for forensics, my point was that there aren't any perfect methods today.
If there were, sure, but again it isn't realistically possible.