(June 21, 2011 at 10:53 am)martin02 Wrote: We seem to go over the same ground; the opponents talk about fallibility, the supporters talk about making the system not-fallible, and neither side seem inclined to reflexivity.
Where have I spoken about fallibility in this thread? I say it is collateral. Minimize that if you like: I'm still going to use it on occasion.
Quote:Supporters: a thought experiment. You are the architect of a new justice system, allowed to use any amount of resources or means to prosecute. The only provisions are that the system remains adversarial so you have an opposite with all your powers, and the criteria for guilt remains beyond a reasonable doubt. How will you ensure not just prosecutions leading to the death penalty during your personal career are sound, but as your legacy?
You have a very weird way of saying that. Rephrase.
Since when have I cared about a career? I am a pragmatic opportunist that hates hassles and daily grinds... what could there be for me in a career?
Quote:Opponents: a thought experiment. You have a machine which can infallibly discern guilt one hundred percent of the time. If you allow it to be mass produced, every single legal region will have it, and the death penalty will be strengthened/resumed/introduced. But only the guilty will be punished. You are at the manufacturing plant, do you push the button?
We are all guilty. Pushing that button would condemn all of us
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
