RE: Dylann Roof sentenced to death
January 13, 2017 at 4:10 pm
(This post was last modified: January 13, 2017 at 4:14 pm by Shell B.)
(January 13, 2017 at 3:28 pm)Rhythm Wrote: In any state shell..in any state.
Sure, but you keep bringing up its current state, which we both already have a problem with, so we can just leave it out.
Quote:Not if they have an easy constitutional case to mount, at least not for long, regardless of their guilt. I'd like to keep them in prison too...in fact, I think the problem is pretty much solved so long as we keep them in prison.......
Yeah, see this is more about me just not giving a shit than trying to solve a problem. The way I see it, the people who are hungry for their brand of justice can go ahead and kill these guys, as long as they're extra careful about not killing anyone else. Again, not saying that's what's happening or that it's necessarily possible in this country. Just that those are my criteria for being just plain blasé about it.
(January 13, 2017 at 3:37 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Because the particular snippet I singled out was what I wanted to reply to. I didn't want to reply to every point you've raised, and I'm not going to.
I wouldn't want you to, either. Still, it was in the context of a greater point that you either skipped over or ignored, so . . .
(January 13, 2017 at 3:23 pm)Shell B Wrote: Nor did I say you did. I was correcting the quote I answered, and nothing more. Here's what you wrote: "If we thought it was impossible to have no doubt of a person's guilt, we couldn't put anyone in jail ever." The insinuation is that we have to accept imperfection in the process of administering justice -- and I agree with that. Our system recognizes it in using the term beyond a reasonable doubt. We clearly have the possibility of doubting a conviction while still meting it out; this is why the qualifier "reasonable" s used, this is why we have appellate courts, and so on. Those are a testament to this imperfection ... even as we continue to jail people.
You weren't correcting anything. You categorically stated that I implied the law goes by airtight evidence, which I did not. None of the rest of your post has anything to do with any statement I've made. Yes, yes, reasonable doubt means such and such.
Rhythm, I think we've had this conversation before or I'm having deja vu.
