Quote:

"If Vlad the Impaler has done it..." is integral to your reasoning behind supporting the death penalty?

Why not just let the innocent man sit in prison, in the hopes that one day he can be proved innocent? It costs less money that way.




You are lost. Reread and try again.

Integral? No. Supportive? Yes. The Vlad reference is to support the position that throughout history innocents have gotten the shaft. Vlad piked one of his own towns as a warning to the advancing Turks. The message was that the Turks should fear any man that would do such a thing to his own people. I was not there, but it might be safe to say that every man, woman and child did not undergo due process in that "incident".

Time to focus. You have confused support of the death penalty with support of the punishment of innocents and possibly that I do not care that this happens. The flaw in you reasoning is that you feel those tried, convicted and sentenced to capital punishment (in the US, I presume) are still "unproven" to deserve that punishment. I say otherwise: there is a process, it mostly works, sure mistakes are made and prejudices influence outcomes, but it is better than anything else seen thus far. My empathy in the matter is irrelevant.

Feel better now or are you still confusing supportive details with main points of the supposition?


Edited by geek (11/12/09 03:07 AM)