Karlos wrote:
Most people I know who have this view are well aware of this but, far from overlooking it, accept it as the lesser of two evils
I personally find that view a touch hypocritical, really. Either way you have destroyed someones life beyond repair, the only difference is how long you dragged it out for.
Even when some guy is lucky enough to be released, you can't give them back their life if they were incarcerated for decades.
True but a huge pile of cash (the usual outcome) can certainly soften the blow and would, in most cases, be infinitely preferable to death.
This, again, would be the lesser fo two evils.
And I see little, if any hypocrisy in saying so.
If you think there is absolutely no difference between these two situations (and I'd be extremely surprised if you do) there's probably nothing I can say to convince you.
I'd also like to point out here that, whilst I disagree with capital punishment in any circumstance, I don't neccessarily fall into the "life should mean life" category either
A rational view. I absolutely agree that each case should be judged on its own merit. Where we differ is that I also think that life imprisonment and the death penalty should both be available should the case merit it, despite the risk carried. However, they would have to be the last resort in a situation when there is no reasonable doubt, thereby minimising that risk of wrongful life imprisonment or execution as far as is possible.[/quote]
And how do we go about ensuring the risk is minimised.
Look at Texas, where the risk is supposedly minimised. ;-)
