OK, lets go back to the previous paragraph. You stated that you wanted
every crime against humans punished. Would this include jail? Would the
standard for conviction be "beyond reasonable doubt" or "without a doubt."
The standard would be according to the spirit of the law (but then you
run into definition thingies and the fun starts right there) and knowing
for sure. But that is utopia. Untill then I'll settle for hard proof
with same ground rules for all, regardless of personal worth. Actually
I'd be much in favour of people being tried annonymously (after
verification of identity by a third party of course) to a randomly
appointed judge with lawyers also randomly selected in a system where
all defense lawyers are working for the state, same as the DA. But
believing that this is the solution to have ultimate or even more
justice would be a gross oversimplification of this complex matter.
If it is the former, I will guarantee that innocent people will be locked
up for decades and abused by the guards and the other prisoners. If it is
the latter; most perps will get off. There are no easy choices.
I know, but does that mean I cannot advocate for something else?
In conclusion, I think that ranking wrong actions, and considering systems
has its uses. The implementation of your suggestion for punishing those
guilty of harming other humans will make you responsible for harming
humans. If you support it, and humans are harmed as a result, then you
share the responsibility.
Yes and I take that responsibillity every day and very gravely. I want
to be able to look in the mirror and live with myself knowing I acted to
the absolute best of my abillities. And much to my chagrin I fail again
and again and again. But I learn each time a great deal. How about you?
This isn't to fault you, I also support that. But, I do so with my eyes
open, knowing that I can only defend my actions by the limits to the
choices that I have.
Remains the question, how honest are you to yourself in that respect. Me
I'm brutally honest.
If we have no punishment, then more innocent people
will be harmed. Thus, I make a hard choice between bad and worse. This is
the argument you are hearing from folks like Gautam.
Not good enough. Now *you* are being an apologist. For the state the
world is in today. :o)
While one may debate what is the better choice, I cannot see how an ideal outcome is one of our real choices.
It never is, and it is therefor even harder to make those choices. But
we have to start somewhere don't we?
Sonja
GCU: Building utopia starts with one
ROU: So does the construction of hell.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
