> appeals that go into a death penalty case. If the state is
> going to kill a person, they have to be very, very, very sure
> they are killing the right person and this usually requires
> such cases to go to at least a state supreme court level, if
> not well into federal courts often to or nearly to the US
> supreme court.
BUT - if the state is going to incarcerate somebody for 25+ years of
their life, should they also be very, very, very sure that they are
improsing the right person?
If not, then they're taking a rather "lax" attitude towards imprisoning
people
I thought that the whole point of the legal system was to find people
guilty or innocent of a crime - if they're proven guilty, then they have
been judged to have done the crime - end of story
If people appeal against the decision, then what is the point of having
the trial? If everybody has the option to appeal, and it's paid for by
the state, then wouldn't everybody appeal?
I just think that it's all gone too "nicey" to people who have basically
put themselves outside of a society (breaking the law is anti-society),
but still wish to use the society's bonuses - it's rather like saying "I
don't believe in society's laws, but I want to be part of that society"
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
