It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

End to Juvenile executions urged

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 03:47 PM
link   


I felt that even at 10, these boys were ripe for execution.



If they are old enough to kill someone in cold blood, then yes, they are old enough to get the injection.



And i doubt they can be rehabilitated. Once a dog tastes human blood, he becomes more likely to attack more.



I don't like this crap that "They are not mature enough or they don't know what they are doing". Come on by 11 or even 10, you should know right from wrong.



That 12 year old boy? Send him to death row, ASAP.



Its called pest removal. Not playing God. I dont consider it murder either. Anymore than I consider it genoside when i go on a cockroach killing spree with a can of raid.


I picked some memorable and disturbing quotes from what have been said by the pro crowd thus far. I see a lot of anger and hostility here. What I don't see is mature and sober reasoning.

I am a firm believer in the total abolishment of capital punishment. IMO It has no place in a civilized society. It is cruel and unusual. Period.

Now, when it comes to discussing the murder of children well then some of you really need to do some thinking on the consequences of the actions you're proposing and come back with some proper reasoning. Because anger, blood thirst and the wish for vengeance simply doesn't cut it.




posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Let 'em Smoke, Drink, and Vote then........

Execute them?

That is just how absurd the execution argument happens to be.

Also young people are judicially much more defenseless, hence easy prey for a court system not necessarily renouned for fairness. Our court system is broken, so why execute anyone for that matter?

Unlimited funds for the prosecution, and when they want to execute a minor, they do it. Sounds like the height of bullying to me, even the worst dictationships do not do this? Are we on the road to the dark ages?

[edit on 20-7-2004 by SkipShipman]



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkipShipman
Also young people are judicially much more defenseless, hence easy prey for a court system not necessarily renouned for fairness. Our court system is broken, so why execute anyone for that matter?


You, my friend, will be receiving a 'way above' vote from me for next month. I just used my last one for this month! Damn it!

The justice system is a joke! Justice is bought these days.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 04:36 PM
link   
If you do not punish, then the wrongdoer will not learn why his actions were bad. Kill them before they can kill again. Simple as that.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by JediMaster
If you do not punish, then the wrongdoer will not learn why his actions were bad. Kill them before they can kill again. Simple as that.


Wouldn't putting them in jail for life solve this?



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Not really. Then they do not know what they did was wrong. By putting them in jail you do not show them the pain that their victims felt. An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by JediMaster
Not really. Then they do not know what they did was wrong.


Are you talking about using death penalty as a deterrent? Because if you are, you should realize that evidence points against this as being successful. On the contrary actually.



By putting them in jail you do not show them the pain that their victims felt. An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth.


Right, an eye for an eye. If you believe in this as a proper way of punishment, then I guess you've thought it through? I mean, thoroughly?

"For there to be equivalence, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months." Camus



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 11:53 AM
link   
It's not a deterrent issue, nor is it bloodthirst. It's the simple fact that these people have something very wrong with them. If the crime was non-lethal it would be different, obviously. But they know death. They know they're causing it. They know that it's wrong. I'm not willing to put them in jail until they're 21, let them out to do this again sometime, and have the burden of explaining to the next victim's family that their child or relative is dead because this person was given another chance. Life imprisonment is costly and really does nothing either for the parents of the victim or for the perpetrator. However, it's why I said I'd take it on case by case basis. I don't think anyone could support across the board execution for all pre-adult murderers. If there's a history of mental illness, that must be taken into consideration. If there's a history of abuse, such as a child killing a sibling that's abusive to them, that must be taken into account. There will always be facts for consideration. I'll go one further as I opined in one of the other death penalty threads... until the system itself is fixed, it should be given only when there is NO doubt, not just beyond reasonable doubt. If I have absolute undeniable proof, and there are none of the aforementioned extenuating circumstances, then I just don't have a problem with execution. If I were bloodthirsty, I'd say kill 'em all and screw it. There must be conditions, but ultimately there should be a price paid.

I'd actually like to know more about the parents and the upbringing. I find it difficult to believe that little Johnny is a model of ideal youth and suddenly kills another kid. I'd be interested to really know the background and what, if anything, the parents identified and what steps they took to try and prevent this kind of thing.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 12:18 PM
link   
If there is "something wrong with them" Then isn't it our duty as human beings to what we can to help? We can't just kill them ie sweep them under the rug like they never existed. Problems are never solved that way.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by torque
It's not a deterrent issue, nor is it bloodthirst.


So, what is it?



It's the simple fact that these people have something very wrong with them.


Why not lock them up? Why not do what we can to treat them? Don't you agree that society has an important obligation as a role model? Killing people you think there's "something wrong" with is not going to be done without serious consequences. Do you want to be a part of legitimizing murder?



Life imprisonment is costly and really does nothing either for the parents of the victim or for the perpetrator.


Fact is, the use of capital punishment is a lot more expensive than incarceration. And how do you mean the death penalty does more for the victim and the perpetrator than life imprisonment? You already said this wasn't about using the death penalty as a deterrent. Is it vengeance you're talking about? Is that something you want your government to legitimize?

By the way, being pro death penalty and using arguments about killing someone only when there's no doubt could be compared to trying to put a nice polish on dirt. It'll still be dirt
.




[edit on 21-7-2004 by Durden]



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 01:54 PM
link   

JediMaster- If you do not punish, then the wrongdoer will not learn why his actions were bad. Kill them before they can kill again. Simple as that.


That's a contradiction in terms. If I kill you, you will have learned nothing because you are already dead. If you were really about teaching and reformation, through whatever means, punishment included, you would send to a place where they could be rehabilitated.

Prison is forced containment mixed with constant psycho-sexual torture. So, these people should, instead, go to some kind of institution of psychological therapy and self-esteem build-up. The answer to Death is Life, not Death.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Putting someone in an 8X10 cell with no windows for the rest of your life isn't cruel and unusual? The only sex they will ever have is of the gay variety. That isn't cruel and disgusting? And WE have to pay for this - that IS cruel and unusual punishment.
Why should WE have to pay for something that we don't want in the first place? Fry the little bastids and move on.
We should expand the death penalty to include murder, rape, and child molesters.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by f10869
Putting someone in an 8X10 cell with no windows for the rest of your life isn't cruel and unusual? The only sex they will ever have is of the gay variety. That isn't cruel and disgusting? And WE have to pay for this - that IS cruel and unusual punishment.


So your solution to the poor environment in prison would be to kill the prisoner? Well, that's just priceless.



Why should WE have to pay for something that we don't want in the first place? Fry the little bastids and move on.


Once again. Capital punishment will not save money. Please do some research before posting such nonsense. I'll give you an example that won't cost you a dime. A 1982 study showed that were the death penalty to be reintroduced in New York, the cost of the capital trial alone would be more than double the cost of a life term in prison.*

If I was pro death penalty, I wouldn't want your help in this discussion. You'd make me look bad
.

*N. Y. State Defenders Assn., Capital Losses (1982)



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 03:53 PM
link   
I can find statistics to back up any viewpoint.

When I say it's not a deterrent, I mean it's not something that will make the next little killer think twice. I mean it's going to stop this particular one from harming anyone else again.

I never said to kill anyone with something wrong with them. But there are people in this world who are broken. Period. Broken and not fixable. These ideas of helping and caring and nurturing the killer are noble, I guess, but who's paying for it all? Everything in this world, no matter what country you live in, comes down to cash. So who's going to pay for it? I hear a lot of "it's bloodlust" and "barbaric" and similar comments, but I see no solutions from the nay-sayers. Want to put them in prison for the rest of their lives? When I get the chance, I'll try to find a reliable site that will tell me the cost of life imprisonment for someone who goes in at the age of 10 compared to execution. Of course there would be the normal outcry for them to have a chance at life again... maybe get parole. Fine. And by then, having gone in at such a young "impressionable" age, they will have learned quite a few new tricks from their fellow inmates. They don't normally come out better, rehabilitated people. They simply come out bigger and stronger and with more knowledge of how to do things.

What's your answer? Tell it to the woman who's toddler has been beaten to death. She lives every day knowing the ones who did it are out there with new identities getting another chance. Bravo for them. Hopefully they won't kill again, but do you want them living next to you and your kids?

Prisons are already overstuffed as it is. There are no more facilities and the few that are built are grudging at best. Prison is a horrible place, and a lot goes on in there that people on the outside would never even dream of. Want to help them? Send them there. People learn a lot in hell. Usually it's not very good or helpful stuff. If you're suggesting a mental facility, then for how long? Can't house juvies with adults, so what then? They go to a juvie hospital for awhile then transfer to an adult one? Then what? Out and about? There have been cases of prisoners fooling their counselors. I've known a few who have been able to shmooze their p.o.'s with an earnest speech about how they want to turn their lives around. Then they go out and within two days they're breaking and entering and doing drugs again. What do you propose to do with the ones who are simply unqualified to remain among the human race?

I find it hard to believe that a death penalty trial and execution is more costly than giving someone a life sentence that could go 80 years. I'm going to check that out myself. I think the appeal process and the years of sitting on death row jack up the cost. You cannot let rabid dogs run loose to tear people apart. You also cannot house them for the sake of keeping them alive at any cost. So you tell me the answer. Tell me where the money's going to come from to rehab these little murderers. Tell me what you're willing to do for the parents of the victims. Nobody thinks of them, and what they have to live with for the rest of their lives. Tell me the answer for them. And don't include them turning to god for solace because that's not an acceptable answer. You want the killers to live and be helped, so you tell me what the answer is for all parties involved.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Civilization was built on the death penalty. The very first code of laws ever written. The code of Hammurabi.

Uncivilized tribes dont have the death penalty, they usually just banish thier members.

So, the death penalty is VERY civilized. Every great civilization in history has had it.

I find it sick people pitying the murderers and perps of the crime. They kill someone, so...we as society must help them? Get real, welcome to the real world.

You kill someone,, you punishment is, treatment to make you fell better about yourself, free education, food, exercise, ect? And you call ME sick? If thats your answer hell, lemme go get my shotgun and go out and shoot someone. Under your sick idea of "justioce" I could end up living better than I do now!



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by torque
I can find statistics to back up any viewpoint.

By all means, be my guest.



When I say it's not a deterrent, I mean it's not something that will make the next little killer think twice. I mean it's going to stop this particular one from harming anyone else again.

Which would be accompished using life imprisonment.



I never said to kill anyone with something wrong with them. But there are people in this world who are broken. Period. Broken and not fixable.

Please provide some additional proof to these claims. Note that what you're saying here - intentional or not - is that we can't nor will we ever be able to treat these individuals. What I'm saying is; when they can't be treated make sure to keep them locked up - don't murder them.



These ideas of helping and caring and nurturing the killer are noble, I guess, but who's paying for it all? Everything in this world, no matter what country you live in, comes down to cash. So who's going to pay for it?

You keep coming back to the issue of cost. It seems to me that you really want a rational explanation for this opinion of yours. And I guess by some, economic reasons could be considered enough to sentence someone to death, as cynical and morally questionable as it would seem. But your argument here about life imprisonment being a more expensive choise is, from what we know of as fact to date, quite frankly ignorant.

I'll tell you why capital punishment is far more expensive than life imprisonment. Due to the very much necessary procedural safeguards required, the considerable delays in handling these cases are unavoidable. There are more frequent post-conviction appeals and the murder trials are way more time consuming. This amounts to a considerable increase in cost (1).

An ignorant reply to this might be to call for speedier trials. And you know what the unavoidable consequence of this would be? You guessed it; even more innocents would be killed. Are you willing to accept that?



Of course there would be the normal outcry for them to have a chance at life again... maybe get parole. Fine. And by then, having gone in at such a young "impressionable" age, they will have learned quite a few new tricks from their fellow inmates. They don't normally come out better, rehabilitated people. They simply come out bigger and stronger and with more knowledge of how to do things.

IMO, this is a huge generalization of an issue which, from what I understand, you'd like to solve with the use of capital punishment. You'll be murdering a lot of kids. Just to make sure, right? But why stop there, how about the death penalty for preemtive reasons?



What's your answer? Tell it to the woman who's toddler has been beaten to death. She lives every day knowing the ones who did it are out there with new identities getting another chance. Bravo for them. Hopefully they won't kill again, but do you want them living next to you and your kids?

Once again. Life imprisonment.



Prisons are already overstuffed as it is.

Yes, they are. And your solution to this is capital punishment? Now you're really grasping at straws. You do realize that only a very small percentage of murderers recieve the death penalty.

Some facts on this.

According to Uniform Crime Reports, since 1980, death sentences have increased to ca 250/year, which still is only 1 per cent of the total amount of known homicides. Of all those convicted, no more than 2 percent eventually recieves the death penalty. Hardly enough to take care of the problem with overstuffed prisons.

An ignorant response to this may be: So let's increase the amount of convictions.
Well, not unless you want to go against your own constitution(2). And subsequently also considerably increase the amount of innocents being put to death.



Prison is a horrible place, and a lot goes on in there that people on the outside would never even dream of.

So let's do something about the prisons. The solution to this is not to kill the prisoners.



What do you propose to do with the ones who are simply unqualified to remain among the human race?

Yet again. Life imprisonment.



I find it hard to believe that a death penalty trial and execution is more costly than giving someone a life sentence that could go 80 years. I'm going to check that out myself. I think the appeal process and the years of sitting on death row jack up the cost. You cannot let rabid dogs run loose to tear people apart. You also cannot house them for the sake of keeping them alive at any cost. So you tell me the answer. Tell me where the money's going to come from to rehab these little murderers.

Go back to the previous answer about actual costs.



Tell me what you're willing to do for the parents of the victims. Nobody thinks of them, and what they have to live with for the rest of their lives. Tell me the answer for them. And don't include them turning to god for solace because that's not an acceptable answer. You want the killers to live and be helped, so you tell me what the answer is for all parties involved.

Essentially, this is a question about the moral ethics of a society and its government as well as the negative implications of using a punishment that's (quoting Howard Simon, Executive Director of the ACLU of Florida) inconsistent with the fundamental values of the democratic system; something that greatly lessens the value of human life in a society and legitimizes the act of murder. And while we absolutly shall make sure we do all that can possibly be done to properly help and take care of the victims of heinous crimes as well as properly punish the perpetuators, this shouldn't include repeating the very offence committed in the first place.

As one of history's famous victims of a horrible crime, Coretta Scott King, widow of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., stated, “As one whose husband and mother-in-law have died victims of murder assassination, I stand firmly and unequivocally opposed to the death penalty for those convicted of capital offenses. An evil deed is not redeemed by an evil deed of retaliation. Justice is never advanced in the taking of a human life. Morality is never upheld by a legalized murder.”(5)


Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Civilization was built on the death penalty. The very first code of laws ever written. The code of Hammurabi.

Uncivilized tribes dont have the death penalty, they usually just banish thier members.

So, the death penalty is VERY civilized. Every great civilization in history has had it.

I'm just going to repeat my previous answer to this. Looking at our history, the death penalty has been used, as well as torture, slavery, witch hunts etc. I absolutly don't agree with our society being built on it. IMO, the abolition of such horrific acts is part of the ever important evolution of our society.


Finally, if you want to keep the opinion of being pro death penalty, at least make sure you're basing this on sound reasoning; not ignorance. Evidence shows us that it doesn't work as a deterrent(3). We can also see that it doesn't decrease the amount of homicides(4). It's far more expensive than life imprisonment(1). What's left? It's the barbaric act of murder in the name of the law. Fuelled by blood lust and the need for retaliation.

A civilized society has an obligation to save and protect human life; not end it.


(1) Information on Costs of the Death Penalty From DPIC

(2) Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280

(3) Information about Deterrence and The Death Penalty

(4) According to Uniform Crime Reports, during the 80's, death-penalty states in the US annually averaged a rate of 7.5 criminal homicides per 100,000 of populaiton whereas the average rate of states abolishing death penalty was 7.4. Additional supporting information can be found in (3) and here.

(5) Quote from Coretta Scott King

(EDIT 1: Spelling.)
(EDIT 2: Adding of quote and link (5))
(EDIT 3: Added link (4))

[edit on 21-7-2004 by Durden]
[edit on 22-7-2004 by Durden]

[edit on 22-7-2004 by Durden]



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 10:38 AM
link   
I wish I had the time it takes to take selective quotes and rip 'em, but I don't. So I'll say this.

It all boils down to money, no matter how you want to look at it as a moral issue. You -know- this to be a fact. This can of worms is huge and expensive. To clean up the prison system, you'd have to address the social issues which cause people to end up in there in the first place. You'd have to clean up the corruption in the system from the beat cop up to the judges. You'd have to reform laws and madatory sentences and add more rehabilitative services in order to lower the inmate population. You'd have to make the system fair for rich and poor alike. You'd have to address the issues of poverty and drug addiction. You'd have to address the issue of health care costs. It all ties in together and it's not going to be done. It won't be done because it's too expensive and will not profit our society in cash rewards.

If you don't believe there are broken people out there who will never be fixed, no amount of statistics will change your mind. The entire tone of your argument is one of moral superiority. Those who want the death penalty want it for bloodlust or revenge. I've stated several times already that these are not my personal motivations. Off the top of my head I can think of a few who wouldn't deserve one more minute on this earth:

www.crimelibrary.com...
www.crimelibrary.com...
www.crimelibrary.com...

It's a good site, full of reasons to support the death penalty, in my opinion. I've admitted here and elsewhere that the system is flawed, which is why I'd only administer it in a case where there is NO doubt, not just "beyond reasonable doubt". And the suggestion of pre-emptive death sentencing is just too ignorant as no one has given the opinion that people should be killed on the basis that they might someday do something. This is a clear cut question of the disposition of a murderer. Nobody's playing god. In fact, to argue the "playing god" concept with an atheist is pretty much not going to work. There are some people who must pay for what they've done with their lives, not with their freedom. Not revenge. Not bloodlust. Just making the punishment fit the crime and making sure they can never come out to do it again.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by torque
I wish I had the time it takes to take selective quotes and rip 'em, but I don't.

I just wish you used a little of the time you do have for some actual research. I've already provided you with some helpful links.



It all boils down to money, no matter how you want to look at it as a moral issue. You -know- this to be a fact.

Admit it. Now you've just given up trying. But you're right. Personally, and I've admitted to this in my previous post, I think in essence, this is definetly a moral issue. An extremely important one at that. But out of respect for your opinion and in the ambition to keep this discussion at least somewhat meaningful I've debated this issue largely from the standpoint wich you have presented as yours; the economic one. And yet again, your claims about costs simply doesn't bear scrutiny.



This can of worms is huge and expensive. To clean up the prison system, you'd have to address the social issues which cause people to end up in there in the first place. You'd have to clean up the corruption in the system from the beat cop up to the judges. You'd have to reform laws and madatory sentences and add more rehabilitative services in order to lower the inmate population. You'd have to make the system fair for rich and poor alike. You'd have to address the issues of poverty and drug addiction. You'd have to address the issue of health care costs. It all ties in together and it's not going to be done. It won't be done because it's too expensive and will not profit our society in cash rewards.

I just don't get it. Are you being intentionally ignorant in this? Granted to clean up and keep the prison system at least somewhat acceptable costs money. But since when can we simply stop comparing the costs of one solution with the other?

You have yet to provide an acceptable answer to exactly how you think the problem of cost is going to be solved by the use of capital punishment? If I didn't think better of you - and I do - this could very easily be misinterpreted as a suggestion to solve this problem by simply killing all of the inmates. Please try and make an effort to give me a clue in your reasoning here.



If you don't believe there are broken people out there who will never be fixed, no amount of statistics will change your mind.

Again, what I'm saying is, if they can't be properly treated; keep them locked up. And what statistics are you talking about? I advise you to go back in this thread and ask yourself, who's not changing who's mind in spite of statistics?



The entire tone of your argument is one of moral superiority.

These are your words. Maybe they're a reflection of your personal opinion on the lack of morals in your own reasoning; I don't know. Personally, I just find it incredible how you can consider my argument one of moral superiority. I would call it common sense.



Those who want the death penalty want it for bloodlust or revenge. I've stated several times already that these are not my personal motivations.

Who are those "who want the death penalty for bloodlust and revenge"? What you've stated several times about you personal motivations is cost. Or have I missed something?

Well, I'm sorry to say this, but right now your coming off looking far worse than the people with motivations of bloodlust or vengeance. At least their argument is based on something they're not trying to hide. You're basing you argument on ignorance of the evidence at hand.

And why did you post links to different homicides? They really do nothing for your argument of cost. Or did you just want me to know there are dangerous individuals out there committing heinous crimes? Well, thanks - I knew that already. That's why I want to make sure we do what we need to do to handle this situation in the best way possible.



I've admitted here and elsewhere that the system is flawed, which is why I'd only administer it in a case where there is NO doubt, not just "beyond reasonable doubt".

I think thus far, the fact that the system is flawed is about the only thing we agree on. But looking at the available evidence, your reasoning on "NO doubt" contradicts the rest of your argument. If you don't understand this, please do some reading, because in previous posts, I've already presented you with a number of clues as well as evidence to prove it is so.



And the suggestion of pre-emptive death sentencing is just too ignorant as no one has given the opinion that people should be killed on the basis that they might someday do something.

If I offended you here, I apologize. But notice I never said that anyone actually claimed this was a good idea. I merely offered it as a suggestion of a possible next step as I thought (and still do) that your argument made no sense.



Nobody's playing god. In fact, to argue the "playing god" concept with an atheist is pretty much not going to work.

Please show me exactly where I used the argument of anyone "playing god". Are we even on the same thread here?



Just making the punishment fit the crime and making sure they can never come out to do it again.

Is this an attempt to change your argument somewhat? Is it an eye for an eye you want to argue now? Please say so, and I'll gladly debate you on that. And yet again, making sure dangerous individuals doesn't get out can, and should be solved with life imprisonment, not murder.

EDIT: Spelling

[edit on 22-7-2004 by Durden]



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Here in the death sentence capitol of the free world, Texas, the state will kill you if you were 16 when you murdered someone.

It cost about 1/3 more to kill a kid here than to keep them in prison for life which is a 40 year minimum sentence before being eligible for parole.

Seems the two public defenders asigned to a death penalty case only make a few hundred dollars each to prepare for trial. The last I heard it was 700 dollars each but that was a few years ago. If they want to hire an expert witness they most likely cant afford too because it's hard to get the state to pay for it if not impossible.

The state on the other hand will spend over a million bucks to make sure the kid gets convicted. The POOR kids public defenders file crappy appeals or file late because they make more money defending their own rich clients, where as the state forces lawyers to take the kids death penalty case. This is why they're called public defenders here.

Let's see, the states budget to convict is oh let's just be conservative 300,000. The defense budget for a poor 16 year old requiring public defenders, let's make it high 5,000, maybe the lawyer pitched in some of his own money. How is this difference in the two budgets going to make sure the kid gets a fair trial to begin with?

The system is not perfect. What would happen if the kid really didn't do it? What if new DNA evidence was found years after the kid was killed by the state proving he was not the one who killed after all? You see if you keep them in prison then you could then let him go. If you kill him then you cant bring him back.

Then where do you draw the line? Here it is 16. What about making it 14, or 12, or hell why not 10. I'll tell you what, why not just check them at birth and if their DNA is defective just kill them off early. That'll save money.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by torque
it should be given only when there is NO doubt, not just beyond reasonable doubt


How do you prove something beyond all possible doubt? How do you prove the sun will rise tomorrow beyond all possible doubt? I can make up some excuse to doubt it, regardless of how unreasonable that excuse, and thus the doubt, is.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join