Originally posted by inimalist
there is a difference between the ideas of people and the feelings of the parents
But they are not mutually exclusive. Aren't the vast majority of voters parents? I am not saying that all parents think like Imp. (Not that I think that you are utterly wrong your thinking, Imp.)
Originally posted by inimalist
Juries are not moral bodies, but factual bodies. Their ONLY purpose is to make decisions based on matters of fact.
Though I agree, that isn't always the case with a jury's decision.
I was talking about the "punishments" handed out, the laws in place regarding the justice system, and various other aspects of governing that influence the Justice System.
Originally posted by inimalist
Like, if all your argument is that people are flawed and any system of people will be flawed, ok, whatever, but philosophically, justice in a free country is about public safety, not about retribution from the state or the community. Both of those things are constitutionally illegal.
Yes. That is my point.
Also, the death penalty exists, so the system is not in line with your philosophical precepts.
Originally posted by inimalist
So, imho, were there an argument for the death penalty that wasn't just "they deserve it", or evidence that it is a help to individual safety, sure, there might be a place for it. But, since the only good that comes from the death penalty is the possibility that people might feel like justice is done (although there is a history of literature and drama specifically dedicated to how people don't feel better after revenge), that potential does not supersede any person's right to life, including criminals (who are still given basic rights [or, technically should be]).Essentially the argument is about when the government has the right to take away constitutional rights from people in society. The only time they do is when it can be shown to be in the best interest of society at large. This isn't my opinion, as my opinion is that the government NEVER has such rights, but rather the reason why much of the legal system exists as it does (please excuse how much of this comes from the Canadian legal tradition vs the Americans, I don't know what relevant issues from either might be at odds with what I am saying).
Okay.