Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic
The position, at least my position, is that even if the justice system was 99.9% accurate with regards to convictions, the margin of error is still too high and the execution of one innocent person is one too many.
You have spoken out in this thread against the court ordered execution of innocents. Yet, in the Scott Peterson thread, you took the position that if Peterson is actually innocent, then oh well, God will sort it out.
I do not look at your seemingly conflicting stances as being hypocritical. I see them for what they are: Two different opinions on two different subjects.
|
-so you are saying Terri's death is a court ordered execution? I said it was IF the story of her speaking against the ruling was true- the post needs to be taken in context.
If Peterson is guilty, as he was found to be, then I do not object to the death penalty. If he were to get a reversal, but he was in fact guilty, then God can certainly sort it out. If he is innocent, same thing. But I trust the trial process- many others do not.
I just think the contrast is amazing- on on hand you have people against the death penalty on the chance that the jury/court find wrongly- yet there seems to be no quibble when the court decides on this case. In this case they are the grand arbiters saving Terri by allowing Michael to let her live or die and they seem to be viewed in this case as infallible. In death penalty cases they are flawed and too quick to deal death to a possibly innocent person. I don't see how you can trust them in one and not the other- but that's me.