02-19-2004, 08:50 PM
The death penalty is a tricky issue and one that is embroiled in the a general problem of the US government (and I'm sure other governments too).
Even if a person is "for the death penalty", the potential for ambiguity is enourmous. For instance, what constitutes incriminating evidence? First one can consider the case of blood on the hands of the criminal with a knife in hand and no one else (except the police) for miles. That would definetly say S/HE'S GUILTY. But then you add all other sorts of things and it becomes increasingly likely that S/HE'S NOT GUILTY.
This rambling could now continue into a discussion of the welfare state in the US, but it would just be rambling from that point...
Even if a person is "for the death penalty", the potential for ambiguity is enourmous. For instance, what constitutes incriminating evidence? First one can consider the case of blood on the hands of the criminal with a knife in hand and no one else (except the police) for miles. That would definetly say S/HE'S GUILTY. But then you add all other sorts of things and it becomes increasingly likely that S/HE'S NOT GUILTY.
This rambling could now continue into a discussion of the welfare state in the US, but it would just be rambling from that point...
Peace cannot be obtained without war. Why? If there is already peace, it is unnecessary for war. If there is no peace, there is already war."
Visit www.neobasic.net to see rubbish in all its finest.
Visit www.neobasic.net to see rubbish in all its finest.