02-21-2004, 06:56 AM
For the most part, I'd have to agree, if only because juries are imperfect, prejudice does play a role in justice, and people have been proven innocent... posthumously.
Just some things I'd like to clarify:
The US President doesn't have the power to make laws; he only has the power to veto ones that are proposed. If he does veto them, then they go back to Congress where they may be passed with 2/3 majority. He does, however, have the ability to grant pardons.
In any case, the state governments, not Congress, decide whether or not to have the death penalty. The Supreme Court might be able to rule death sentences as "cruel or unusual punishment", making it unconstitutional and illiegal.
Whether it's more expensive to imprison someone for life or execute them is debateable. If I have time I'll find some numbers. But should money really play a role (or at least, more of a role than it does today) in the justice system?
Someone made a remark about a certain amount of assurance needed for conviction - Juries are told to convict only if they feel the persons guilt is "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Those who argue about eyewitnesses should look up "confabulation" at some site that talks about psychology. Eyewitnesses have, when asked, described guns - even if none were present. They're not lying, per se, but the human memory is more complex than a lot of people think.
IMHO, "adult" should not be defined by age, but by the persons mental maturity. If the issue is in question, they should be tried as juviniles (sp).
Just some things I'd like to clarify:
The US President doesn't have the power to make laws; he only has the power to veto ones that are proposed. If he does veto them, then they go back to Congress where they may be passed with 2/3 majority. He does, however, have the ability to grant pardons.
In any case, the state governments, not Congress, decide whether or not to have the death penalty. The Supreme Court might be able to rule death sentences as "cruel or unusual punishment", making it unconstitutional and illiegal.
Whether it's more expensive to imprison someone for life or execute them is debateable. If I have time I'll find some numbers. But should money really play a role (or at least, more of a role than it does today) in the justice system?
Someone made a remark about a certain amount of assurance needed for conviction - Juries are told to convict only if they feel the persons guilt is "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Those who argue about eyewitnesses should look up "confabulation" at some site that talks about psychology. Eyewitnesses have, when asked, described guns - even if none were present. They're not lying, per se, but the human memory is more complex than a lot of people think.
IMHO, "adult" should not be defined by age, but by the persons mental maturity. If the issue is in question, they should be tried as juviniles (sp).