You did say it was the focus on wrongful convictions that was disingenuous, so it seems anyone arguing that would be disingenuous. Anyway, my point stands, you saying my entire argument has no merit and can't be argued in good faith leaves nowhere for me to go. I'm not attacking you either for the record, just pointing out that I had great discussions with a bunch of people I disagreed with, and we looked at each side and tried to understand each other.
You're essentially saying, at best "you're wrong," and at worst "you're lying." I can't do much with that. Because I'm not lying, I obviously don't believe myself to be wrong, and it is a concern I hold, and a concern I think any justice system should take into account.
People think its some kind of gotcha
I also never used it as a gotcha, and just used it to explain parts of my position.
We all heard that "better 10 criminals walk free(and murder a couple dozen innocents) than an innocent man be sent to the gallows" crap a hundred times already.
And there's some truth to that argument; we don't want a justice system that abuses the innocent. That said, I consistently argued throughout my entire discussion that we need to stop letting criminals walk free. The point about the death penalty is I'd rather imprison innocent people - and hopefully eventually let them walk free - than potentially kill those innocents. I'm for a stricter stance on crime, I'm for criminals not walking free anywhere near as easily. I'm just not for the death penalty, for a number of reasons I've already mentioned, one of which is it would occasionally kill innocent people...and much more than occasionally if it was massively expanded.
I'm pro not letting criminals walk free to murder dozens of innocents. I'm still anti death penalty, and anti executing innocent people. Both can be true.
I'm pro not letting criminals walk free to murder dozens of innocents. I'm still anti death penalty, and anti executing innocent people. Both can be true.
You cant have your cake and eat it too. an imperfect judiciary can be either too cruel or too merciful. in the former case innocents sometimes get executed, in the latter innocents sometimes get murdered by people wrongfully released from prison. Both are equally the fault of the judiciary, but in the latter case, the state is almost never actually held responsible. In the former case, it is much easier to have the state accept fault and pay compensation.
suppose we lock them all up instead, theres no guarantee that some moron politician isnt going to try some "rehabilitation" crap down the line, voiding decades of social cleanup.
Then we could talk about the costs of locking people up, and how those resources could be used to save innocent lives too. by investing in healthcare for example.
Though I guess that part could be solved by using labor camps. somewhere on Mars.
again, all this getting hung up on maybe a couple people wrongly executed every decade is missing the forest for the trees. how many people died of the state's incompetence during covid? Wrongful executions wouldnt amount to a hundredth of that in a century.
You did say it was the focus on wrongful convictions that was disingenuous, so it seems anyone arguing that would be disingenuous. Anyway, my point stands, you saying my entire argument has no merit and can't be argued in good faith leaves nowhere for me to go. I'm not attacking you either for the record, just pointing out that I had great discussions with a bunch of people I disagreed with, and we looked at each side and tried to understand each other.
You're essentially saying, at best "you're wrong," and at worst "you're lying." I can't do much with that. Because I'm not lying, I obviously don't believe myself to be wrong, and it is a concern I hold, and a concern I think any justice system should take into account.
I also never used it as a gotcha, and just used it to explain parts of my position.
And there's some truth to that argument; we don't want a justice system that abuses the innocent. That said, I consistently argued throughout my entire discussion that we need to stop letting criminals walk free. The point about the death penalty is I'd rather imprison innocent people - and hopefully eventually let them walk free - than potentially kill those innocents. I'm for a stricter stance on crime, I'm for criminals not walking free anywhere near as easily. I'm just not for the death penalty, for a number of reasons I've already mentioned, one of which is it would occasionally kill innocent people...and much more than occasionally if it was massively expanded.
I'm pro not letting criminals walk free to murder dozens of innocents. I'm still anti death penalty, and anti executing innocent people. Both can be true.
You cant have your cake and eat it too. an imperfect judiciary can be either too cruel or too merciful. in the former case innocents sometimes get executed, in the latter innocents sometimes get murdered by people wrongfully released from prison. Both are equally the fault of the judiciary, but in the latter case, the state is almost never actually held responsible. In the former case, it is much easier to have the state accept fault and pay compensation.
suppose we lock them all up instead, theres no guarantee that some moron politician isnt going to try some "rehabilitation" crap down the line, voiding decades of social cleanup.
Then we could talk about the costs of locking people up, and how those resources could be used to save innocent lives too. by investing in healthcare for example.
Though I guess that part could be solved by using labor camps. somewhere on Mars.
again, all this getting hung up on maybe a couple people wrongly executed every decade is missing the forest for the trees. how many people died of the state's incompetence during covid? Wrongful executions wouldnt amount to a hundredth of that in a century.