[WillowTheWhisp]

Originally Posted by garinda

and in answer to

Originally Posted by garinda

Willow's statement that aren't some people guilty before a fair trial, the answer is in the eyes of the law -no.

Would you mind telling me exactly where and when I EVER said that ANYONE is guilty BEFORE a fair trial?



I don't mind the fact that you disagree with me garinda but don't use underhand tactics of misquoting me in order to score points. I've noticed you doing the same kind of thing with another member of the board too.



Were you perhaps referring to this statement:

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

At one time I was very much against the death penalty with the argument that you can't bring back a life if it's proved that there has been a miscarriage of justice but maybe in some cases where there can be no doubt of a person's guilt?

In which case I shall clarify in simpler terms in the hope that you can understand me. I said that there was a time when I was very much against the death penalty TOTALLY utterly and completely, across the board, no way, no how, not never, ever at all. In my belief it was WRONG unacceptable and should never, ever, ever be carried out. My main reason for feeling that way was not in support of Ghandi's statement that an eye for an eye would lead to the whole world being blind (I think this applies more to vigilante revenge killings and reprisals rather than the criminal justice system) My reason was that on rare occasions there have been miscarriages of justice and innocent people have been executed.



That hasn't happened often but the fact that it has happened at all was enough to make me support the abolition of hanging.



However, I went on to say: " maybe in some cases where there can be no doubt of a person's guilt" by which I meant that my view has now changed to thinking more in terms of supporting the death penalty in cases where there is no doubt of the person's guilt, where there are numerous eye witnesses or the person has been caught red-handed. I am leaning towards the belief now that execution of such a person is preferable - more especially when you hear of cases where someone has been released and gone on to kill again. I don't think the families of the later victims would feel that the death penalty would have been inappropriate.





Pakdasht justice?23-03-2005 19:41The deth penalty tells everyone that killing is acceptable if you have a good reason. ie as punishment. Sorry but taking a life is wrong. No excuses!



I seem to have been deducted karma points now for something which I haven't actually said but simply said "maybe". Ooh look and it was done by somebody who can't spell properly too!