Here's the kicker, our current system (yours too, over there across the pond) does the same thing. In fact, it's worse. It GUARANTEES that innocents will be caught up, due to sheer numbers of people being processed through the system.
My system, while it recognizes that it's possible, doesn't guarantee that such a high number of innocents will be caught up in it. If anything, it guarantees that the minimal amount of innocent people, if not fewer, will be caught up in it.
Your "system" guarantees no such thing. Your declaring something is just empty assertion.
Soundbite? No.
Nothing in support? Sure it has, just look at Singapore's crime rates for the last few years.
What, you think that's solely due to having the death penalty? In that case, why is it that it hasn't worked everywhere else? Look at Barb's figures again.
You should go read Exodus 18 again. Look at the system Jethro (a pagan, nonetheless, who's idea was good enough to be included by God in His word) came up with for a system of judges.
And then look at the result.
We don't live in ancient times anymore, populations are far bigger and the standards of evidence required are more stringent also. We don't just judge a person on the say so of two to three witnesses by way of.
Stressed out staff, pressure, human error, it's untenable.
Which is why if the judge feels like he would make a mistake, he would appeal the case to a judge above him, who would inherently have more time to weigh all the options before coming to a decision.
And if the judge does not feel like he is capable of taking any responsibility, then he would (hopefully) recognize such and step down as a judge.
What of cases where there's still sufficient doubt no matter who "judges" it? What of cases where the evidence seems to point towards guilt but the person is innocent and the judge makes an erroneous decision? Under your system the defendant is carted off to a swift execution without an appeal and all you've got is holding the judge accountable. Well, any judge is human and if he made the call with the evidence pointing towards guilt then what are you going to hold him accountable for? In the meantime there's an innocent person who's dead and who might still be alive if they'd been allowed time to plead their case through appeal.
People?
There would be one judge over each case, no jury, no lawyers. Just the judge, the accused, and the accuser.
Oh, well there'd be no chance of error at all there then would there?
:dizzy:
By the way, have I mentioned that the pressure on someone who's reputation is on the line (as well as the accountability for any wrongful convictions) tends to make even the most wicked judges make the right decision?
Oh, so pressure would result in a "rightful decision" would it? Do you know how stress affects people in general? It's not in a positive sense at all JR and I've suffered from it. It can result in lack of sleep, depression and all manner of things that can affect good judgement. Geez, do you think people are generally convicted on a whim or something under the current process?
:freak:
I have never said that the judges would make such decisions lightly.
So? There'd still be plenty of cases where the judges made the wrong decision no matter how seriously they took each case. That's inevitable and under your system mistakes couldn't be rectified so innocent people would go to their death.
Give an example. Please. Be sure to present all known evidence.
Oh please, you know as well as I do that mistakes are made. Check out the Guildford four & the Birmingham Six and do your own homework. You know fine well that under any human system there'd be errors but unlike you I don't support a system where innocent people would inevitably die under it.
That is an ad hominem. It's not a valid argument.
Please attack my argument, and not me. Thank you.
Your argument is being attacked and your position
is childishly simplistic. You cannot eradicate all cases of wrongful conviction when you rely on humans to make the right decisions at all times, be that the current system or the one you propose. Yours would result in more innocent deaths as you would deny the appeals process to overturn such.
I agree. And yet, consider that with such a system, more resources are available to the authorities (because of less crime, fewer court cases under way, etc.), they can use those resources to be much more thorough in their search for evidence that would lead to a conviction. No stone left unturned.
The current system is hardly keeping up, and have practically legalized lesser crimes to an extent recently because of it.
Your declaring that "there'd be less crime" et al is once again, just empty assertion.
No it won't. (Hitchens' Razor)
Under your system innocent people would die, fact. Something that you admit is evil and yet you obviously tolerate. Why is that?
If someone has stolen a bike, then the evidence, no matter how hard the criminal tries to hide it, will point to them having stolen a bike. If someone beat someone up, then the evidence will point to that person as having beat the other person up. If someone murdered someone, then the evidence, no matter how hard the criminal tries to hide it, will point to them as having murdered that person.
Okay, if you don't want to have your "arguments" called out as being childishly simplistic then please stop making them, else there's reasons why certain cases go to court where evidence is neglible and far from straightforward.
Because no system is perfect (because any system that involves humans in any way is inherently imperfect), there will be mistakes made.
True, which is why I wouldn't support any system that implemented the DP without a 100% proof of guilt for the accused.
The goal is not to eliminate mistakes, but to reduce them to the point where the number is essentially zero.
A 4.1% error rate, with the crime rate we have today, results in a number of innocents being wrongly convicted much, much, much greater than zero.
"Essentially zero" is not zero and if people's lives are at stake then there's no justification for execution even if there's a minutiae of doubt, unless you think that the odd case of wrongful execution isn't so evil after all? Your system doesn't promise a reduction in anything but it does guarantee that innocent people would be put to death.
Oh, and if you're going to make such a long post can you please separate the responses to different posters?
Thanks.
