Quote:
Quote by: Hellsea  To Brien,
I see what you are saying, but I have an issue when it comes to playing the good guy all the time. We need to have a balance of "good cop bad cop." I do believe that terrorists should be given a fair trial, but I do not think that measures to gather information should be labeled illegal. As long as we keep some morals, we will always be better then those animals. My point is this, if the terrorists do not cooperate in the beginning, then they should be forced to cooperate. Think about it, the lives of many many people may lie in the information that is gathered from the terroists. As long as we are using these "actions" for good, we will always have morals to back them up with. The death penelty should be thought of in the same manner. If nothing else is working, then death should be used as a last resort. I am talking about after concluding that counciling, jail time, and medications no longer work. "Eye for an Eye" isn't a bad idea either. :) |
Hellsea:
You make cogent argument with regard to torture for sovreign nations that ignores the Geneva Protocols and that is neither the US or Germany I wish to know. You must remember that suspects are merely suspects before they are convicted, and I see very little ground on which to apply any means of physical force in their questioning excepting in some extreme circustances.
We simply must follow the rule of law, even if terrorists do not do the same. Torture doesn't work and it violates the rule of International law. Once we begin to torture terrorists, we become terrorists ourselves who trade our respect for the rule of law for the same anarchy that the terrorist defends as his "right to might". Once we do this, what are we fighting for? Not the nation in which I wish to live or respect. We simply must not torture suspects who have neither been convicted of a crime or are merely suspected of involvement of a crime.
What kind of acts do we get involved in when an individual is tortured into giving false information and then we base our actions upon that information? This is bad policy.
As far as the death penalty, I can only say, man makes mistakes. Juries make mistakes. We should not execute people based upon some of the evidence we convict the guilty today. Furthermore, in the US, the majority of people on death row are minorities. We convicted two black men in NJ for the murders of white people based upon evidence that was contrived by the police out of a vendetta against one of the men.
Rubin "Hurricane" Carter Biography - Biography.com Rubin "Hurricane" Carter
This man would have been executed, along with John Artis, if the DP had been in force in NJ. We simplyy can't tolerate these type of "mistakes" in the Justice System.
In addressing DNA evidence we have available to us now that may convict a person beyond a reasonable doubt, we shouldn't execute people because it lowers the state, meaning we citizens, to the same level of morality of the criminal convicted of murder. The DP is merely either revenge or a punishment that affects the convicted only up until the time of the execution of the sentence. After that, what good does it do for the living?