That would be correct - it serves no purpose to keep revisiting a lost cause. I'm not so naive as to think that every conviction is correct - but I do know that >90% of them are. This being the case, designing a system around the minority is a little backward - although it makes for great sound bites and political posturing.Oldrac the Chitinous wrote:Surely you're not suggesting that we deny people sentenced to die the right to appeal their convictions?
Once judgment is reached, effect it's natural course at the soonest possible moment. A deferred punishment sends entirely the wrong message and diminishes the deterrent effect.
Oldrac the Chitinous wrote:(i)there's one more person dead than there needs to be. (ii)And I'd just as soon not have that blood on my hands.
i) Speaking as a member of the one species on earth not under threat, we are not going to miss the sort of detritus the system is designed to remove. These characters add very little of value and take everything. When we're on the brink of extinction, this statement makes sense. Not before then.
ii) The "blood on my hands" statement, (while wonderfully evocative ), is thoroughly misleading.
- :- There is no blood spilled, other than their victim's.
:- The number of persons deserving of the death sentence as a proportion of the populace doesn't even raise a blip.
:- Unless you are personally in a position where you may be called upon to throw the switch, your risk of bloodletting is probably zero.