XPost: alt.religion.christian, alt.religion.christian-teen, alt.   
   eligion.christian.adventist   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian.baptist   
   From: saul_sabia@yahoo.com   
      
   Rafael_Leyre@yahoo.com (Rafael Leyre) wrote in message news:...   
      
   > saul_sabia@yahoo.com (Saul_Sabia) wrote in message news:<262c3   
   a5.0406281409.1f03a07d@posting.google.com>...   
      
   > > torture is, and can be, a very powerful tool in very select circumstances.   
   > ...   
      
   > I had anticipated that you would oppose torture, and brought it up as   
   > a supporting argument. Your answer sends shivers down my spine and I   
   > am now sorry to have mentioned it. Please let's skip torture.   
      
   sorry to have disturbed you. honestly, the only time i could think that   
   torture would be acceptable is when a number of other people's lives   
   could be saved by (say) some vital information and that was the only   
   way to get it. i only made the argument from a hypothetical necessity,   
   i can't put forth any reasonable circumstance that i would be anything   
   but sickened by it. nuff said.   
      
      
   > Thus at least half of those punishments will be inadmissable, while   
   > the other half contains a serious percentage of juridical errors.   
      
   taking something like capital punishment, the american legal system   
   has numerous checks and balances to keep someone from being put to death   
   wrongly (ie, didn't commit crime, etc.). i did some research on the   
   death penalty a few years ago, and there have been mistakes. quite a   
   few. but a lot less than there could've been.   
      
   i guess it comes down to what you define as a serious percentage.   
      
   tangentially, one of my friends brought me an article about the drug   
   meridia (anti-obesity) that was approved in 98 by the FDA. originally   
   the FDA _didn't_ want it approved, as it had potential heart-complications,   
   but somehow got approved anyways. the articles main point was that   
   over 30 people had died since 98 from meridia's heart complications.   
      
   the problem was that the article didn't mention the death percentage.   
   if 30 people took the drug and 30 people died, that's unacceptable.   
   but if 1 million people took the drug and 30 died, that's completely   
   acceptable to me (benefits outweigh the risks).   
      
   if 1 out of every 10 people in death row are killed wrongly, that is   
   unacceptable. if it's 1 out of every 1000, i'd say that it sucks, but   
   that's a lot _more_ acceptable. 1 out of a million would be okay, that's   
   paperwork mis-shuffled. (i hope i don't sound as heartless as i think i   
   do)   
      
      
      
   > On the other hand, scientific research has demonstrated repeatedly   
   > that physical punishment has no positive effect on crime statistics at   
   > all. So why should we do what is repulsive and yet unsatisfying? This   
   > is not like sex at all...   
      
   i know, and you know, that physical punishment is worthless, or nearly so,   
   as a deterrent. the death sentence never stopped anyone from killing.   
   but people must be disciplined. jail sucks, and my short time spent in   
   jail has taught me never to go back under any circumstances. incarceration   
   worked for me (sounds like a bad slogan).   
      
   i'll try to look up some statistics, there's got to be something about how   
   many first-time offenders go on to be repeatedly jailed. that would tell   
   me whether incarceration works as a deterrent.   
      
      
      
   Saul Sabia   
   saul_sabia@yaho[o].com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)