XPost: talk.politics.drugs, talk.politics.guns, alt.current-events.usa   
   XPost: talk.politics.misc, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.republican   
   XPost: alt.politics.bush, alt.law-enforcement   
   From: drp@drproctor.com   
      
   On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:54:06 GMT, "Ken [NY)"  wro   
      
   > It has never been proved that anyone who was innocent has been   
   >executed. Cases in which people have been found to be legally and/or   
   >factually innocent simply prove the system works, she said.   
      
             Logically,,   It is impossible to prove a negative.     So,   
   in a sense this straw arguement is correct....  This does not make it   
   any less a straw arguement.   
      
   >"Nobody likes the death penalty," Hall said. "It's not a good thing.   
   >It's not a happy thing. I wish we didn't have it. But it would cause a   
   >lot more murders if we didn't have it."   
      
             True,   the execution of innocent parties has at least as   
   much deterrent effect as the execution of guilty ones.    More   
   deterrence,  in fact,  because it lowers the bar significantly for   
   society to execute probably -innocent parties "just in case".     This   
   way,  society sends the message that the guilty cannot expect to get   
   off on some technicallity.   
   >   
   >Kent Scheidegger, ..... "From the minimal reports I have   
   >read on Justice O'Connor's speech, it appears that she is among the   
   >many people deceived by the most successful lie in contemporary public   
   >affairs."   
      
          Straw arguement.   Again,  it is  true that you cannot prove   
   anyone is "innocent".        This is  because proving a negative is a   
   logical impossibility.    A better way to say this "lie" is that the   
   guilt of some people scheduled for execution is vanishingly small....   
      
   Dr P   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)