Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Frontier justice" can also be quite objective, though...it involves its own set of rules, laws and consequences, the only difference being that the offender rarely gets the chance to repeat his crimes after manipulating the court system. And it fits in with "judging their actions" to boot!
"One less on the docket today, yer Honor..."
Are you talkin' Jack Bauer, (hopefully you are a 24 fan ), where he deliberates, sentences, and executes in a matter of minutes? I don't know if I agree if this is objective as the person who is accused "may" be innocent and quick justice for the crime is only "just" for one side. Yes, some may manipulate the justice system but it's really the only way to allow protection for those who are falsely accused.
Are you talkin' Jack Bauer, (hopefully you are a 24 fan ), where he deliberates, sentences, and executes in a matter of minutes? I don't know if I agree if this is objective as the person who is accused "may" be innocent and quick justice for the crime is only "just" for one side. Yes, some may manipulate the justice system but it's really the only way to allow protection for those who are falsely accused.
Unfortunately I've never seen a single episode of 24.
I was thinking more along the lines of the Charles Bronson character in the Death Wish series of movies. When a person KNOWS a crime has been committed, they mete out (or arrange to have meted out) punishment to fit the crime. This eliminates the question as to whether they are guilty or not.
As for quick justice being only "just" for one side - when has it ever been different? Ask for a show of hands in Club Fed - "How many here are innocent?" Justice, like history, is writ large by the winners.
As for protection of those falsely accused - I agree that that is the one fly in the ointment, especially with a vigilante system. Hard evidence isn't always at hand - however, I'm talking actual eye-witnessing of an event.
I'd love to see the stats on how many perps are actually falsely accused. It would be useful for determining if my theory is correct or not - of course, it already works great for ME, but I'm thinking of franchising it...
I'd love to see the stats on how many perps are actually falsely accused. It would be useful for determining if my theory is correct or not - of course, it already works great for ME, but I'm thinking of franchising it...
Here ya go:
Criminal justice scholars often say that the true number of innocent people convicted of crimes is unknown--in fact, unknowable. A new University of Michigan study challenges that belief in one important context.
Among defendants sentenced to death in the United States since 1973, at least 2.3 percent--and possibly more--were falsely convicted, said U-M law professor Samuel Gross in a study co-authored by Barbara O'Brien, a professor at Michigan State University College of Law.
If defendants who were sentenced to prison had been freed because of innocence at the same rate as those who were sentenced to death, there would have been nearly 87,000 non-death row exonerations in the United States from 1989 through 2003, rather than the 266 that were reported, the study said.
I've definitely encountered some mouth-breathing worthless sacks of humanity in my lifetime. The human equivalent of a mosquito, serving absolutely no purpose or benefit to the human race whatsoever.
I've definitely encountered some mouth-breathing worthless sacks of humanity in my lifetime. The human equivalent of a mosquito, serving absolutely no purpose or benefit to the human race whatsoever.
An interesting study...I haven't had time to look at the Innocence Project yet but it's in the Sifu queue.
Still, even if we accept 2.3%, that leaves 97.7% JUSTLY incarcerated. Would you propose, as I would, that as Mr. Spock once said,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Spock, stardate 45254.7
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
, that we would be bound to make the sacrifice of that relatively small percentage for the good of the "many"?
I would rather have killed 10 men, with 3 of them innocent, than to have been killed by one of the seven real bad guys. That's basic survival thinking, it's thinning of the herd, it almost cries out for a war-time stage dressing and that's how I'm envisioning it. YMMV depending upon which scenario YOU choose.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), where he deliberates, sentences, and executes in a matter of minutes? 
I don't know if I agree if this is objective as the person who is accused "may" be innocent and quick justice for the crime is only "just" for one side. Yes, some may manipulate the justice system but it's really the only way to allow protection for those who are falsely accused.
