In a lot of cases, I would agree with you, but there are always the extremes that defy logic and demand the most stringent justice.
Right there with you. If we could go to hangings on the courthouse lawn in cases where we could prove guilt beyond any doubt whatsoever, I would support it. Since that is a practical impossibility, I say let the guy pay back some of his karmic debt in prison for the next hundred years or so.
It would be way too easy for them to get out if they were in Mexico. You can bribe a prison guard with a carton of smokes in Mexico!
I would throw them (the Nazis) into a hole and feed them one meal a day... that'd be worse than death.
hence the need to revise statutes and procedures so the punishment is only used in the most egregious of circumstances, when guilt is beyond doubt. i think the mohammed case meets that stricture.
aren't all people convicted of crimes guilty beyond (resonable) doubt? I don't mean factually, but according to the juries. How do you plan on determining who is more guilty or less guilty? Who will be determining this? What is the process? How do the guilty defend themselves that their case doesn't mean some measure you arbritarly set as to , ok you die and you over there, you don't. We have capital punishment and we already have determined what crimes are capital crimes that are fit for capital punishment. Now you want to further define which of the guilty of capital crimes are more guilty or worse offenders to society?
