>i know what your getting at
>but this isn't the movies,

Some cats just get caught up, some have psychological issues, others have poor impulse control. But there are a few that are just plain evil. Furthermore my experience with evil is not from the movies but from real life. There are some cats out there, they do not make up the majority of people involved in the injustice system, that are just plain bad. It's not lack of opportunity, mental retardation, or psychological impulses that makes the commit crimes.

>the bad guy isn't always
>automatically known so who decides
>which cats are just pure
>evil and what makes them
>so sure.

Hence why I don't support the death penalty for reasons of practicality. That is the argument you are making. Or you are saying that there is no absolute. (which I really don't hope you're saying).

>Of course there are more
>effective processes than imprisonment and
>death but none are as
>lucrative or deliberate as the
>system we have in place
>now.

Get out of here. You can not be serious.
Please list these so called effective processes, and you're understanding of penal history.

>I get your point but you
>mean the majority of society
>right?

That is, whether or not people agree on something, there is still a problem that needs to be dealt with.

>in theory yes. the realities
>of prison however are far
>from what they "should" be.
> What other alternative is
>presented tho? I'm not
>saying that i beleive you
>shouldn't be punished if you
>do wrong...

Are you sure?

i'm just not agreeing
>with the processes that it
>presents, the defects that it
>carries and overlooks, or the
>ramifications that it tends to
>have on us as a
>culture.

I have those same objections. After seeing how minorities and the poor are treated by the law here in the deep south first hand, I have no faith at all in our judicial system. But I'm talking about principle, not practice.

>Does the
>individual in everyday America make
>rules? Hell no, not
>outside of our own homes.

>But I also know
>that everything isn't peaches and
>cream when it comes to
>the lawmaking process or even
>more specifically the prison system.
> Yea segregation was legal
>and hundreds apon hundreds of
>people had to die, suffer,
>and fight to change that.
> Just as with everything
>else.

So what is your argument with me. I haven't for one second diverged from what you have said above.

>My argument with the death penalty
>is, if it wasn't so
>subjective, so plagued with horrible
>mistakes, and countless error laiden
>rulings, I could stand it
>more so than I do
>now.

so we do agree completely then.

>Yes I beleive that killing is
>wrong, no matter who does
>it. But I can't
>fathom killing someone whose innocent.

exactly.

> So if there's no
>way to full proof the
>system, why shouldn't it be
>disregarded and another alternative put
>in its place.

Again, no quarrel.

>and as for natural law...i'm referring
>to the natural law of
>God.

That argument doesn't hold water with me in this debate.

>You wanna read debates on it...there's
>an entire book dedicated to
>it....the Bible.

There is little debate in the Bible over what God's law is. It's completely one sided from God's point of view. No one makes a good case for going against his laws. Everyone who opts out of his plan is damned to hell.

If I control the rules of the game, I can always win.

one
k. orr