[QUOTE=Jacob Visser;89900]Another thing to remember about the justice system, and especially about the death penalty, is that the system is more lenient towards people with a better (richer?) background.[/QUOTE]

Sigh. More flawed logic. You're against the death penalty because richer people have a better chance of evading the penalty. So, I guess you are against ALL criminal prosecutions because rich people have a better chance of evading the criminal penalties.

OK, this may sound a bit paranoid. but I just noticed in my profile I've been moved to Yeehaw FL. Presumably as punishment for expressing conservative views. :wink:

You got off easy, I tells ya.

Alex

[QUOTE=Prime95;89958]OK, this may sound a bit paranoid. but I just noticed in my profile I've been moved to Yeehaw FL. Presumably as punishment for expressing conservative views. :wink:[/QUOTE]You only just noticed?

Really ought to start paying more attention. :wink:


Paul

[QUOTE=akruppa;89960]You got off easy, I tells ya.[/QUOTE]

Indeed.

Several of us (I believe all with moderatorial privileges) have recently experienced (in some cases multiple) "movers came in the night" events - it appears to be a [i]Lèse majesté[/i]-style conspiracy, not anything to do with our political views. In my case I woke up one morning to find myself moved to a rude-named town in German (like Alex, but even worse), and when I was later offered the choice between staying there or moving to another rude-named town back in the States, I opted for the latter, as it's closer to my work.

Although I must say the Fall weather in Kentucky is quite nice ... in between huge thunderstorms, that is. On a clear day, the view from the top of the Knob is spectacular.

Very sticky in here! But some truth too!!

Wow. Lots of things to comment on.

George, I think the law system down here is organized based on the argument you first called flawed: that since death penalty is irreversible and the judicial system is fallible, then death penalty shouldn't be allowed at all.
And, since it is indeed hard to define what would be a fair compensation for an innocent sentenced to life, there's no life penalty either. The most one can be imprisoned here in Brazil is 30 years. No matter how many crimes you've commited, how serious they were, how long a sentence do you get, after 30 years you're released. I don't know what happens if you commit a crime again, tough. It should be noted that a famous criminal who served the full 30 year penalty was killed in a fight shortly after being released.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z; 89863]It's very simple. A person who has committed an illegal act such as murder has given up the right to his or her life by committing such an act.[/QUOTE]

Do you believe in human rights, Jwb52z?

[QUOTE=Universal Declaration of Human Rights]PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and [B]inalienable [/B]rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, [B]justice [/B]and peace in the world, [/QUOTE]

I repeat, do you believe in human rights? I might infer from your post that you don't. (not that that would surprise me in today's world).

Now, regarding abortion. It seems the main point is: at what point does a new life begin? I'd propose for appreciation of everyone the following tentative definition.

A human DNA, contained in one or more cells located in a development-supporting environment, is a human being.
What exactly is a human DNA? It's a set of nuclear DNA mollecules (=chromosomes), plus mitochondrial DNA (and any other type of DNA which might be present in a healthy, typical human cell I might not know of) which, given an adequate, healthy, development-supporting environment, develops into or remains an adult person. Before nine months since conception, the only such environment known is a womb. This nine-month period can be reduced with medical aid, and after the minimal possible period (say, six months), abortion shouldn't be allowed at all (this seems to be a consensus here in this thread).

I think this definition addresses questions which could arise, like cancer and HeLa (those cells could never become an adult person), identical twins (although they have the same nuclear DNA, their mitochondrial DNA may still be slightly different) and frozen embryos (liquid nitrogen isn't quite a human-life-supporting environment). It still has the problem that some conditions don't prevent birth but usually prevent reaching adulthood (e.g. inborn analgesia: some people simply cannot feel pain).

All this would mean abortion is ethically wrong; the pregnant woman's intention has to be addressed, though. I think women willing to have an abortion (before the ~24 week deadline mentioned above) should have legal, public health services where they could go. At the first time they went there, they wouldn't have the abortion done; instead, they'd be asked, in benefit of her baby's right, to carry it to term so it could be, for instance, given to adoption. Since it's such an overwhelming task which is being asked of her, she'd be provided every kind of support she might need, be it medical, psychological or any other. If, after considering this offer for a reasonable time (at least a couple of days) she still wants to have the abortion, she then gets it, no problem.

[QUOTE=brunoparga;90010]George, I think the law system down here is organized based on the argument you first called flawed: that since death penalty is irreversible and the judicial system is fallible, then death penalty shouldn't be allowed at all.
And, since it is indeed hard to define what would be a fair compensation for an innocent sentenced to life, there's no life penalty either. The most one can be imprisoned here in Brazil is 30 years. [/QUOTE]

Do you have a reference? On the face of it, it seems that the sentencing system is based on a belief that 30 years is enough punishment for any crime -- not over worries about wrongful execution or incarceration.

In fact a quick google search led me to several papers, the first ([url]http://www.brazil.ox.ac.uk/workingpapers/Macaulay31.pdf[/url]) of which was rather scary.

[quote]Brazil, like many other countries, limits a ‘life’ sentence to 30 years. The common phrase ‘bandido bom é bandido morto’ (‘the only good criminal is a dead criminal’) and the very high levels of fatal police shootings of civilians in Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo illustrates that the ‘problem’ is often taken care of by police long before it reaches the courts or prison system.[/quote]

[quote]São Paulo House of Detention... Between the bars protrude the arms and legs of men gossiping, trading, or in some cases sleeping, tied onto the bars for lack of floor space in the cell. The daily routines of this prison, like any other, are governed by unspoken rules and rituals, codes of honour, harsh punishment and survival strategies,[/quote]

[quote]As the police lockups were never intended for long-term detention they frequently have the worst levels of overcrowding and conditions of detention, condemned by several international human rights organizations (Human Rights Watch 1998; Amnesty International 1999; U.S Department of State 2001; United Nations 2001).[/quote]


I include the above only because it is interesting. It adds nothing to the debate on pros and cons of the death penalty. Perhaps, if the paper is to be believed, it may indicate there is some popular support for the death penalty in Brazil before a judge and jury is ever involved.

OK, George, I might have been a little too hurried. But, let's think a little longer about it. One of the points here seems to be the original motivation to set a 30-year imprisonment limit. How can one figure that out? Does the overall social motivation remain unchanged? And, are these two conceptions (one, that 30 years is hard enough a punishment and two, that wrongly-applied death or life penalties are hard to correct) mutually exclusive? Can't the latter lead to the former?

Now, I was referring to what the law states, not to the way it is (or isn't) put into practice. In recent months (since May) the situation has gotten even worse than the one that paper describers. And Alckmin,the São Paulo state governor responsible for the complete neglecting of the prison system might become president next Sunday (although that's unlikely, since incumbent president Lula is almost certain to win).

Anyway, my overall impression after reading that paper is :redface: :redface:

Bruno

[QUOTE=brunoparga;90010]The most one can be imprisoned here in Brazil is 30 years. No matter how many crimes you've commited, how serious they were, how long a sentence do you get, after 30 years you're released. [/quote]If a person were to kidnap a 14 year old girl, do vile things then kill her, do the same thing to 12 other girls before being caught, could he be given 13 30 year sentences, served end to end? Could one violate both local and national laws (in the same crime event, like robbery, fleeing the police, shooting people, and taking a hostage all at one go), be tried, found guilty of multiple crimes (local and national), and serve 10 years locally and 30 in the nation jail? Charles Manson should have done his evil in Brazil.



[quote] identical twins (although they have the same nuclear DNA, their mitochondrial DNA may still be slightly different)[/QUOTE] While i-twins have the same DNA 'profile' there are reasons to believe that they may actually have some difference at the most subtile of levels. The cause for seperation may actually be from a single mutation. This is not a hard and proven thing. A read through [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin[/URL] will show that it is not as neat and clean as is often thought of (for example opposite gendered monozygotic twins are possible). And twins that are not 'created' by implantation should have the same mtDNA, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA[/URL] . But again, it is not as clean as that.

[Quote]The common phrase ‘bandido bom é bandido morto’ (‘the only good criminal is a dead criminal’) and the very high levels of fatal police shootings of civilians in Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo illustrates that the ‘problem’ is often taken care of by police long before it reaches the courts or prison system.[/quote]

It is a fact that security forces have a strong tendency towards wanting to be judge and executioner as well. A lot of "advanced" democracies more or less condone this. I think about France for instance where the number of "accidental" shootings by police is very high, and where these mistakes by the police are rarely sanctioned (if at all.) At one time the United-Kingdom had such policy against suspected IRA members, the infamous "shoot to kill" policy. In the USA one thinks about the way the Black Panther movement was decapitated by the CIA.

But these "extra-judicial" killings have nothing to do with the death penalty.

To go back to an earlier argument:
[QUOTE=Prime95;89957]Sigh. More flawed logic. You're against the death penalty because richer people have a better chance of evading the penalty. So, I guess you are against ALL criminal prosecutions because rich people have a better chance of evading the criminal penalties.[/QUOTE]
I think that the ultimate irreversible punishment is so different that all possible sources of error should be considered before thinking about using it. Statistics from countries where it has been abolished or reintroduced do not show a difference in the crime rate of those crimes that can be punished that way. This means it is not a deterrent. It is only vengeance. It is a fact that most punishments used in the past now seem barbaric to most; crucifying, torture... Some countries are still a bit more in the past than others: societies where everyone can have a weapon, where you can shoot a trespasser... This means that those societies don’t believe in their capacity to insure some of the most basic human rights: the right to live a peaceful life.

About the logic of my arguments, I would say that in a discussion one very often uses arguments that are based on line of thought of the others side. And to answer your question, even if I am convinced the judicial system is biased, it does not imply that I want to get rid of it here and now.