[Oblivion437]

This whole statement of what *is* or *isn't* about European culture is just a red herring anyways. IF my argument doesn't hold up about this thing, naturally one would assume I'm wrong about everything, however my argument about Bryant or the death penalty isn't a cultural one, but one based on facts.

I too, am against the death penalty for two basic reasons:

1. That's a lot of power in the hands of some very irresponsible people. In the 1980's, when the CRASH units were formed in LA, corruption and widespread abuse and vice tactics among them was happening almost before they got to work. They became bigger pushers and crooks than the hoods on the street! I don't feel the government is at this time responsible enough to handle human lives in such a fashion, where bureacracy HAS killed innocent individuals before.

2. Revenge or not, it puts the life of an individual in the hands of the government, it subordinates the will of the citizenry to the will of the state in many ways. For me, the only acceptable example for a death penalty would be murder comitted in the course of another crime (ie, shooting someone during a bank robbery, or while getting away) with two unshakable layers of evidence right on top of eachother. Were the forensic evidence inconsistent with the witness testimonies, and I were on the jury, I couldn't vote guilty, knowing they'd die on inherently circumstancial evidence.

The side debate I'd inadvertantly launched, well I feel the facts stack too high against the notion of Bryant's guilt. We're talking about an unprecedented and humanly impossible feat, or a conspiracy of at least two individuals, whos motives and methods can't exactly be gleaned. Given that one requires we allow for the impossible to be done, or the improbable, I'll take the improbable route, as it's at least possible materially.

Returning to the death penalty:

Barring divine intervention at a trial, where God himself (supposing of course God does exist, I don't believe in God to begin with, but bear with me) gives testimony as to who did what, or a set of security cameras and vital monitors that watch everyone at all times (never mind the moral and legal implications of either) one must be forced to admit (as most great men do) that they don't know everything, that one's perception of the facts is skewed by the Parallax induced by human perception, emotions, and past experience. We can't just put the information into a computer and get the guilt or innocence of an individual, that can't be done now or for some time, nor would it be a fair way to judge our peers.

Finally, Gab, I created the ultimate scenario where imprisonment is not an option. We have past examples of similar cases. The men who escaped from Alcatraz were career criminals, and that was supposedly inescapable. You have to admit, given the inevitability that this person's imprisonment will at best be a delay in their activities, that their execution is the only sure-fire method to prevent their further acts of criminality. I've isolated the subjectives, it's now a question of can your morality stand up ALL THE TIME? No, it can't. No human moral system can. Mine, yours, John Paul II's... Every moral code we embrace has a flaw(s), and in the flaw is room for bad things to happen, for rules to be bent, for things to not add up, for abuse to occur. In those extremes we have to draw exceptions, because they represent mathematical and logical absolutes which can't possibly be equivocated by further extending the principles of the moral code into the given situation. All that will do is widen the gap we started with.