The issue is really quite simple. First of all, I'm not a liberal, so please don't assume such. Second, Ryan did what he did because it was already established that the system was corrupt. There was no reason to wait. He had the evidence he needed, so he made the decision that he did.
What your saying is equivalent to Apple hiring a marketing firm. The firm does a horrible job. The ads stink. Apple fires the design firm because it's not working. Apple doesn't need to go in and interview every single employee to decide which of them was not doing good enough. It's not necessary. It's evident that there is a problem, so you fix it.
Ryan did what he did because the system in Illinois failed. Not because he wanted to find out which people were innocent or guilty. This is the point you seem to be missing. Ryan did the exploratory measures. He concluded that the system was horrible. He did what he could to fix the problem at hand until more sweeping measures could be put in place to fix the system. Blago's job is now to fix the death penalty or work to have it abolished.
Scott are you really this dumb?!!! How many times do you have to be told. There were only 4 pardons. the rest were issuances of Clemency.
Furthermore, it was not an abuse unless he recieved money for a either clemency (or in the few cases) a pardon.
I realize you're awfully upset that you seem to be the only enlightened one here on this board, but since you have no background or comprehension of the justice system, and you have no legal experience whatsoever, how about you leave this issue to the big boys - those who actually know what they are talking about. You would think that perhaps if you're the only one with such an opinion - maybe you just stop exerting so much energy.
What exactly do you hope to get out of this. Do you simply plan on calling us all names for the rest of your life? Will that make you a happy and satisfied person? You're not convincing us of anything, so really, what is your goal? I for one can see that your ignorance, and lack of a grasp on reality have clouded your perception so much that I will be checking out of this thread since you just want to resort to flaming and name calling.
It was interesting when there was actually a discussion happening. Now that you're just talking to hear yourself speak, it's not so interesting.
<strong>There's always a risk that an innocent person will get wrongfully convicted. That's no reason to toss out every death sentence..</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay, I'll check back in only for this. PowerDoc, you make an EXCELLENT point. In fact, the foundation of our justice system is that it is better for 100 guilty people to go free than for one innocent to be convicted. Certainly this is also true about execution!!! It is better for 100 guilty men to be SET FREE then for one innocent to be executed.
This is the entire reason we have so many rules of procedure. It is the reason we have the 4th amendment to the constitution. It's the reason for probably 20% of laws on the books today.
Comments
The issue is really quite simple. First of all, I'm not a liberal, so please don't assume such. Second, Ryan did what he did because it was already established that the system was corrupt. There was no reason to wait. He had the evidence he needed, so he made the decision that he did.
What your saying is equivalent to Apple hiring a marketing firm. The firm does a horrible job. The ads stink. Apple fires the design firm because it's not working. Apple doesn't need to go in and interview every single employee to decide which of them was not doing good enough. It's not necessary. It's evident that there is a problem, so you fix it.
Ryan did what he did because the system in Illinois failed. Not because he wanted to find out which people were innocent or guilty. This is the point you seem to be missing. Ryan did the exploratory measures. He concluded that the system was horrible. He did what he could to fix the problem at hand until more sweeping measures could be put in place to fix the system. Blago's job is now to fix the death penalty or work to have it abolished.
Furthermore, it was not an abuse unless he recieved money for a either clemency (or in the few cases) a pardon.
I realize you're awfully upset that you seem to be the only enlightened one here on this board, but since you have no background or comprehension of the justice system, and you have no legal experience whatsoever, how about you leave this issue to the big boys - those who actually know what they are talking about. You would think that perhaps if you're the only one with such an opinion - maybe you just stop exerting so much energy.
What exactly do you hope to get out of this. Do you simply plan on calling us all names for the rest of your life? Will that make you a happy and satisfied person? You're not convincing us of anything, so really, what is your goal? I for one can see that your ignorance, and lack of a grasp on reality have clouded your perception so much that I will be checking out of this thread since you just want to resort to flaming and name calling.
It was interesting when there was actually a discussion happening. Now that you're just talking to hear yourself speak, it's not so interesting.
<strong>There's always a risk that an innocent person will get wrongfully convicted. That's no reason to toss out every death sentence..</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think this point should be debated.
This is the entire reason we have so many rules of procedure. It is the reason we have the 4th amendment to the constitution. It's the reason for probably 20% of laws on the books today.