Trump Reinstates Federal Executions

[Riedquat]

It seems you really don't understand me.

Oh, I understand you alright. You seem to think that you don't need a court if someone looks obviously guilty, just go ahead an execute them. You're not explicitly saying that, true, but there really is no difference.

[Yukaphile]

That's not what I think at all. "Looks obviously guilty" is quite a long ways from "is guilty, but the courts are incompetent fuck-ups you can't trust." And there are some monsters in this world that people are all too willing to undeservedly show sympathy to, I really wouldn't cry if they died. I'd celebrate it.

[Riedquat]

That's not what I think at all. "Looks obviously guilty" is quite a long ways from "is guilty, but the courts are incompetent fuck-ups you can't trust." And there are some monsters in this world that people are all too willing to undeservedly show sympathy to, I really wouldn't cry if they died. I'd celebrate it.

Oh, really? How do you tell the difference? The whole basis of your position that the courts have fucked up is that he's obviously guilty so the courts must have screwed up if he goes free. Of course I wouldn't rule it out but I'd far, far rather take that chance than go for your line of summary "justice."

[Yukaphile]

What about people who ARE never tried, eh? I literally cannot feel sorry for them if they ended up dead or worse.

[Madner Kami]

What about people who ARE never tried, eh? I literally cannot feel sorry for them if they ended up dead or worse.

I was never tried. And you'd have no problem with me "ending up dead or worse". How very morally sound of you.

[Riedquat]

What about people who ARE never tried, eh? I literally cannot feel sorry for them if they ended up dead or worse.

I was never tried. And you'd have no problem with me "ending up dead or worse". How very morally sound of you.

You've not been pronounced "clearly guilty as sin, who needs a trial?" by Yuka-"judge, jury and executioner"-phile though.

[Yukaphile]

Only for the goddamned "theoretically guilty out there" we know get away with it! Because for law and order, it's not a precise science. People are gonna escape justice. And you may say it's the price to pay for making sure the innocent don't get locked up, but damn it, I still wish we had a system that could accommodate both. Maybe somebody will design a better one someday. But we don't live in that world.

[Madner Kami]

Only for the goddamned "theoretically guilty out there" we know get away with it!

"Theoretically" being the magic word there that you completely ignore the implications thereof, for the sake of constructing an irreal situation. We have a judicial system to determine guilt or lack thereof. Vigilantism is a power-dream of the outraged impotant, who consider themselves to be a better arbiter about what is right or what is wrong than everyone else. If you think that the judicial system is imperfect, then set out to fix the flaws and improve it for the betterment of everyone, instead of fabulating about grabbing a gun and shooting somebody dead, who you arbitrarily declare guilty for some esoteric reason.

[Yukaphile]

And you're truly blind if you think vigilantism can't be useful in some cases. Granted, they may be very rare cases, but then, would you feel sorry if somebody had killed OJ? Not even tortured him. Just shot him after the trial ended.

[Beelzquill]

Is a broken clock occasionally more accurate than an atomic clock, yes twice a day probably. Should we use broken clocks for time a lot more than atomic clocks? NO.