(no subject)
What are y'alls opinion on the death penalty? For it? Against it? Don't care?
I offer the follwing two articles:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/16/peterson.case/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/15/okla.execution.reut/index.html
There's just something about taking a life in exchange for another that doesn't ring with me. It just seems so... wasteful. My heart goes out to the Peterson and Rocha family, but their intense hate and behavior makes me want to just throw up. Would they want to insert that syringe themselves, would they want to have more blood on their hands? Wouldn't a worse punishment be let the convicts sit in prison for life to let them think of their crimes? Rather to let them take the easy way out of jail.
Another thing I noticed is how the press subtly insert pronunciations of guilt or innoncence in the article. For example, when refering to widely publicized crimes such as the Okalahoma City Bombing or 9/11 events, it is always said in the factual form. ex: "In 1995, Tim McVeigh bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City" or "Osama bin Laden ordered and planned the hijacking and destruction of the world trade center". However, in "smaller" criminal cases like these, the world choice is often mixed with a tinge of doubt. ex: "Slaughter was condemned for the July 2, 1991, murders of his girlfriend Melody Wuertz, 29, and their 11-month-old daughter, Jessica, whom he killed in a fit of anger when Wuertz filed a paternity suit against him, prosecutors said"
Why is it now that it is "the prosecutor said" where as before it was so factual and true? Does this mean that the media and mass public have a subconscious problem with not having inrefutable evidence? If so, then how can we sentence someone to death beyond a shadow of a doubt?
I offer the follwing two articles:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/16/peterson.case/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/15/okla.execution.reut/index.html
There's just something about taking a life in exchange for another that doesn't ring with me. It just seems so... wasteful. My heart goes out to the Peterson and Rocha family, but their intense hate and behavior makes me want to just throw up. Would they want to insert that syringe themselves, would they want to have more blood on their hands? Wouldn't a worse punishment be let the convicts sit in prison for life to let them think of their crimes? Rather to let them take the easy way out of jail.
Another thing I noticed is how the press subtly insert pronunciations of guilt or innoncence in the article. For example, when refering to widely publicized crimes such as the Okalahoma City Bombing or 9/11 events, it is always said in the factual form. ex: "In 1995, Tim McVeigh bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City" or "Osama bin Laden ordered and planned the hijacking and destruction of the world trade center". However, in "smaller" criminal cases like these, the world choice is often mixed with a tinge of doubt. ex: "Slaughter was condemned for the July 2, 1991, murders of his girlfriend Melody Wuertz, 29, and their 11-month-old daughter, Jessica, whom he killed in a fit of anger when Wuertz filed a paternity suit against him, prosecutors said"
Why is it now that it is "the prosecutor said" where as before it was so factual and true? Does this mean that the media and mass public have a subconscious problem with not having inrefutable evidence? If so, then how can we sentence someone to death beyond a shadow of a doubt?