On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 16:20:18 +0900, Eric Takabayashi
<etakajp@yahoo.co.jp> wrote:

>Raj Feridun wrote:
>
>> So you DO want to discuss the death penalty then?

>No, I'm just curious why you say something is, because it just so happens to be the law, and are
>perfectly happy with it, while explicitly disregarding it not being so elsewhere for anyone else.
>Texas is not New Jersey. Japan is not the US. And people who get justice are not those who do not
>or cannot.

The death penalty is not guaranteed by nor is it disallowed by the
U.S. Constitution. 

>This is why you cannot simply say the law is, because that is how the US Constitution was meant
>to be. How is it really put into practice? And why should any imperfections not be considered for
>improvement if not change?

I'm all for positive changes. I just haven't agreed with any of your
proposals thus far.

>> See above. It's a shame that a black jury saw fit to acquit based on
>> race. "To err is human; to forgive, divine".

>What "black" jury? 

The predominantly black jury that voted initially exactly on racial
bounds with the white juror later having been persuaded to acquit.

>Doesn't the acquittal have to be unanimous? 

Yes.

>And I'm talking about people who
>are not so fortunate as OJ, such as poor people who can't afford good help, and minorities who
>may get bad deals.

Well with money being the major driving force behind prospective
attorneys very few pursue careers as public defenders. This could
change with better funding.

>> >> I said I was perfectly happy with the system.

>> I do live with the system.

>Then you cannot claim to be so "disgusted" with its "errors" such as criminals going free or
>people not properly tried being jailed for decades or executed. Who is responsible for that
>system? I don't blame the founding fathers. Those who can do something about it, but do not, such
>as politicians or the body of voters, are to blame.

Yes, the system is not the problem. Its a fair system. The problem is
the people that run it. I'm just in disagreement with you that there
is some magical fix to make it people-proof without affecting it
negatively.

>> >Because you are too lazy to even think on your own.

>> I think it's really sad that you feel that way.

>It's sad most people are too ignorant to see the legal system, among others, needs improvement,
>and that something needs to be done about it, because it's hard to see how it will be improved
>otherwise.

I think it's quite possible we're quibbling over semantics. If you
consider better funding for the system we already have as an
improvement then we are already in agreement.