Death penalty - Revision history

GreedyCapitalist at 00:54, 18 February 2007

2007-02-18T00:54:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:54, 18 February 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{stub}}		{{stub}}

	A man who kills another demonstrates that he does not accept the principle of individual rights. The proper response is to remove him from society, either by imprisonment or death. Since it is irrevocable, the death penalty is only appropriate when the legal system can establish with certainty that a murderer is guilty. It is arguable whether any current legal system is capable of objectively proving this in every case.		A man who kills another demonstrates that he does not accept the principle of individual [[rights]]. The proper response is to remove him from society, either by imprisonment or death. Since it is irrevocable, the death penalty is only appropriate when the legal system can establish with certainty that a murderer is guilty. It is arguable whether any current legal system is capable of objectively proving this in every case.

	== Quote ==		== Quote ==

GreedyCapitalist at 00:53, 18 February 2007

2007-02-18T00:53:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:53, 18 February 2007
Line 5:		Line 5:
	== Quote ==		== Quote ==
	<blockquote>If it were possible to be fully and irrevocably certain, beyond any possibility of error, that a man were guilty, then capital punishment for murder would be appropiate and just. But men are not infallible; juries make mistakes; that is the problem.... It is preferable to sentence ten murderers to life imprisionment, rather than sentence one innocent man to death.</blockquote> -- Nathaniel Branden, "What is the Objectivist stand on capital punishment," The Objectivist Newsletter, p. 3, January 1963.		<blockquote>If it were possible to be fully and irrevocably certain, beyond any possibility of error, that a man were guilty, then capital punishment for murder would be appropiate and just. But men are not infallible; juries make mistakes; that is the problem.... It is preferable to sentence ten murderers to life imprisionment, rather than sentence one innocent man to death.</blockquote> -- Nathaniel Branden, "What is the Objectivist stand on capital punishment," The Objectivist Newsletter, p. 3, January 1963.

			[[Category:Politics]]

GreedyCapitalist at 23:06, 17 February 2007

2007-02-17T23:06:10Z

New page

{{stub}}

A man who kills another demonstrates that he does not accept the principle of individual rights. The proper response is to remove him from society, either by imprisonment or death. Since it is irrevocable, the death penalty is only appropriate when the legal system can establish with certainty that a murderer is guilty. It is arguable whether any current legal system is capable of objectively proving this in every case.

== Quote ==
<blockquote>If it were possible to be fully and irrevocably certain, beyond any possibility of error, that a man were guilty, then capital punishment for murder would be appropiate and just. But men are not infallible; juries make mistakes; that is the problem.... It is preferable to sentence ten murderers to life imprisionment, rather than sentence one innocent man to death.</blockquote> -- Nathaniel Branden, "What is the Objectivist stand on capital punishment," The Objectivist Newsletter, p. 3, January 1963.