It happens that Cynic formulated :
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:22:44 GMT, Baldoni wrote:
>
>>> OK. One last question... if it wouldn't be a bad thing to shoot him, then
>>> why would you object to the state doing it rather than you doing it?
>>
>> That is a very good question. If I were to shoot Glitter it would be
>> Glitter and not anyone else who would be shot. There would be no trial
>> and it would be over in no time. Then I would get rid of my weapon.
>>
>> But if the state has the power to put people to death then we get back
>> into the territory that innocent men could be fitted up and put against
>> the wall. It would (the death penalty) become at some point a tool for
>> politicians to use come the elections as would the lives of those on
>> death row.
>
> So you believe that it's OK for *you* to decide that a person is
> guilty and put them to death without a trial, but it is wrong to have
> a full criminal trial with proper evidence and allow 12 ordinary
> members of the public to make a similar decision.
>
> Just so that I am clear why you believe that Gadd deserves to die,
> could you detail exactly what offences he carried out, and which of
> them IYO deserves the death penalty? Seeing that you have said that
> you are against the idea of "fitting up" people, you might also tell
> us what makes you certain that he actually did commit the crimes that
> he has been convicted of so that you know for ceratin that it was not
> a "fit up".
It is very hard to put this into words and to try an analyze it is the
wrong thing. Glitter is in prison for .ually abusing children in
Vietnam.
I am not saying I know any better than the law or the legal system
because I do not.
Where I come from Glitter would be "gone" it is that simple.
--
Count Baldoni
|