4 ms·
The problem with saying that they "poisoned people without a trial" is much the same as the problem with saying that a police officer who shot a suspect brandis
by amalcon 17y ago
The problem with saying that they "poisoned people without a trial" is much the same as the problem with saying that a police officer who shot a suspect brandishing a gun "shot the suspect without a trial." It's technically true, but it puts a totally unnecessary spin on the events, as a trial is neither expected nor required.
- natrius 17y agoA trial is expected and required for allegedly consuming illegal substances.
- pvg 17y agoExcept it isn't, by a long stretch. If it was required, we'd probably have to hire all of China to handle the trial workload.
- natrius 17y agoUnless someone pleads guilty, I don't understand how this can be remotely correct.
- pvg 17y agoIt's a long way from 'allegedly' to trial or even a charge. How can 'allegedly using an illegal substance requires a trial' be even remotely correct? Hitting the bong in your mom's basement requires no trial. Neither does me telling your mom about it (allegedly). See also: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/16/michael.phelps/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/16/michael.phelps/index.htm... Note lack of trial or charges.
- natrius 17y agoSigh. This thread was all about punishment. A trial is required for the government to punish someone for committing a crime.
- amalcon 17y agoA trial is required to execute someone (or imprison them, but I don't think anyone's talking about imprisoning anyone here) for allegedly consuming illegal substances (just like it is for anything else, including brandishing a weapon). The police officer is not executing the weapon-brandishing subject, he's defending himself and the public. Death is a likely consequence here, but it's not an execution. Likewise, the government wasn't executing people for drinking alcohol; they were making death a likely consequence of drinking alcohol, but they were not performing executions.
- anamax 17y ago> Likewise, the government wasn't executing people for drinking alcohol; they were making death a likely consequence of drinking alcohol, but they were not performing executions. It all depends on what you think is important, life or what the death certificate says. If I engage in an act likely to result in someone's death, I'my guilty of manslaughter (or murder) except in certain circumstances. That's true whether or not I'm ever brought up on charges.
- fexl 17y agoRight, you'd be guilty of murder. It wouldn't matter if anyone caught you, or whether you targeted specific individuals or random ones. For example, I'm old enough to remember the Tylenol murders of 1982: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tylenol_murders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tylenol_murders In that case, the murderer was never positively identified.