NetWareHead
THAT guy
- Aug 10, 2002
- 5,854
- 154
- 106
@ Netwarehead
So you don't want to answer my question then.
If this is your question:
Would you be still glad that he's using his own judgement to judge who should live and die?
Ultimately, when you look at it, it if is not the pharmacist then it is a lawful branch of the govt rendering a verdict that includes incarceration, penalties and possibly capital punishment. The govt is also an institution of man, plenty capable of error, just like a lone vigilante is also capable of error. Both of these entities should act based on morals and mete out punishment based on the crime and how said crime needs to be redressed. in the event of an error or a misjudgment, then our justice system makes allowances for this and the righting of wrongs. If the pharmacist committed a wrong, then it is being addressed now (1st degree murder conviction). I'm saying I do not agree with this and would have refused to convict if I were on that jury.