This is going back a bit...

Remember when we discussed the death penalty?
Well, in my other philosophy class, we are discussing it now. Today we watched a movie on it called Judgement At Midnight.

I noticed some things during that movie. First of all, there were three men involved in two murders (only one was involved in both). The man involved with both, Antonio James, was executed, even though there was reasonable doubt that he had actually been the one to pull the trigger. There was convincing evidence from both sides. There for he should have just been kept in jail for life without parole. One of the other men went to jail for four years. The other didn't serve any time whatsoever. This led me to an interesting idea. When there are more than one person involved in a murder, and it is unknown which one was actually the murderer, all involved should be incarcerated for life. None should be executed, none should get parole, all should have to serve life.

Another thing that I noticed was that when the family goes for a visit before the execution, it is set up like a big party. To me this is just a way for the executioners to feel better bout what they are doing.
The final thing that I noticed was how we have so many stereotypes. There was a radio station in the movie that aired some one calling in and saying something to the effect of "He is taking the easy way out. i mean, there are plenty of really good trees around." One student was very disturbed by the fact that this was publicly broadcast. The general response to her being upset was "Well, it's Louisiana, what do you expect?" This seems like quite the stereotype.

Anyways, I am still for the death penalty in some cases, but I just wanted to add this to the previous conversation on the topic.