[whowalrus]

I do not agree with the death penalty either, but your logic seems flawed to me. I don't have to share ALL the morals/ethics/worldviews that my heroes have.

Now if he came out against death penalty at some point and then reversed his stance, your accusation of hypocrisy would be accurate.

Edit: I was wrong about what hypocrisy meant - please see humanrebar's reply below.

[humanrebar]

> Now if he came out against death penalty at some point and then reversed his stance, your accusation of hypocrisy would be accurate.

No, changing your mind isn't hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is saying the rules don't apply to you somehow. If he executed someone with no trial and said it didn't count because it was somehow for the greater good, he would be a hypocrite.

If we don't leave people room to change their minds, we don't leave them room to grow. I'd rather be in a world where people learn lessons.

[whowalrus]

I stand corrected.

[brakmic]

Well, executing a human being shrinks "the room for improvement". Permanently.

[humanrebar]

Yep. That's why they have due process and fair trials in California. At least according to the CA and US high courts. Some people say that any execution is immoral, and there's a good argument there as well.

[brakmic]

A trial that could lead to a death penalty can never be "fair" because this kind of punishment leaves no room for re-socialization of the convict. There are certain rights that no punishment could ever take away from a human being. At least we have them here, in the EU.

[paublyrne]

Would that not be changing his mind about something, rather than hypocrisy, which is saying one thing but doing another.

[whowalrus]

Agreed, humanrebar explained it well!