Originally posted by RT and his SE:Lets see if we can put this back on track... So Tookie shouldn't have been put to death because the good that comes from his books outweighs the evil of his crimes? (sarcasm) He was convicted of killing 4 people, surely his books had to have saved at least 5!
I guess my sense of right and wrong is a little more defined.
At what point did I state Tookie's life should have been spared? I have yet to even state my viewpoint on his execution or the Governor/Courts decesion to allow the execution.
Please do not put words in my mouth; it reflects poorly on you and your "...more defined sense of right and wrong."
I may concede that you have a more defined sense of right and wrong. I do not consider, nor define things on such a moral knife edge, but rather ethical, or unethical; rational, or irrational. Then compare reasonable options based on their beneficial return.
