Do you except that some innocent people will be executed and are fine with that, or do you think no innocent people never get falsely senteced to death?
There are safeguards in place that are supposed to prevent something like that from happening, and newer tools like DNA testing do help plug some gaps. Can I tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that there has never been an innocent man put to death? No. Do I support the death penalty? Yes, I do. It's up to each individual state to decide that issue for themselves, and I think that, all in all, it works pretty well. It's a heinous punishment for truly heinous crimes, adn that's OK by me.
My main reason for not supporting the death penalty is that it doesn't decrease crime. And if you're not doing it to decrease crime, then you're doing it for vengeance. And that ain't right.
I only favor the death penalty for referees who deliberately call offsides because they are too tired to keep up with soccer ball! Kill 'em all!
In all seriousness, I though this was a rhetorical question. It's axiomatic that in any legal system, the innocent will occasionally be found guilty; it's the price we pay for other 99% of successful convictions. Any lawyer will tell you that.
Yes but where is the need to execute people? If you find out ten years later that the conviction was wrong you can free the person if he’s serving say, life in prison. That option is lost by implementing the death penalty. Any reliable data on how often the death penalty decisions were wrong?
The legal system prescribes punishment according to the severity of the crime, so it would logically follow that a person found guilty (rightly or wrongly) of a crime punishable by death would then be put to death. Are the innocent found guilty? Yes, I'm sure of it. Your question ultimately comes down to the viability of the death penalty itself.
There isn't any data on people who have been executed who have been found to be innocent. there have been a few cases where people were literally within hours of being executed and DNA or new evidence or whatever has found them to be innocent. Once someone has been executed, there really isn't much of a point in trying to determine guilt or innocence
As well as what administering the death penalty says about US, as well as the condemned. That is to say, after meaningful consideration and measured thought and process, we are willing to do exactly the same thing the alleged and convicted criminal did. Just for a different reason; ostensibly, to demonstrate how that very act is wrong. If your head hurts, don't worry; that's why most "civilised" societies outlawed state-sponsored murder a while ago. Our commitment to it places us right alongside China and Iran and North Korea.
Well of course. What are the benefits of it? You don’t have to pay for his food? Is that what it comes down to?
I only support the death penalty if it is administered by the family of the victim(s). The choice of vengence should be up to the ones who have suffered the most loss.
And what about the other family? You know... convicts have families. I'm against death penalty. Vengeance is the only real argument that speaks for it. And that's a bit too meager in my eyes.
For all of you people that are realy involved with arguing the death penalty, pro or con, you should watch the movie "The Life of David Gale" with Kevin Spacey.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/11/18/dnalab.ap/index.html Science (and justice for that matter) are only as good as the people who use it. In fact, fraud is a portion nobody can really factor.
This is why the DP can be overplayed by both sides. Sympathy works both ways. That alone is not enough to sway people either way. I think you basicly believe in it or you don't. I know of a few cases where DAs work to get the DP on the table, or in looking for Murder 1, and not allowing the jury to pick a lesser charge, then the "killer" gets off. This turns the jury off at times and at other times, like the Peterson case, the sympathy for Lacy and Conor seems to have work in their favor. Either way, this alone cause laws and sentence guidelines to be created, changed and take power away from judges and may cause even more injustice keeping in mind that whole concept of punishment-fitting-crime. Two cases come to mind. A Pot dealer getting (1st offense) getting what comes to what is a life term, while a murderer (from the same judge hours earlier) got half that time. Keep in mind that the Fed courts offer no parole, so mileage may vary. Also, look how Texas had to change their books (USSC said that retroactive action was not allowed) to ensure that future serial killers don't get out of jail by building good credit days. If you desire to use sympathy or emotions in certain cases, it burdens the system to account for real punishment for real crimes. I don't for personal/religious reasons and nothing, nobody is worth it.
Yeah, but the safeguards are pretty poor in many instances. There've been five or six instances, enough so that it's not a fluke, where guys on Texas' death row were convicted despite their lawyers falling asleep and other equally egregious flaws in their defence. The penalty is not applied equitably, by any standard. Blacks get the disproportionate number of death sentences, well above their conviction rate of serious crimes. Black on white violence is particularly overrepresented. And it has never been proved to be a deterrent. And here's the real kicker. The death of the criminal does not bring back the person who was killed. Nor does it ease the pain or make life better for the survivors. Now, the way we have stays and delays of the death penalty does mean that survivors have trouble reaching closure, but every study that has tracked loved ones 1 - 2 years after the execution, has conclusively shown that these families are no better off than families who's assailants got simple prison terms. And the big surprise, while we're looking at the issue, is that families whose assailants go uncaught are only marginally worse off than families who got some "justice". No. As has been mentioned, the whole issue for the death penalty is vengeance. Many people in society need to feel that the evildoers will who do bad things will get caught and punished. Just like there was actual legislation against lawndarts and motorcyclists being required to wear helmets, we need to feel safe in a chaotic world. I find it to more than coincidental that the death penalty has gained greater acceptance over the past 15 years, in other words, since Jessica McClure burst into our nation's conscience. In the past decade, child abductions are down (shark attacks are down for that matter), but you'd never know it by the media coverage and the number of scared parents there out there. We're so much more aware of the fragileness of life that we want to do whatever we can to protect it. Even if we act completely irrationally. I'm not aware that there are studies that have conclusively proved that cell phone usage leads to increased traffic accidents. Yet, cell phones have been banned or require headsets in NJ and NY. The death penalty is not a deterrent either, but we have chosen to allow it. Cell phone usage is relatively trivial. The taking of life is not.