Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The main reason I vote no is because far too many innocent people have been executed.
Since 1973, at least 121 people have been released from death row after evidence of their innocence emerged. During the same period of time, over 982 people have been executed. Thus, for every eight people executed, we have found one person on death row who never should have been convicted. Innocence (In Opposition to the Death Penalty)
I think that there is a place for the death penalty.
In general, I believe in rehabilitation of criminals. That said, some crimes are so atrocious, inhumane, merciless, and vicious, that there really is no place for that perpetrator in our (or any) society, rehabilitated or not. For those extreme cases, I believe the death penalty is the appropriate punishment but ONLY if the perpetrator is caught "red-handed", not based on circumstantial evidence. If society condemns a person to death, then society better make sure that the person is truly guilty, and not just technically or procedurally guilty.
We all know the rules. I abide by them, you can, too.
Here, this is a case where the death penalty is appropriate:
The very base nature of me sometimes thinks that there should be a differentiation in the death penalty: Death by humane means and death by inhumane means. Obviously, the latter has no place in a society that calls itself "civilized" and many would argue that the former would fall under such a limitation as well.
Still, I have mentally debated this issue for years and, in my younger years rejected the death penalty completely. For the last two or three decades or so, I have not held such hesitation.
I am for the death penalty but with some reservations. I think if a person is convicted no mater what the crime on circumstantial evidence, that is weak or leaves any room for any possible other scenario, then it should not be applied. If there is no doubt no possible way they are mistakenly convicted [I don't want to debate what that might entail here] then give them death. But this bleeding heart liberal nonsense about the state not killing people bla bla bla is just stupid. What good has it done to keep Charlie Manson alive? He is a waste of air and food and space. Its bogus that the he can provide insight to the mind of a crazy killer, I think most psychologists know by now what makes people like this tick. When its that broken it needs to be crushed and recycled.
I use to be a strong death penalty supporter but since reading that it cost more to give someone the death penalty then to house them for life I have changed my mind. The appeal process is long and costly and people on death row are there for years. If some how the appeals process could be more cost efficient and less time consuming I would be for it.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swingblade
I use to be a strong death penalty supporter but since reading that it cost more to give someone the death penalty then to house them for life I have changed my mind. The appeal process is long and costly and people on death row are there for years. If some how the appeals process could be more cost efficient and less time consuming I would be for it.
I think the appeals process needs to be changed. It seems you used to need a reason such as procedural error to appeal, these days it seems not being satisfied with the verdict is reason enough. Unless specific reasons are cited that a trial was not held according to standing law I believe appeals should be denied.
In murder cases where there is absolutely irrefutable evidence the death penalty is fitting punishment for the abomination of murder.
How is their any way to determine that evidence is "irrefutable"? I personally thought the evidence against Casey Anthony was irrefutable. Obviously, a jury didn't. There is no objective way to classify evidence as irrefutable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
