Indeed.
I am against the current system but for the concept of a death penalty were it adjudicated correctly and quickly.
I have no moral opposition to the death penalty as long as it is applied fairly and in such a way that there is no possibility of a wrongly convicted man being executed. I don’t think our present system meets any of those requirements.
I don’t want the death penalty abolished, but I would like to see our system reformed to meet the aforementioned goals. There should be more strictly defined guidelines on who is eligible for the death penalty (e.g. strong physical evidence, multiple reliable witnesses to the crime). I think that if we did so, there would be far fewer people (especially innocent people) sentenced to death.
Against. It has no effect on crime and can lead to innocent people being killed.
Against it .
I find it funny that many people who think the government is totally incompetent are certain that no innocent person has ever been executed wrongly. In other words, that group of morons has a flawless record in this case.
Opposed.
Apart from the moral implications in the taking of human life for any purpose other than saving other life in immediate danger, it should be obvious that the problem of wrongful convictions is a huge one. When a wrongful conviction is discovered after ten years, we can’t turn back time, but we can release the prisoner with a hefty check and our apologies.
Unless the sentence was death and had already been imposed, that is.
BTW, the Supreme Court has ruled that there is no constitutional problem with putting an innocent person to death.
Opposed
We execute innocent people. That is as wrong as a state can get.
It is barbaric .
Killing people to prove killing is wrong is not logical.
Because it always is. Capital cases that withstand state appeal are appealed into the Federal system. By creating the tribunal, we eliminate the lower levels and cut to the chase, so to speak.
Theoretically, yes, I believe that there are some offenses for which death is the most appropriate punishment.
Practically, no, as I don’t trust either the state, human wisdom, due process, or human nature enough to make that decision in the vast, vast, vast majority of circumstances.
Against, in all circumstances. I think it’s barbaric to kill somebody for any reason besides self-defense and even if I ignored that I still wouldn’t trust the state to not screw it up.
Against. Even if there were no costs involved and it was known with 100% certainty what was done by the perp.
Capital punishment does nothing to reform the perp, it is ineffective as a deterrent and it does not undo the crime. Therefore it is ALL about revenge. Revenge is a childish “second wrong” that doesn’t make anything right.
I know, I know … username/post incongruity.
Forgot to mention- it’s applied far more often to minority defendants and to defendants whose victim was a white person than the other way around.
Last night flipping through the channels I saw that Clint Eastwood Movie “True Crime”. It’s about an innocent guy who was put on death row.
It’s a freaky coincident, because I made this thread last night.
I respect all your opinions.
Bricker, thank you for demonstrating, as you so frequently do, that “conservative” does not equal “asshole.”
If there is 100 percent proof the person did it with DNA evidence.
Why shouldn’t the guy be put on death row depending on the crime?
Also, I’m guessing alot of the people here are “pro-choice”. (I happen to be, depending on the terms of the pregnancy.)
Wouldn’t that be a “double standard” in a way if you’re against the death penalty, but you are pro-choice.
Hardly. Pro-choice people do not consider a fetus to be a person, and therefore it is not deserving of legal protection. The contradiction is being in favor of the death-penalty but against abortion rights.
It would be if pro-choice people thought fetuses were people, but 99% of us don’t- they are potential people, at least until they become viable. I’m sure there are some out there who do think fetuses are people but are okay with killing them anyway, hence the 1% allowance.
However, convicted criminals are people, no matter how distasteful their crimes may be.
As noted above, I don’t have a philosophical objection to the death penalty anyway. I just don’t see the point, and I have yet to hear a reasonable proposal for how you’d compensate a wrongfully executed person.
ETA: beaten to the punch shakes fist at StR
There is no such thing as 100% proof. DNA evidence can be faked or contaminated. Especially in cases involving prosecutorial or police misconduct, all bets are off.