The biggest reason why I don't support the death penalty. Do you agree. All answers welcomed.?

Question

Many innocent people have been executed for crimes they didn't commit. Once the death penalty is carried out, it can not be taken back or overturned. If someone were to be killed for a crime they did not commit, then they found dna evidence 5 to 10 years later that clears the persons name, what good does it do if their already killed. It doesn't matter what evidence they found becouse they can't bring the person back to life. If they recieved a life sentense and some evidence was found, or they found the real killer, their conviction could be overturned, and they would have a chance to start a new life. Yeah it would suck being in jail 5-10 years for a crime they never commited, but at least their not killed. How would you feel if someone you really cared about was excuted for a crime they didn't commit, would you still support the death penalty. Even better, they found some evidence that proves they never commited any crime. What good does this evidence do, nothing, its all usless.

Answer 1

I live in Maryland. Back in the 1980s a man named Kirk Bloodsworth was convicted of raping and murdering a little girl and was sentenced to death. After years of appeals and such, his sentence was commuted to life, and, instead of being put to death, he was alive when the evidence that proved his innocence was discovered.
But if those who support the death penalty had been given their way, he'd have been dead by then.
Oops.

To those who would say that a few mistakes are "acceptable," I ask if they would still feel that way if the unjustly convicted person were themselves or someone they loved? Would you sacrifice yourself or an innocent loved one in support of the death penalty? After all, "you have to break a few eggs...."

To those who claim that mistakes are rare, I note that a review of cases in Illinois a few years ago indicated that a large percentage of the inmates on death row were in fact not guilty of the murders for which they had been sentenced to die. The evidence was so overwhelming that the state's governor, who not only supported the death penalty but had written the Illinois death penalty law, ordered an immediate halt to all executions in the state.

I could go on. I know of dozens of cases where people barely escaped execution only because someone (not the state) took the trouble to review their cases. How many others got no such second look?
While it hasn't been definitively proven, it seems very likely that Florida executed an innocent man in 1988.

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGkkYFL2dFozoB71JXNyoA?p=willie+jasper+darden&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fr=ks-ans&x=wrt

There a plenty of other questionable cases, many very recent.
We have no way of knowing how many innocent people have been put to death in the name of the law, but don't doubt for a minute that it has happened and will happen again if we keep up the current practice.

Answer 2

It's a good reason; however it's not the best reason.

See using that excuse can be turned around in many different ways. first way; an excaped convict kills 3 more people. So now by not putting the convict to death the first time; 3 innocent people died.

2nd way is life sentence of an innocent person is just as bad (if not 10 times worse).

No, no, no, the best reason against the death penalty is 2 wrongs don't make a right. U.S. courts have killed more people then any serial killer. Now you say, but we are not killing innocent people. Most serial killers will say they are not either.

Answer 3

When the person keeps denying they committed that crime it usually doesn't mean a thing, they all say they're innocent, but once in a while, you get a killer who freely admits what they did. Like the guy who was actually proud to have tortured and killed a 9-year old boy, not to mention the other kids he'd tortured and murdered. He not only admitted it, he sent letters to the parents detailing every horrible think he did to that child. Some people need to get the death sentence, they need to be dead if for no other reason than the very concept of them ever getting out to torture and kill more children. So for monsters like this, I'd even push the flamin button.

Answer 4

I agree. Although I agree with the death penalty in theory, I would oppose it on the same grounds you do.
Also, I find that when the death penalty ends up being exacted up to 20 years after the crime, or 20 years after the original trial. The person has developed a whole new life, in jail, having sincerely regretted the crime and perhaps actually contributing something positive to others (I'm thinking of people who actually reform in prison. It sometimes, if rarely, happens). In any case, even if the punishment is just, it loses a lot of its sense, doesn't it?
Edit:
I wonder if Daren C would feel the same way if he or one of his own were one of the eggs that had to be unjustly broken.

Answer 5

I see your point but you if you want to make an omlet you have to break a few eggs. I think our judicial system is a joke. We have people sitting on death row right now. Thousands and thousands doing life sentences. Our tax dollars are paying for everything it takes to keep them alive in those prisons. If it were up to me this is the steps in which a trial would take place.
1. You are arrested
2. 30 mins later you are before the judge and jury
3. Defense and Prosecution get 30 mins to present their cases
4. If you are innocent you obviously walk
5. If you are found guilty your done
6. March you around back of the courthouse
7. Hand you a shovel
8. Dig your own grave
9. You are shot in the head
10. The guard that shot you fills in the hole.

Easy as Pie. This is for the major crimes I am talking about mind you. For instance, child molestor, murder, rapist, and that sort of thing. And there is no 3 strikes and your out. You molest one kid. Your dead. As that goes for the rest of the crimes I mentioned above. This system would ease the taxes at an astounding rate. And it would get all of these piece of S H I T repeat offenders off of the streets for good.

Answer 6

My reason for being against the death penalty is purely ,for lack of a better term, "philosophical". I think that killing somebody when they have killed is defeating the purpose. We are trying to show that he committed the ultimate offense but what we end up accomplishing is showing that life is disposable. I don't put a value in life therefore I believe no one can decide when someone else's life should end, no matter how despicable and horrible they may be.

Answer 7

Yes unfortunately there have been a few people executed that were innocent, but very few. My reasons against the death penalty is that I am pro-life. I don't think people should have to bear the burden of sentencing another human being to death. I don't want to have that ultimate power over someone else. I believe keeping a dangerous person away from society is more punishment for them than ending their life quickly. Give them time to dwell over what they did. Hopefully it will give them a chance to repent.

Answer 8

As conservative as I am, I don't agree with the death penalty. I would appreciate more, if a person ,who commit the crime, be in a life time hard labor camp.
But yes I agree with your point though.

Answer 9

i don't help it for many motives, yet it is the main compelling. people are fallible and, no rely how not ordinary we attempt to do away with the prospect of executing an harmless individual, it is going to by no skill bypass away. homicide expenses are greater in states (and otherwise comparable international locations) that have the dying penalty than in those without it. As for deterrence, it has by no skill been shown to be to any extent further effectual in deterring skill criminals than different punishments. for people and not utilising a ethical experience, the main suitable deterrent is the phobia of being caught. life without parole additionally retains the worst criminals off the streets. It skill precisely what it says. Its significant benefit: If we detect an harmless individual in penitentiary he could be released.

Answer 10

I agree with you, but I would like to add another reason. I think a society can be judged by how it treats the most marginalized section of society and criminals are a good bench mark. While they committed a crime and have to be locked up, we have to treat them with dignity and the one right you should never take from anyone is the right to live. If we envision ourselves living in an enlightened society we should be able to find other ways to punish(treat if possible) than just by killing them.