If you are pro death penalty aren't you pro for killing innocent people in the rarity? Iam beginning to think the whole reason people support the death penalty is for sexual craving. I do believe in ultimate punishment for criminals but I will never support sacrificing one innocent soul to punish many. Many people will reply saying Iam full of it. Heres an unfoulable statement. We have executed innocent people before, not many but it has happened. Your full of it if you think the untied states court system is unfouable like the pope (every decision they make is the correct one).You cannot garuntee no innocent executions, its absolutely impossible mathematically and scientifically speaking by today's standards in technology. We have killed innocent people, few but is it worth it? is it worth putting an innocent person to death unknowingly to punish a majority? I can't believe people think america has never executed an innocent, How do they know beyond any doubt what so ever?
2007-02-12 17:04:22 · 10 answers · asked by Mrdude 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
You are correct. It is impossible to know without error 100% of the time that you have the correct person. That is why the average Death Penalty case lasts 15-20 years before the final verdict is passed. Their is no perfect leagal system. I do not believe that it is an excuse to allow criminals to go unpunished though. I also do not believe that it is a good enough reason to through out the Death Penalty either. Our most violent criminals shoudl be put to death. Personally, the death penalty is ment to be the ultimate deterant to crime, particularly violent haneous crime. The problem with the death penalty , as I see it is not that it is not infallable, but that it is not used in an appropriately short time frame. 20 years is too long for someone to be on trial. Our legal system moves entirely too slow. Personally I would streamline the legal system. In a capital murder case I woudl have a trial, an appeal and then anouther appeal to the Superior Court. Their should be a total of no more than 5 times that a trial shoudl be waged before final verdict happens: trial, appeal, State Superior Court, Federal Appealate Court and finally Federal Supreme Court. Each trial should be limited to last no more than one year except in extenuating circumstances. This gives a total of 5-6 years, giving time for the initial preparation of the first trial of as much as one year, before the final verdict is carried forth. I would also make it a point to publish each time a governor grants clemency to a defendant and the facts of the case so the voters can make their choice as to who has the final power to carry out the sentances (Each sentance has to be signed by the govenor of each state). Why are we so sqwemish to execute those who are convicted of violent crime? Instead we put people in prison where they recieve better medical care than most of us slobs who have to work for a living, then have housing provided, all meals are provided and of better nutritianal value than many on the outside recieve themselves, and access to free legal councel. How much is all of this generousity costing us? About $50,000 per prisoner per year concervatively. That is more than the average person makes in a year. (US average household wage is $42,000 per year) Does this seem right ? I do not think that someone who commits violent crime should be given more than the average person on the outside recieves, yet they are.
2007-02-12 17:31:57 · answer #1 · answered by daddyspanksalot 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Victims of circumstance. I know it sucks, but it's part of the deal. I'm going to take your approach and turn it around for you. You won't sacrifice one to punish many, but will you sacrifice one to save many? Love it or hate it, the death penalty is a deterent. There are only two capitol offenses in the criminal law system, and both of which are extreme in nature. I know it sucks that sometimes the system doesn't work, but odds are against it. With forensic science steadily advancing, the chances of accidentally convicting an innocent person are steadily diminishing.
2007-02-12 17:26:33 · answer #2 · answered by arc_angel_1972 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think a better question is how can we function as a society if we ourselves commit murder? Better yet capital punishment does not serve as a deterient for murder, otherwise we would see a decrease in states with capital punishment which is just not the case. When did society lower its self to the point of not placing value on human life, even evil human life. A society is best judge on how it treats its lowest of citizens
2007-02-12 17:14:49 · answer #3 · answered by laura n 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No innocent person has *ever* been executed in the USA
The anti-capital punishment crowd thought they had one with Roger Keith Coleman, but they were WRONG!
Roger Keith Coleman (November 1, 1958 – May 20, 1992) was a Grundy, Virginia, coal miner convicted and executed for the murder of his sister-in-law, Wanda McCoy. Coleman's case drew national attention before and after his execution because of his repeated claims of innocence. In 2006, Virginia Governor Mark Warner announced that recently re-examined DNA evidence had conclusively proven Coleman's guilt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Keith_Coleman
2007-02-12 17:08:05 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Death penalty is legal not moral.
2007-02-12 17:13:34 · answer #5 · answered by J.SWAMY I ఇ జ స్వామి 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I had your opinions. I just got tired of defending people like the belt way sniper.
2007-02-12 17:09:05 · answer #6 · answered by eric l 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
and the Bible says
'' A Murderer Shall Surly be put to death ''
2007-02-12 17:11:20 · answer #7 · answered by Chris W. 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, innocent or not, they're going to die anyways.
2007-02-12 19:26:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What is your stand on abortion ?
2007-02-12 17:08:58 · answer #9 · answered by caciansf 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋