Some innocent people have been executed in the past. Even one is too many. A dead person can not be exonerated.
2007-03-11 04:26:51 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Excellent point. I live in Texas, which is horrible when it comes to the death penalty. We execute people who are mentally retarded here! I hang my head in shame.
2007-03-11 05:29:38 · answer #1 · answered by sngcanary 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You have received some terrific answers. But Midge and Jenab6 don't seem to know that life without parole is now available in 48 states (including Texas.) It means what it says, it incapacitates the criminal (keeps him from re-offending) at a fraction of the cost of the death penalty.
FYI- There is no definitive information on the execution of innocent people since 1976 largely because once there is an execution the case is closed and errors and mistakes in the case are buried along with the defendent. However, in the last couple of years, some cases have come to light where there is compelling evidence an innocent person was executed.
1. Cameron Willingham- executed for setting a fire that led to the deaths of several people. The techniques of investigating fires in criminal cases have greatly advanced. They now show that the fire was an accident, not arson. Texas.
2. Carlos DeLuna- executed in Texas for a fatal stabbing. Sloppy police work, a failure to pursue a more likely suspect (who bragged of being the actual killer and about getting another man to pay for it.
3. Gary Graham. Texas. details available at Death Penalty Information Center
4. Calvin Griffiths. Missouri. details available at Death Penalty Information Center. The local district attorney has actually reopened an investigation into this case, because she has strong doubts about it.
There is no dispute that innocent people were executed before 1976.
2007-03-11 12:43:46 · answer #2 · answered by Susan S 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A priori thinking in the realm of morals is a mistake. Look at killing this way: it does not matter to the victim, and it should not matter to his surviving relatives, whether someone innocent is killed by the state or by a back-alley murderer. He's just as dead, either way. The "right" thing to do, obviously, is to minimize the total number of innocent people who are killed. The question hinges upon whether murderers will murder more people, in the absence of the death penalty, or whether the state will execute the greater number of innocent people if the death penalty is used.
(Actually, that's an oversimplification. Although it might be true that human life can't be measured in money units, it is nonetheless true that lives can be lost if there isn't enough money available to save them. So the dollar-cost of murderers' crimes as well as the dollar-cost of executing convicted capital offenders must be included in the analysis of whether the death penalty is or isn't moral.)
A moral code is supposed to aid the collective survival of the group who practices it. It's not an aid to the survival of persons individually, since nobody needs moral instruction to learn how to act in his own interest. Moral systems are an adaptive means by which genes enlist intelligence in making longterm survival strategies.
Now, although group survival is the object of a moral system, that does not mean that the particular strategy selected will actually work. Intelligence is not infallible. It can be subverted, betrayed or deceived. One of the ways of tricking intelligence into creating a flawed moral system is to convince people that "this world" is not the important one, that there is an "afterlife" whose attainment, following death, is the proper goal for moral action here and now.
A people duped into believing that nonsense will engage in behavior that leads to their eventual destruction. They will turn the other cheek, thereby suffering two blows instead of only one. They will neglect their collective defense because they "trust in God" to protect them. They will admit enemies into their midst on the theory that "God loves everyone, so they are our brothers."
If something doesn't happen to wake them up, to shock them alert, to slam them back into reality soon enough, a people who use a flawed moral system will become extinct, their moral system will become extinct along with them, and the universe will forget them both and go on.
2007-03-11 11:55:47 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I know, and not just the innocent. All Life is to be repected from the moment of conception till natural death. Everyone is worth more than the worst thing they ever did. Think of how it effects the families. The victems families become consumed by hate and a thirst for vengence. And the family of the accused has to live with the fact that one of their own has killed, the family becomes victems of the public when they didn't do anything.
2007-03-11 11:32:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes I did know the death penalty is not pro-life. Our society is accepting of this, and it is interesting to see why they are. Even so, we feel safer, relieved, and justified to see people die for the disgusting crimes they committed.
2007-03-11 11:34:27 · answer #5 · answered by bored:) 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is if the person that is being put to death has a high probability of killing again. The people that are put to death are also NOT innocent babies.
2007-03-11 11:38:21 · answer #6 · answered by Midge 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
yeah i agree the death penalty is awful.
that's why i'm glad we don't have it here. :-)
but states like Texas i think should definitely get rid of it.
2007-03-11 11:30:28 · answer #7 · answered by Colie B 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
that is so sad.
How many innacent lives have been snuffed out by abortion
2007-03-11 11:31:05 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
exactly. it can NEVER be reversed when additional evidence is found. And it has happened not just once.
2007-03-11 11:31:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
It doesn't work. It's not a deterrant.
2007-03-11 11:33:23 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋