I would like to ask advocates against the death penalty If as they say we might hang innocent people, might we not be sentencing them to life imprisonment when they may be innocent of the crime against them. If this be the case then should all murders be left free if we are not one hundred percent sure they have commited the act.
2007-03-20 04:06:18 · 14 answers · asked by cassidy 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I have thought the same thing myself many times.
I'm still against the death penalty, but I wouldn't use the argument that "what if we kill someone innocent?". Are we saying it's OK to put someone in prison if they're innocent? Life imprisonment an equal if not worse thing to sentence an innocent man to. Personally, I would rather die than spend the rest of my life behind bars having to live with the fact that I didn't commit the crime and no one believed me- I think that would drive me completely crazy.
2007-03-20 06:21:47 · answer #1 · answered by - 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The difference is, of course, that you can always correct a wrongful conviction -- you can set the prisoner free and perhaps pay compensation (if it was police or prosecutorial misconduct that caused the wrongful conviction). But the death penalty is different -- it's very, VERY final. And as soon as the government kills one innocent person then it is an institutional murderer, too.
The other thing is that studies have shown that the more depraved the crime (i.e. death eligible crimes) the more likely there is to be procedural problems, prejudicial error, or other structural, factual, or legal defects. Simply put, when a jury hears "this guy brutally murdered and sexually assaulted this 7 year old girl," they often forget about anything else. Courts do, too. So there are often the worst procedures in the worst cases. This makes the reliability of many death sentences very suspect.
So, your analogy is not apt. The level of certainty for death must be so high that, frankly, it's unreachable most of the time, especially considering the problems with the system (that are really inherent and can't be defrayed.)
2007-03-20 11:21:23 · answer #2 · answered by Perdendosi 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Unless they are convicted they do get set free.
A jury is expected to find someone guilty only if they are sure they are guilty.
Your question contains no positive argument to re introduce the death penalty just a basic failure to understand the law as it is.
When a miscarriage of justice is found to have taken place then they can be set free because they are still alive.
Sadly with the recent case of Sally Clark it can be seen that even that and compensation can still leave the innocent victim of a miscarriage of justice shattered and unable to rebuild their lives.
Many who commit dreadful crimes could be said to deserve the death penalty. Every time I read of another murder I wonder if we should restore the penalty for 'certain types' but in the end I still feel that the chances of one innocent being hanged or injected incorrectly is not worth it.
The assumption that misguided or corrupt police could not/ would not plant DNA evidence to get someone they were 'convinced' was guilty , or that a criminal might not set someone else up tp take the fall, is in my view an example of
flawed thinking.
We should continue along the lines of 'life is life' for the worst offenders and build the specialist prison hospitals they will need when they become old. Even if they were returned to the community it is silly not to recognise that when they become to infirm to care for themselves the state will be caring for them. Murderers and child molesters should not be allowed the chance of securing more victims.
I do not see that as an argument for state manslaughter
2007-03-20 11:31:06 · answer #3 · answered by noeusuperstate 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am 100 percent against the death penalty. It is a simple question of morality. Do two wrongs make a right? No. Why is it okay for society to "murder" people...no matter what their crime. They are human just like you and me....and as a human..how could anyone presume to know everything about everything. And how could you teach your children not to hurt other children no matter what the other child has done to them....and then raise them differently when they become adults...by teaching them, it's okay to hurt these people...because they've hurt others. That's rediculous. It's hypocritical. And i think most people in today's society miss the hypocrisies all around them. The only one who can punish you is yourself.
2007-03-20 14:27:33 · answer #4 · answered by Robin O 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If there was doubt the jury would or should not have convicted.
The situation usually of innocence being discovered after conviction, is usually false or misunderstood evidence. The recent cases of the ladies wrongfully convicted of infanticide by the so called expert witness Sir R Meadows proves this point. I expect the family of Timothy Evens were really chuffed to get the pardon, after they hung the poor sod His crime being he was slow on the uptake and framed by a very clever man
2007-03-20 12:51:42 · answer #5 · answered by Jim G 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The cases where innocent people are jailed is very small, almost minute now that technology and DNA evidence has improved..if you look at the past however (hundreds of years back) almost half the people being arrested or executed were innocent, I am still very firmly for the death penalty, if one has the audacity and evilness to kill a child he or she deserves no less punishment.
2007-03-20 11:17:13 · answer #6 · answered by Diana 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, you certainly made a big leap between not executing people and letting them run free. There is a lot of territory between those two points of comparison
The death penalty is State-sanctioned murder...period. There is no difference between that and the drive-by gangsta who shoots innocents on the street. Both are murder.
Life in prison, without the possibility of parole, is just as effective in removing the dangerous criminal from the street as execution.
2007-03-20 12:36:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. My issue with the death penalty is not based on what if - what if we execute or convict the wrong person. My belief is when we chose to execute a person we give up on hope. Hope of reformation, hope that all individuals have the potential to become something better than they were. As a Christian I believe that vengeance belongs to God. I believe that is a true act of God to forgive the unforgivable. However, I do believe in better safe than sorry and certain criminals should never be released.
2007-03-20 11:21:09 · answer #8 · answered by CHARITY G 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The key difference is if we are not 100% sure (which is a higher standard then reasonable doubt) and we kill them, we can't bring them back to life if we are wrong. If they are in prison for life, we can let them go (which has happened numerous times). The downside of life imprisonment is that escapes do occur.
2007-03-20 11:26:10 · answer #9 · answered by Cort 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
National Geographic did a special on the Aryan Brotherhood, a prison gang. The person they focused on stated that he had killed 22 men - IN PRISON!
So much for the "life without parole, where they can't hurt anyone else" argument.
DP - the only problem is that it's not administered fast enough or often enough.
2007-03-20 11:15:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋