Texas killed 78 inmates last year, that is more than one a week. They refused to honor the Supreme Court suggestion on a moratorium on killing the mentally impaired. Most of the other states have either repealed or put a moratorium on the death penalty while they review all cases that hinged on DNA and a record number of people have been freed after being wrongfully convicted. Texas is not actively looking at reviewing cases where DNA or circumstantial evidence could free a inmate. Is this fair? I am not advocating freeing those who are guilty and believe that in most cases Life without the possibilityof parole is sufficient. BUT should we take the chance of killing innoncent people rather than admitting there maybe a mistake? The justice system is not set up to kill the innoncent, but instead protect them.
2007-04-10 16:29:01 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The death penalty is there for a reason and I support it. I do think that with new evidence-DNA-you should have a right to appeal your sentence. And I do believe that a lot of poor people don't get the same treatment as those with $ for a good lawyer. On the other hand I have known people that are so evil they do not deserve to live among other humans and when they commit "that" crime they need to know that if they are caught and proven guilty, they are going to die. You don't do a simple murder and get the death sentence, you have to do something heinous. Look at it from the victim's viewpoint instead of the criminals. . .it will give you a whole new viewpoint about who really has the rights and who doesn't.
2007-04-10 16:46:07 · answer #1 · answered by towanda 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Texas now has life without parole on the books. It means what it says and spending the rest of ones life behind bars is no picnic.
There are 2 cases - both recent- in which it is highly likely that Texas executed an innocent person. In the case of Cameron Willingham the fire investigation techniques used to convict him of arson/murder are out of date and newer forensics have shown the fire was not arson, but was an accident. Willingham was killed by the state of Texas for a crime that never happened. The other case, that of Carlos de Luna, also in Texas, involved mistaken identification. (2006, Chicago Tribune)
DNA evidence is available in less than 10% of all homicides and it is not a guarantee that another innocent person will not be sent to his death.
Texas plans to execute Scott Panetti who is seriously mentally ill. Texas plans to execute James Lee Clark today. His IQ is 68, that is, he suffers from borderline mental retardation. Now that Texas has life without parole on the books I hope they will rethink whether they want to continue as a death penalty factory.
2007-04-11 09:52:07 · answer #2 · answered by Susan S 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The justice system is set up to protect the innocent by killing those who in all probability have committed heinous crimes. The recidivism rate for murderers is about 6%. We have to balance the risk of executing an innocent with that of a convicted killer killing someone in the prison system of eventually getting paroled in 25 years and then killing again.
Plus other less relevant but still important factors of sending a message about what society thinks of murder, and hoping to deter others.
2007-04-13 09:56:00 · answer #3 · answered by Edward Carson 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Death penalty should stay, but only when DNA or several witnesses (like a shooting in public) has been used to prove them guilty. If DNA isn't available, then they should get life. Before an execution, old evidence should be looked at, this should be mandatory.
2007-04-10 23:39:56 · answer #4 · answered by dittersdoodles 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The guy freed yesterday on DNA results after 20 years in prison is appalling. They should have done these tests to exonerate him many many years ago?
20 years to wait and be cleared by DNA?
I hope he sues for about a half billion dollars..
2007-04-10 23:40:49 · answer #5 · answered by GOJUNIOR 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋