It should be supported in both principle and practice.
Yes in principle, but not in practice due to the ambiguity of social bias.
It should be opposed both in principle and practice.
People that are guilty without a doubt should not have all the appeals that they get...just take them out back after the trial and shoot them! LOL!! The ones that are eligible for life in prison, put them to work. They'll get fresh air, exercise, and a feeling of worth. (and a pack of cigarettes as pay! LMAO!!) And if they do REAL good work, let them have a bottle of Mad Dog 20/20 to unwind with!
Shit, I think I'll run for president.
I don't support the death penalty because I'm weary of giving such power to the state. It is an act designed to create fear and awe of the state in a way I don't like to see.
"It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke
..and yet mistakes are still made. New technology brings with it unforeseen faults.There is DNA testing and other modern technologies that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that people are guilty. I could see your point if we didn't have this.
"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi
Why not? If that's the case, then is it worth the risk to improson someone who may likewise be innocent? Or to fine someone money who may be innocent? Or to do anything, simply because you may be wrong?Originally Posted by Truth Detector
We need to accept that we're not perfect, we will never be perfect, and not allow our imperfection to leave us quivering in our boots out of fear of making a mistake. May we make mistakes? Sure. It's part of being human. Should we do everything in our ability to minimize mistakes? Absolutely.
Besides, it isn't like we're wrongly executing little old ladies for murder. The overwhelming majority of people who wind up on death row are life-long criminals with a long, long, long rap sheet, very often for violent crimes. While that doesn't mean they deserve to be wrongly executed by any means, it does ramp my sympathy for their "innocence" way down. These are not good, wholesome, law-abiding citizens who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, they're anti-social criminals who have a lot to answer for and aren't much of a loss to society.
The *ONLY* cost are the legal challenges, simply because we allow endless appeals at taxpayer expense and the majority of appeals can be summed up with "I don't want to die". Not wanting to die is not a legitimate reason to appeal a sentence, only the factual innocence of the criminal or judicial misconduct are legitimate reasons. If we limit appeals to only those reasons, and then only those appeals which have new evidence to present, we can make death penalty cases positively cheap.With the current legal challenges and system, it has actually been shown to cost more to execute someone than it does to keep them incarcerated; is this really a cost benefit argument, or one of moral integrity?
I don't think the gross injustice (and deaths) done to so many truly innocent victims by released criminals is justified to avoid the fear of there ever being one wrongly executed person. I don't see how that is respecting life or protecting the innocent. Rather, it is total indifference to the truly and unquestionably innocent victims - therefore a murderous philosophy pretending to be to protect innocent lives.