why is the death penalty so bad?

[gopunk]

<< If I recall, one is innocent until proven guilty. If there is doubt on his guilt then he is innocent >>



nobody is executed in america wihtout being proven guilty first.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

<<

<< I thought you were above that Russ. >>



I'm never above stating the facts. Again, let's see some proof. Speculation about 70 year old cases isn't proof.

Russ, NCNE >>



Dead people sort of have a hard time proving their innocence being so busy dead and all. And there would be plenty of living people who's best interest would be not bringing the fact they an innocent man was executed to light. Your statement is factual, but that doesn't mean it means sh1t. IE: propaganda.

 

[Jzero]

<<

<< If I recall, one is innocent until proven guilty. If there is doubt on his guilt then he is innocent >>



nobody is executed in america wihtout being proven guilty first. >>



Exactly. While the conviction might not be true, or proof to the contrary shows up later, at the time someone is convicted, they are (de jure) guilty.

 

[DonFanucci]

I am in full support of capital punishment.

 

[Nefrodite]

until we have machines that read memories, innocent people will be convicted breaking a few eggs to make an omlet isn't acceptable

 

[Zenmervolt]

<<

<<

<< I thought you were above that Russ. >>



I'm never above stating the facts. Again, let's see some proof. Speculation about 70 year old cases isn't proof.

Russ, NCNE >>



Dead people sort of have a hard time proving their innocence being so busy dead and all. And there would be plenty of living people who's best interest would be not bringing the fact they an innocent man was executed to light. Your statement is factual, but that doesn't mean it means sh1t. IE: propaganda. >>

And your statements and links don't even mean that much.

ZV

 

[jjones]

<< I am in full support of capital punishment. >>

 

[nirgis]

<Exactly. While the conviction might not be true, or proof to the contrary shows up later, at the time someone is convicted, they are (de jure) guilty.>


Russ: <I've seen that list before. In every case, none of the ACLU allegations have been proven. Until they are, it is nothing more then speculation from the number one opponent to capital punishment. Let's see some DNA evidence. It is the only thing that cannot be refuted.>



All that I am saying is that whatt Russ said makes it seem that the claims aren't true unless the person can be proven innocent completely, then he can be aquited. This, however, is not the basis for our justice system

People are proven innocent later (in all crimes) all the time. You can always release someone from jail, but can never reincarnate them

 

[Ns1]

You know what? I changed my mind. The death penalty is worthless. I'd rather some guy rot in a cell for 60 years than let them have a quick painless death.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

death penalty is too problematic to apply consistently and fairly. Better to just let the bastards rot in jail, than to try to sort it all out. Besides, sometimes people are wrongly convicted.

 

[BD231]

Re-Instate Gorge Bush the 1'st and death row waiting times would go from years to weeks

 

[SuperTool]

It's ineffective. Look at Texas. They execute so many, yet their crime is very high.

 

[Turbopit]

<< It's not cheaper? I always thought it would cheaper to run a few thousand volts through a criminal in a few seconds, than to allow him to live for the next umpteen+ years. >>




It typically costs way more to execute than keep them alive because of all the extra time they spend in court to try and stay alive.

 

[swayinOtis]

<< Which has never happened. To date, there hasn't been even a single case of an executed slimeball later being proven innocent.

Russ, NCNE >>



Oh jeezus, please look up The Innocence Project!

p.s. the evidence is so overwhelming that innocent people are on death row that Governor Ryan of Illinois declared a moratorium.

 

[tcsenter]

<< why is the death penalty so bad? >>

Its not so long as you execute guilty people. It is quite shocking how little the burden of evidence a prosecutor needs for a conviction in a death penalty case in some states. There are LOTS of death row inmates who were convicted on shakey circumstancial evidence. Just read about the dozens of people who sat on death row for years before their convictions were overturned or the prosecutor came forward and said "Um...hehe...oops...we got the wrong guy."

After someone sits on death row for 12 years and is released because they're innocent, death penalty advocates say "See, the system worked." Except, the system DIDN'T work for most of these people. The "system" was going to put them to death, end of story, until it was discovered by PURE DUMB LUCK that they were innocent, often times by family members who took-up the investigation on their own or police just happen to find the real perpetrator of the crime.

I have no moral or ethical qualms about executing the right person, unfortunately our system of justice doesn't get it right consistently enough to entrust such a decision to juries. If there is INCONTROVERTIBLE evidence like a video tape or multiple eye witnesses, fry them. Anything short of CONCRETE proof should not face the death penalty.

 

[mithrandir2001]

Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.

-- myself

 

[geekybear]

it's not that it isn't bad, it's just that the bleeding heart people out there say it is...

as for the foreign countries booing bush on the death penalty, i find it somewhat humorous that france is throwing a fit about it....france, the country that invented the guillotine...

 

[AgentOrange]

This is why its so bad..... WM3

Read about those three guys and make up your mind.

 

[swayinOtis]

the sad fact is that even when DNA evidence proves someone's innocence, it is ignored.

texas is famous for ignoring exonerating evidence. they are afraid to admit they made a mistake. they think that would destroy the entire system if they admitted a mistake.

read about it here, especially the Roy Criner case.

 

[Kenazo]

i think we should abolish the death penalty, but set up a modern day "Australia" through all such ppl there, and let them develop their own economy/ infrastructure, whatever. if they die, so be it.

 

[eakers]

nobody has the right to take another person's life because they are a person.

*kat. <-- .

 

[eakers]

<< it's not that it isn't bad, it's just that the bleeding heart people out there say it is... >>



you think that killing someone isnt a bad thing?!

*kat. <-- bleeding heart liberal.

 

[salman327]

Sometimes the crime calls for it. Yeah we could let them rot forever in jail, but some people don't even deserve that. There's only a handful of people that would fit that bill.

 

[Bulk Beef]

<< Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.

-- myself >>

Hey man, you stole that.
While it's certain that many convicted criminals deserve to die, it's just as certain that the system is not perfect, and innocent people are convicted, and in some cases sentenced to death. Do I want to see the Jeffrey Dahmers (we really lucked out with him) live their lives on my nickel, no, but if it means that an innocent won't get the needle, that seems a small price to pay.

 

[swayinOtis]

<< nobody has the right to take another person's life because they are a person.

*kat. <-- . >>



the same people that oppose abortion vehemently support the death penalty. hmm.