This is why I'm for the death penalty.

[slickss]

[ QUOTE ]
When someone I think have fulfilled everything required for him being executed I dont want or need a reversable solution. Those criminals that I feel are deserving of this penalty I think we are better off without, and dont want them in prison or anywhere else.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm going back to the 124 people I mentioned that got sentenced to death, but found innocent and released before the sentence was carried out.

I agree, the fact that they were found innocent prior to getting executed implies that the legal system is working. However, we must admit that errors occur and that there is a good chance that someone innocent has or will be executed for a crime he didn't commit.

That said, why would you not want a reversible punishment? I mean, if a person was found innocent after he was killed, you would want to bring him back to life if it was possible, right?

I am still waiting for some convincing argument for the need to kill people instead of a maximum security prison for life. Unless there is some non-trivial gain in the death penalty, I don't see why we would want to go for the irreversible option.

[Bedreviter]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree, the fact that they were found innocent prior to getting executed implies that the legal system is working. However, we must admit that errors occur and that there is a good chance that someone innocent has or will be executed for a crime he didn't commit.

That said, why would you not want a reversible punishment? I mean, if a person was found innocent after he was killed, you would want to bring him back to life if it was possible, right?

I am still waiting for some convincing argument for the need to kill people instead of a maximum security prison for life. Unless there is some non-trivial gain in the death penalty, I don't see why we would want to go for the irreversible option.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me first ask you, is your opposition to the death penalty based on moral (it is wrong to kill anyone, even the worst murderers out there), or is it based on practibility (we risk killing someone who we might later find out is innocent)?

[slickss]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me first ask you, is your opposition to the death penalty based on moral (it is wrong to kill anyone, even the worst murderers out there), or is it based on practibility (we risk killing someone who we might later find out is innocent)?

[/ QUOTE ]
I already gave my 3 arguments against the death penalty. Consider my opposition a combination of those.

[Bedreviter]

[ QUOTE ]

I already gave my 3 arguments against the death penalty. Consider my opposition a combination of those.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im in favor of the death penalty (for some crimes) when the guilt is proven without any doubt. DNA, videotape, number of reliable witnesses, accurate confession and such is in place.

I dont feel that prison is a good alternative in any cases where guilt is not proven without any doubt, I rather see the suspect going free until the case is strong enough for a trial, or him going free. I dont want anyone to be sent to prison on the assumption that we are very sure he did it, but cannot prove it fully, and then if we 4 years later find out we can release him and think "well, that wasnt so bad now was it?".

Think the jury and the judge also will be very careful about sentencing anyone to death without the question of guilt being proven, as they dont have the safety net of "well if we 20 years down the road find out we were wrong we can just let the poor guy out". And as the road from first being given the death penalty to the actual execution taking place is very long and involves multiple lengthy trials and appeals I find the possibility of someone innocent going through all of them and still ending up being executed as extremely small. Today with the technology and DNA and all that I believe that for someone to be innocently executed in the US is so slim its of interest to statistics-freaks only.

[slickss]

[ QUOTE ]
Im in favor of the death penalty (for some crimes) when the guilt is proven without any doubt. DNA, videotape, number of reliable witnesses, accurate confession and such is in place.

I dont feel that prison is a good alternative in any cases where guilt is not proven without any doubt, I rather see the suspect going free until the case is strong enough for a trial, or him going free. I dont want anyone to be sent to prison on the assumption that we are very sure he did it, but cannot prove it fully, and then if we 4 years later find out we can release him and think "well, that wasnt so bad now was it?".

Think the jury and the judge also will be very careful about sentencing anyone to death without the question of guilt being proven, as they dont have the safety net of "well if we 20 years down the road find out we were wrong we can just let the poor guy out". And as the road from first being given the death penalty to the actual execution taking place is very long and involves multiple lengthy trials and appeals I find the possibility of someone innocent going through all of them and still ending up being executed as extremely small. Today with the technology and DNA and all that I believe that for someone to be innocently executed in the US is so slim its of interest to statistics-freaks only.

[/ QUOTE ]
Uhm? I don't think anybody here has argued for finding someone guilty when there is doubt.

[Bedreviter]

[ QUOTE ]

Uhm? I don't think anybody here has argued for finding someone guilty when there is doubt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why are we concerned about innocent people being executed?

[slickss]

[ QUOTE ]
Then why are we concerned about innocent people being executed?

[/ QUOTE ]
First of all, there is something known as "beyond reasonable doubt". If you require video footage to ever sentence anybody, crime increase dramatically.

Second, it should be obvious that the person might be innocent even if there was no apparent doubt during trials.