The Death Penalty (1 Viewer)

[Chaka]

Having them spend most of the life in jail is no better than killing them in my opinion.

I imagine the guy that gets exonerated and freed after a wrongful conviction would probably have a different opinion.

Throwing out the death penalty because a few innocents get killed is simply avoiding dealing with the problem of innocents getting convicted in the first place. That's what should be unacceptable in our system. I would have no problem modifying our processes to, as much as possible, ensure that innocents do not get convicted. Even if it meant a much larger number of guily people are wrongly let free. That should be the real discussion. Just getting rid of the death penalty is a cop out.

It's not just because a few innocents get killed, although that is clearly significant (perhaps even the driver) it's also because it doesn't accomplish anything. It doesn't bring back the victims, it doesn't heal those have been hurt (vengeance will never fill the hole that comes from the loss of a loved one) and, most importantly, it doesn't make the general public any safer.It's bloodlust. Some are fine with that, although I think those numbers would diminish if the public could watch executions.

Didn't public hangings use to be popular events?

The last public execution in the US drew over 20,000 people, not so much because of the execution rather because it was the first one conducted by a female sheriff, and it sounds like it was an appalling display by those in attendance that spurred a national debate that sent the process behind closed doors.Link

Link

Perhaps public executions would not diminish bloodlust, particularly if it plays out in a stadium or mob type atmosphere.

 

[Fred Lane]

It may have been a deterrent in this case.

 

[culdeus]

Having them spend most of the life in jail is no better than killing them in my opinion.

I imagine the guy that gets exonerated and freed after a wrongful conviction would probably have a different opinion.

Throwing out the death penalty because a few innocents get killed is simply avoiding dealing with the problem of innocents getting convicted in the first place. That's what should be unacceptable in our system. I would have no problem modifying our processes to, as much as possible, ensure that innocents do not get convicted. Even if it meant a much larger number of guily people are wrongly let free. That should be the real discussion. Just getting rid of the death penalty is a cop out.

It's not just because a few innocents get killed, although that is clearly significant (perhaps even the driver) it's also because it doesn't accomplish anything. It doesn't bring back the victims, it doesn't heal those have been hurt (vengeance will never fill the hole that comes from the loss of a loved one) and, most importantly, it doesn't make the general public any safer.It's bloodlust. Some are fine with that, although I think those numbers would diminish if the public could watch executions.

Didn't public hangings use to be popular events?

People have internet pr0n now.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

The death penalty has never failed. That person is dead. They won't be coming back. Used correctly, the death penalty is the perfect deterrent. Kill? ok, you die too. Not next year, Not next decade. How about tomorrow.

There are enough cases in which an individual sentenced to death was later found to be innocent due to DNA testing. I'm not okay with innocent people being murdered by the state. I also worked in a prison for 4 years. Let me assure you, life in prison is a far worse sentence than the death penalty.

People always mention this as though it happens all the time. It's mostly an urban legend. It's not anywhere near the problem some folk believe. http://www.deathpena...ssibly-innocent

What is the currently accepted number of innocent people we can kill before we reevaluate the system?

We average at WORST (or best, depending how you look at it) 1 innocent death every 3 years. We're constantly evaluating the system and always improving things.I loathe the arguments that mention "If we can save just one life..."

I agree we need to find ways to lower the cost of the death penalty. And if we cannot do that I'm all for removing it altogether. Not because I care if we kill some scumbags. Because the taxpayers foot the bill and we should do all we can to constantly ease their burden.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

I'll fully admit here I don't have any stats to refute you, but how can this possibly be true? And if it is true, why is it like that?

The several links I've found estimate the cost at 1.5 million to execute a prisoner and $22,000 to keep a prisoner in jail each year. I'm not confident of the accuracy of these numbers.If that is true it means it would take 68 years in jail for a prisoner to equal what it costs to execute someone.I found a great link showing the cost can vary by a huge amount:http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penaltyWe need to lower the cost for taxpayers. Either figure out to kill them for less or keep them in prison for life. I have no issue whatsoever with the state killing people. Nor do I have a problem with our current rate of error. I do have a problem with the money.And of course some wikipedia links:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Having them spend most of the life in jail is no better than killing them in my opinion.

I imagine the guy that gets exonerated and freed after a wrongful conviction would probably have a different opinion.

Throwing out the death penalty because a few innocents get killed is simply avoiding dealing with the problem of innocents getting convicted in the first place. That's what should be unacceptable in our system. I would have no problem modifying our processes to, as much as possible, ensure that innocents do not get convicted. Even if it meant a much larger number of guily people are wrongly let free. That should be the real discussion. Just getting rid of the death penalty is a cop out.

I am fascinated by folk who are quite vocal in opposing the death penalty yet remain silent on the real issue (convicting an innocent person).

 

[CBusAlex]

I am fascinated by folk who are quite vocal in opposing the death penalty yet remain silent on the real issue (convicting an innocent person).

I think it's pretty much just assumed that everyone is against convicting innocent people, no?

 

[culdeus]

I'll fully admit here I don't have any stats to refute you, but how can this possibly be true? And if it is true, why is it like that?

The several links I've found estimate the cost at 1.5 million to execute a prisoner and $22,000 to keep a prisoner in jail each year. I'm not confident of the accuracy of these numbers.If that is true it means it would take 68 years in jail for a prisoner to equal what it costs to execute someone.I found a great link showing the cost can vary by a huge amount:http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penaltyWe need to lower the cost for taxpayers. Either figure out to kill them for less or keep them in prison for life. I have no issue whatsoever with the state killing people. Nor do I have a problem with our current rate of error. I do have a problem with the money.And of course some wikipedia links:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States

Isn't an easier solution to not prosecute for the death penalty cases that are likely to get hung up in endless appeals on various grounds? Or is that to simplistic a view?

 

[Dr. Awesome]

I am fascinated by folk who are quite vocal in opposing the death penalty yet remain silent on the real issue (convicting an innocent person).

I think it's pretty much just assumed that everyone is against convicting innocent people, no?

Of course. I'm likely nitpicking that point.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Isn't an easier solution to not prosecute for the death penalty cases that are likely to get hung up in endless appeals on various grounds? Or is that to simplistic a view?

I imagine every death row inmate appeals the decision no matter how weak/strong their case.

 

[culdeus]

Isn't an easier solution to not prosecute for the death penalty cases that are likely to get hung up in endless appeals on various grounds? Or is that to simplistic a view?

I imagine every death row inmate appeals the decision no matter how weak/strong their case.

Yes, I think they get automatic appeals. Some appeal on stuff like the drug mix in the execution and crap like that.

 

[whoknew]

Among all the other reasons the death penalty is a terrible idea - with all we know about wrongful convictions, how can anyone be for the death penalty? It makes no sense.

 

[Blind Tiger]

Having them spend most of the life in jail is no better than killing them in my opinion.

I imagine the guy that gets exonerated and freed after a wrongful conviction would probably have a different opinion.

Throwing out the death penalty because a few innocents get killed is simply avoiding dealing with the problem of innocents getting convicted in the first place. That's what should be unacceptable in our system. I would have no problem modifying our processes to, as much as possible, ensure that innocents do not get convicted. Even if it meant a much larger number of guily people are wrongly let free. That should be the real discussion. Just getting rid of the death penalty is a cop out.

I am fascinated by folk who are quite vocal in opposing the death penalty yet remain silent on the real issue (convicting an innocent person).

Not sure that problem can be fixed if the decision of guilt or innocence is made by a "jury of one's peers." The average American is pretty dumb and it seems that a guilty until proven innocent mentality is fairly widespread in this day and age.

 

[Jayrod]

Among all the other reasons the death penalty is a terrible idea - with all we know about wrongful convictions, how can anyone be for the death penalty? It makes no sense.

Yeah, because NO ONE mentioned this in the thread yet.

 

[Clinton]

I am fascinated by folk who are quite vocal in opposing the death penalty yet remain silent on the real issue (convicting an innocent person).

I think it's pretty much just assumed that everyone is against convicting innocent people, no?

Free Mumia!

 

[whoknew]

Among all the other reasons the death penalty is a terrible idea - with all we know about wrongful convictions, how can anyone be for the death penalty? It makes no sense.

Yeah, because NO ONE mentioned this in the thread yet.

And?

 

[Mello]

Having them spend most of the life in jail is no better than killing them in my opinion.

I imagine the guy that gets exonerated and freed after a wrongful conviction would probably have a different opinion.

Throwing out the death penalty because a few innocents get killed is simply avoiding dealing with the problem of innocents getting convicted in the first place. That's what should be unacceptable in our system. I would have no problem modifying our processes to, as much as possible, ensure that innocents do not get convicted. Even if it meant a much larger number of guily people are wrongly let free. That should be the real discussion. Just getting rid of the death penalty is a cop out.

I am fascinated by folk who are quite vocal in opposing the death penalty yet remain silent on the real issue (convicting an innocent person).

Not sure that problem can be fixed if the decision of guilt or innocence is made by a "jury of one's peers." The average American is pretty dumb and it seems that a guilty until proven innocent mentality is fairly widespread in this day and age.

The first change I would make would be to make a hung jury be equal to an acquittal. If all of the jurors can't agree that the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then the person should be found not guilty and should not be able to be tried on the same crime again. Along with that, I would also put far less pressure on jurors to come to a unanimous decision. If the person as any reasonable doubt the person is not guilty they should not be coerced to change their decision.

 

[Thunderlips]

I'm pretty sure the death penalty has prevented those criminals it's been inflicted on from exhibiting criminal behavior again.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Among all the other reasons the death penalty is a terrible idea - with all we know about wrongful convictions, how can anyone be for the death penalty? It makes no sense.

What is it we know about wrongful convictions?

 

[whoknew]

Among all the other reasons the death penalty is a terrible idea - with all we know about wrongful convictions, how can anyone be for the death penalty? It makes no sense.

What is it we know about wrongful convictions?

That they occur. And there are a lot of them.

 

[renesauz]

How could it ever work as a deterent when it's applied both rarely and inconsitantly?

The title statement is impossible to prove or disprove based on current applications.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Among all the other reasons the death penalty is a terrible idea - with all we know about wrongful convictions, how can anyone be for the death penalty? It makes no sense.

What is it we know about wrongful convictions?

That they occur. And there are a lot of them.

Would you mind bringing some statistics into this argument? I've brought quite a few links and actual figures while pointing out people have a tendency to fight against this based mostly on emotion.

 

[Ignoramus]

Among all the other reasons the death penalty is a terrible idea - with all we know about wrongful convictions, how can anyone be for the death penalty? It makes no sense.

What is it we know about wrongful convictions?

That they occur. And there are a lot of them.

Would you mind bringing some statistics into this argument? I've brought quite a few links and actual figures while pointing out people have a tendency to fight against this based mostly on emotion.

We'll never know how many people are on death row for crimes they did not commit.The Innocence Project names seventeen people that have been proven innocent and exonerated by DNA testing in the United States after serving a combined 187 years on death row.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Being exonerated is an argument to show the system works (at least the death penalty system).

 

[Jayrod]

Being exonerated is an argument to show the system works (at least the death penalty system).

I think it shows the appeals process works, not the death penalty.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Being exonerated is an argument to show the system works (at least the death penalty system).

I think it shows the appeals process works, not the death penalty.

The appeals are a part of the process. Wherever you'd like to classify the act, it shows we're catching innocent prisoners before they are executed. Which goes against the argument whoknew and others continue to mention.

 

[Johnnymac]

Having them spend most of the life in jail is no better than killing them in my opinion.

I imagine the guy that gets exonerated and freed after a wrongful conviction would probably have a different opinion.

Throwing out the death penalty because a few innocents get killed is simply avoiding dealing with the problem of innocents getting convicted in the first place. That's what should be unacceptable in our system. I would have no problem modifying our processes to, as much as possible, ensure that innocents do not get convicted. Even if it meant a much larger number of guily people are wrongly let free. That should be the real discussion. Just getting rid of the death penalty is a cop out.

I am fascinated by folk who are quite vocal in opposing the death penalty yet remain silent on the real issue (convicting an innocent person).

Not sure that problem can be fixed if the decision of guilt or innocence is made by a "jury of one's peers." The average American is pretty dumb and it seems that a guilty until proven innocent mentality is fairly widespread in this day and age.

This is a big problem. Too many stupid people that end up sitting on a jury. They should have professional juries. I'm serious, make it a job for people. have college programs set up for people to learn how to decide on a correct verdict.

 

[Chaka]

The death penalty has never failed. That person is dead. They won't be coming back. Used correctly, the death penalty is the perfect deterrent. Kill? ok, you die too. Not next year, Not next decade. How about tomorrow.

There are enough cases in which an individual sentenced to death was later found to be innocent due to DNA testing. I'm not okay with innocent people being murdered by the state. I also worked in a prison for 4 years. Let me assure you, life in prison is a far worse sentence than the death penalty.

People always mention this as though it happens all the time. It's mostly an urban legend. It's not anywhere near the problem some folk believe. http://www.deathpena...ssibly-innocent

What is the currently accepted number of innocent people we can kill before we reevaluate the system?

We average at WORST (or best, depending how you look at it) 1 innocent death every 3 years. We're constantly evaluating the system and always improving things.I loathe the arguments that mention "If we can save just one life..."

I agree we need to find ways to lower the cost of the death penalty. And if we cannot do that I'm all for removing it altogether. Not because I care if we kill some scumbags. Because the taxpayers foot the bill and we should do all we can to constantly ease their burden.

I generally agree with your sentiment on "just one life", I put it up there with "think of the children" but this is a pretty extreme circumstance. We execute about 50 people a year so if your number is right that means only 0.0067% of executions are of innocent people. We also have about 2800 death row inmates in the US which, using your number, means about 19 innocent people are sitting on death row. I guess that's not a lot of people in the grand scheme of things but it would sure suck to be one of them. I shudder to think how the number of incarcerated innocents translates to the general prison population.deathpenaltyinfo.org

The taxpayer argument is worse that the innocent victims argument considering the costs involved in executing someone. As I stated earlier we can still keep all these death row inmates locked up and save millions (tens of millions? hundreds of millions?) by stopping the practice of imprisoning non-violent drug offenders which make up a huge % of our current prison population.

 

[bueno]

The death penalty will succeed as a deterrent once we start carrying out sentences quicker.

 

[Chaka]

Having them spend most of the life in jail is no better than killing them in my opinion.

I imagine the guy that gets exonerated and freed after a wrongful conviction would probably have a different opinion.

Throwing out the death penalty because a few innocents get killed is simply avoiding dealing with the problem of innocents getting convicted in the first place. That's what should be unacceptable in our system. I would have no problem modifying our processes to, as much as possible, ensure that innocents do not get convicted. Even if it meant a much larger number of guily people are wrongly let free. That should be the real discussion. Just getting rid of the death penalty is a cop out.

I am fascinated by folk who are quite vocal in opposing the death penalty yet remain silent on the real issue (convicting an innocent person).

Start a thread and find out.

 

[Blind Tiger]

The death penalty will succeed as a deterrent once we start carrying out sentences quicker.

Define quicker.

 

[whoknew]

Among all the other reasons the death penalty is a terrible idea - with all we know about wrongful convictions, how can anyone be for the death penalty? It makes no sense.

What is it we know about wrongful convictions?

That they occur. And there are a lot of them.

Would you mind bringing some statistics into this argument? I've brought quite a few links and actual figures while pointing out people have a tendency to fight against this based mostly on emotion.

Sure.

Here's a study done by Northwestern in 2001 of 86 wrongful convictions in death penalty cases.

Here's a list of 138 wrongful convictions as of October 2010.

Obviously I could find more - but its pretty clear that wrongful convictions happen. Quite a bit.

And as far as emotion - pretty sure the pro-death penalty side is the emotional one.

 

[whoknew]

Being exonerated is an argument to show the system works (at least the death penalty system).

You've got to be kidding. This is such an awful argument.The system completely failed - these people sat on death row for years. If not for the horrible problems in the system, they should have never been convicted.I mean - your argument is that if someone is convicted, spends 20 years on death row - then the system worked. Do you see the absurdity of that argument? The system completely failed, but because we corrected that failure after 20 years - well then it worked. And, of course, this completely ignores the innocent people who were executed but not exonerated.

 

[jonessed]

Very few people are ever actually put to death. For it to fail as a deterrent it seems like it would have to first be implemented in a manner that would attempt to actually deter.

 

[bueno]

The death penalty will succeed as a deterrent once we start carrying out sentences quicker.

Define quicker.

Build the scaffold while the jury is deliberating.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

I generally agree with your sentiment on "just one life", I put it up there with "think of the children" but this is a pretty extreme circumstance. We execute about 50 people a year so if your number is right that means only 0.0067% of executions are of innocent people. We also have about 2800 death row inmates in the US which, using your number, means about 19 innocent people are sitting on death row. I guess that's not a lot of people in the grand scheme of things but it would sure suck to be one of them. I shudder to think how the number of incarcerated innocents translates to the general prison population.

I also think we are constantly improving the process. The last possibly innocent person we executed was convicted in 1989. I think dna and other advancements have cut down on errors. And we'll continue to improve upon things.Where I got my numbers: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Being exonerated is an argument to show the system works (at least the death penalty system).

You've got to be kidding. This is such an awful argument.

The system completely failed - these people sat on death row for years. If not for the horrible problems in the system, they should have never been convicted.

I mean - your argument is that if someone is convicted, spends 20 years on death row - then the system worked. Do you see the absurdity of that argument? The system completely failed, but because we corrected that failure after 20 years - well then it worked.

And, of course, this completely ignores the innocent people who were executed but not exonerated.

The system failed in that they were convicted. The system would still be a failure if they were sent to prison for life instead of sent to death row. I simply mean the fail safe to ensure we don't execute innocent people seems to be working fairly well (despite the system being flawed when it comes to sending them there in the first place).As far as actually executing death row inmates, the BEST (or worst) I can find is the following link: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent

We're not killing many innocent folk.

Even Amnesty International's website doesn't list any figures.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Sure.

Here's a study done by Northwestern in 2001 of 86 wrongful convictions in death penalty cases.

Here's a list of 138 wrongful convictions as of October 2010.

Obviously I could find more - but its pretty clear that wrongful convictions happen. Quite a bit.

And as far as emotion - pretty sure the pro-death penalty side is the emotional one.

I'm glad you posted a link to the website I've been linking nonstop. I'm not arguing wrongful convictions happen. I'm arguing those wrongful convictions STILL don't result in wrongful executions.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

I generally agree with your sentiment on "just one life", I put it up there with "think of the children" but this is a pretty extreme circumstance. We execute about 50 people a year so if your number is right that means only 0.0067% of executions are of innocent people. We also have about 2800 death row inmates in the US which, using your number, means about 19 innocent people are sitting on death row. I guess that's not a lot of people in the grand scheme of things but it would sure suck to be one of them. I shudder to think how the number of incarcerated innocents translates to the general prison population.

deathpenaltyinfo.org

The taxpayer argument is worse that the innocent victims argument considering the costs involved in executing someone. As I stated earlier we can still keep all these death row inmates locked up and save millions (tens of millions? hundreds of millions?) by stopping the practice of imprisoning non-violent drug offenders which make up a huge % of our current prison population.

Just to be fair - if your math is right and my numbers are right, that means about 19 possibly innocent people will be executed. More possibly innocent people are on death row but will be freed.I believe those numbers are lower as dna and other advancements in recent history have improved our conviction rate...but I'll go with the old numbers.

 

[Chaka]

The system failed in that they were convicted. The system would still be a failure if they were sent to prison for life instead of sent to death row. I simply mean the fail safe to ensure we don't execute innocent people seems to be working fairly well (despite the system being flawed when it comes to sending them there in the first place).

As far as actually executing death row inmates, the BEST (or worst) I can find is the following link: http://www.deathpena...ssibly-innocent

We're not killing many innocent folk.

Even Amnesty International's website doesn't list any figures.

Is "fairly well" really an acceptable standard for something as important as the death penalty?

 

[culdeus]

I generally agree with your sentiment on "just one life", I put it up there with "think of the children" but this is a pretty extreme circumstance. We execute about 50 people a year so if your number is right that means only 0.0067% of executions are of innocent people. We also have about 2800 death row inmates in the US which, using your number, means about 19 innocent people are sitting on death row. I guess that's not a lot of people in the grand scheme of things but it would sure suck to be one of them. I shudder to think how the number of incarcerated innocents translates to the general prison population.

I also think we are constantly improving the process. The last possibly innocent person we executed was convicted in 1989. I think dna and other advancements have cut down on errors. And we'll continue to improve upon things.Where I got my numbers: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent

That Texas arson guy they killed (?) was fishy as hell.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

The system failed in that they were convicted. The system would still be a failure if they were sent to prison for life instead of sent to death row. I simply mean the fail safe to ensure we don't execute innocent people seems to be working fairly well (despite the system being flawed when it comes to sending them there in the first place).

As far as actually executing death row inmates, the BEST (or worst) I can find is the following link: http://www.deathpena...ssibly-innocent

We're not killing many innocent folk.

Even Amnesty International's website doesn't list any figures.

Is "fairly well" really an acceptable standard for something as important as the death penalty?

If fairly well means the numbers we talked about in the post above then yes, it is an acceptable standard. This does not mean I am opposed to continually improving our methods.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

I generally agree with your sentiment on "just one life", I put it up there with "think of the children" but this is a pretty extreme circumstance. We execute about 50 people a year so if your number is right that means only 0.0067% of executions are of innocent people. We also have about 2800 death row inmates in the US which, using your number, means about 19 innocent people are sitting on death row. I guess that's not a lot of people in the grand scheme of things but it would sure suck to be one of them. I shudder to think how the number of incarcerated innocents translates to the general prison population.

I also think we are constantly improving the process. The last possibly innocent person we executed was convicted in 1989. I think dna and other advancements have cut down on errors. And we'll continue to improve upon things.Where I got my numbers: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent

That Texas arson guy they killed (?) was fishy as hell.

I agree. Cameron's execution struck me as the most likely of all the ones listed to be a mistake (aside from the couple at the bottom of the list who were actually exonerated). I got a bit of a chill reading that the first time.

 

[FavreCo]

Conneticut just took a big step towards ####ification.

"I cannot stand the thought of being responsible for someone being falsely accused and facing the death penalty,'' Prague said, speaking slowly and deliberately as her colleagues listened. "For me this is a moral issue...I don't want to be part of a system that sends innocent people..to the death penalty."

She's fine with life in prison if they are innocent. Understandable. Maybe they are innocent. Doubtful, but maybe. How about death for obvious killers?

Recent example of someone that needs to die immediately: The dude in California.

There is absolutely no reason to keep that POS alive. You sentence them to death when the case is cut and dried and you execute them.

 

[Flying V]

Conneticut just took a big step towards ####ification."I cannot stand the thought of being responsible for someone being falsely accused and facing the death penalty,'' Prague said, speaking slowly and deliberately as her colleagues listened. "For me this is a moral issue...I don't want to be part of a system that sends innocent people..to the death penalty." She's fine with life in prison if they are innocent. Understandable. Maybe they are innocent. Doubtful, but maybe. How about death for obvious killers?Recent example of someone that needs to die immediately: The dude in California. There is absolutely no reason to keep that POS alive. You sentence them to death when the case is cut and dried and you execute them.

I'm against the death penalty, but I have a hard time understanding how somebody like that gets taken alive.

 

[Apple Jack]

The death penalty has never failed. That person is dead. They won't be coming back. Used correctly, the death penalty is the perfect deterrent. Kill? ok, you die too. Not next year, Not next decade. How about tomorrow.

There are enough cases in which an individual sentenced to death was later found to be innocent due to DNA testing. I'm not okay with innocent people being murdered by the state. I also worked in a prison for 4 years. Let me assure you, life in prison is a far worse sentence than the death penalty.

People always mention this as though it happens all the time. It's mostly an urban legend. It's not anywhere near the problem some folk believe. http://www.deathpena...ssibly-innocent

What is the currently accepted number of innocent people we can kill before we reevaluate the system?

We average at WORST (or best, depending how you look at it) 1 innocent death every 3 years. We're constantly evaluating the system and always improving things.I loathe the arguments that mention "If we can save just one life..."

I agree we need to find ways to lower the cost of the death penalty. And if we cannot do that I'm all for removing it altogether. Not because I care if we kill some scumbags. Because the taxpayers foot the bill and we should do all we can to constantly ease their burden.

It's not just one. And we'll get back to you to get your thoughts after you've been wrongfully convicted. You might have a different opinion on that point.

 

[NCCommish]

The death penalty has never failed. That person is dead. They won't be coming back. Used correctly, the death penalty is the perfect deterrent. Kill? ok, you die too. Not next year, Not next decade. How about tomorrow.

There are enough cases in which an individual sentenced to death was later found to be innocent due to DNA testing. I'm not okay with innocent people being murdered by the state. I also worked in a prison for 4 years. Let me assure you, life in prison is a far worse sentence than the death penalty.

People always mention this as though it happens all the time. It's mostly an urban legend. It's not anywhere near the problem some folk believe. http://www.deathpena...ssibly-innocent

What is the currently accepted number of innocent people we can kill before we reevaluate the system?

We average at WORST (or best, depending how you look at it) 1 innocent death every 3 years. We're constantly evaluating the system and always improving things.I loathe the arguments that mention "If we can save just one life..."

I agree we need to find ways to lower the cost of the death penalty. And if we cannot do that I'm all for removing it altogether. Not because I care if we kill some scumbags. Because the taxpayers foot the bill and we should do all we can to constantly ease their burden.

Somehow I think if that one life, which is a ridiculously low number given the number of people who are on death row that have been released, was your child you'd think that rate was a little too high.

 

[culdeus]

Why does California even bother with having a death row if they aren't going to use the thing?

What is Scott Peterson up to these days?

 

[Chaka]

Why does California even bother with having a death row if they aren't going to use the thing?What is Scott Peterson up to these days?

He's stuck in an 8'x10' box 23 hours a day. What do you think he's up to?

 

[FavreCo]

Why does California even bother with having a death row if they aren't going to use the thing?What is Scott Peterson up to these days?

Trying to find the killer.