Regardless of one's view on the use of the death penalty, am innocent person wrongfully being put to death should be concerning, and we should all want to allow every available appeal to minimize the chances of a wrongful death.
yup. but we should be discussing why any person or group of people is allowed to murder. lets all evolve a little bit.
some of you people make me sick to my stomach and make my case entirely for why representative govt is a sham and corrupt.
I agree, except there is no reason why the appeals process should take 10-20 years.
I completely agree with the appeals process, that is why I disagree with the death penalty. It's a waste of money and I agree with 3gun, it's not a deterrent.
The death penalty should be used for people whom without a doubt committed the crime (caught red handed, on video, admitted). I'm sure the appeal process is being used more by the guilty rather the innocent.
The guilty should not appeal. Man-up, admit you screwed up, and do your time. Stop clogging the judicial process and get the actual innocent out of jail in a timely fashion.
that'll never happen and you know it. let's focus on actual things that can be done.
The way we implement the death penalty now, it's no deterrent. We may as well not waste the time and money pursuing it. We should shorten the appeals process where incontrovertible evidence exists, and exclude the option when it doesn't.
I year for appeal then pull the trapdoor ;)
20 years of appeals is enough.
And yet they continually find evidence to exonerate people 30 and 40 years later.
The deaths of those innocents are just collateral damage? The price of doing business?
And once all those cases are proven or disproven using DNA that should end.
So how many have been executed that were later found to be innocent? I'm tired of seeing criminals rights supersede the victims. Not to mention the family. As long as they get a trial and required number of appeals they need to go.
DNA isn't the only evidence that can exonerate someone, and in some cases DNA isn't a factor at all. It's not a universal solution to proving guilt.
SusanR; you're right but that seems to be what's getting most of the innocent out in recent times. There are always witnesses that lie or withhold evidence and there always will be.
Add an express lane.
Sometimes I wonder about the past of a criminal. They had a bad past to be convicted of a horrible crime. Maybe d
They didn't do it but their past said they did.
Agree, but almost as important as killing the innocent in that situation is letting the guilty remain free, probably to kill more innocents as well.
This user is currently being ignored
The one hundred murderers still free are more important, but the one innocent put to death is worse. That is an unnecessary death that didn't change the number of murderers running free one bit.
Who said anything about releasing anyone? Or about not not putting the guilty to death, for that matter? If the idea is we'll accept failure to assure success, why not just kill everyone so that there is nobody left to get murdered?
Anyone disagreeing with this poll is okay with the death of innocents.
I don't support those killings either. Sad if others do.
If the preponderance of evidence supports a guilty finding, I wouldn't lose any sleep.
Nema, I'd very much appreciate the info on modern medicines, developed on the coattails of Nazi research. Thanks!
Nema, you would be correct if I had said that I believe it is okay to undertake medical research requiring the death of innocents. I have not said this, nor would I. Whether or not existing medicines benefitted from past wrongs is no more relevant to
approving of the killing of innocents than is the fact that I continue to live my life even though there is probably some instance in an ancestor's past where that ancestor would have died if not for the death of an innocent. Having ethical views
does not depend on the entirety of human history having been perfect up until this point.
I found this discussion. It's a very complex ethical dilemma. The article is long. I just skimmed it, to be honest. But, it sheds light on the ethics of whether or not to use research results from Nazi experimentation. (Link in next comment.)
Let's get the government out of regulating life and death please.
Figure Texas to be the lone scar.
I'll let the big guy in the sky make the calls on life and death, I don't trust myself or any other human to be able to make that decision fairly.