Actually I think most would agree. If the crime is hideous and the evidence is overwhelming, the death penalty is warranted.
Sorry for the late reply. I was on vacation. I agree, but we can just say certain things are off limits. Because this isnt just some bully cop giving someone a ticket because they dont like them. This is an innocent persons life. To me that makes all the difference. Since we cannot protect against corrupt police, or judges, then we have to take other steps to protect innocent life. If that includes the removal of the death pentalty, then so be it.
I agree here. But sometimes circumstances matter. Hence why we have 1-3 degree murder. Should a 1st degree murderer ever be let back into society? Never. I can even see that argument made for second degree. But not for third degree / manslaughter.
Sometimes there is just irrefutable evidence.....even admission of guilt in 1st degree cases. That is where death is warranted. Not just as a deterrent but to get them off the face of the earth. I agree with you.
Incompetence is completely different than a state willingly putting someone to death over a crime they did not commit.
incompetence is incompetence. malpractice is malpractice. the only thing that makes medical incompetence/malpractice resulting in death different than prosecutorial malpractice/defense attorney incompetence resulting in death is the frequency in which it occurs
no, we are talking the duplicity involved with DP opponents who freak out over the possibility that an innocent person might be wrongly convicted and executed, while quietly [morally] accepting that medical mistakes will wrongly kill tens of thousands of innocent people every year.
Not sure that I get you - who could possibly disagree with that? We're talking about the death penalty for someone who did commit??
I support in cases where DNA has proven the guilt and there is zero doubt, the murderer confessed to the crime, or in cases where there is overwhelming evidence such as in the case of Nikolas Cruz of the Parkland High school shooting.
How about the other side of the coin. Killers who when released kill again. Some real dandies in this group. https://owlcation.com/social-sciences/Killers-Who-Kill-Again
The things is..... this question must be applied in two directions........... Since many murderers..... kill more than once........ Some like Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer far, far, far , far more than merely once...... their receiving the death penalty stops them from killing more people.......... So I went with 1 - 5 percent.......... Even occasionally if somebody guilty only of car theft..... selling crack....... and armed robbery.... .but not actually the murder of the specific person they were accused of murdering................. got the death penalty...................... if it reduced repeat offences of murder by eighty percent of murders...... it would be worth the risk under these present conditions...... .in my opinion.............
I mean, obviously I dont want murderers released back into the general population. I am not sure I understand the point of the question though.
I agree, but most public defenders CANNOT do the "due diligence" based just on their case load, and the needed funds to properly defend a capitol case. the court system today is so overwhelmed that they simply cannot provide an adequate defense.
Because putting a man to death, and trying to save a mans life are absolutely 100% not the same. Not even in the same ball park. Not even the same GAME. It has 0% to do with agenda. We recognize that no system is perfect. So should an imperfect system be used to put people to death? I dont think so.
We have I think, a rightful obligation to not perform punishment in a cruel an unusual form. Even if said person did something totally horrendous. Its a sign we are better than they are. That we are more civilized. Its what we do.