Originally Posted by
khutch
In theory I have no quarrel with the death penalty. Maybe that seems inconsistent since I don't support eye for eye justice that would inflict lesser injuries on guilty parties. In my opinion that would be a foolish consistency however and some individuals simply deserve to die for their deeds. Unfortunately I must reject the death penalty because human beings cannot administer it fairly. When DNA testing became available the attorneys for one Illinois death row inmate demanded and got a test of his DNA against DNA evidence collected at the crime scene. It proved the inmate was innocent. In short order every death row inmate that could be tested was tested and a surprising number were innocent, I don't recall the percentage. I would imagine that other states had similar results when DNA testing came in. The state of Texas once argued before the US Supreme court that one of their death row inmates had no right to a review of new evidence that might exonerate him because he had been fairly convicted before the evidence came to light and the state had the right to execute him whether he was guilty or not! This was reported on NPR in the 1990's. It is perfectly clear that states have and will murder innocent people in the name of "justice" because they are incompetent, or worse. That is the most horrific thing I can imagine in a democracy so I can no longer support the death penalty.
Ken
I was wondering when this would be stated. I find it interesting that people are horrified by the chance that an innocent is killed, but do not seem to be AS bothered by the fact that a guilty person who is not put to death going out and killing someone again. Or some other crime.
I'd be interested to know the stats ( theory here because we know it could never happen) on innocent people being put to death versus the number of crimes of people who would have been put to death after they are released.
For starters I wonder which is the greater innocent death toll?
To address a different side of this: I'm almost certain (did discuss this in a college class a few years ago) that those who were innocent were 1) in the south 2) black 3) had been sentenced 30-40 years ago.
Do not take this as I'm saying it's OK, but I would imagine that due to a change in the times the number of innocents would be less today. However, maybe that's just wishful thinking to a man who got out of Georgia and hasn't been back in a while.