Are You For or Against The Death Penalty?

by minimus 264 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  undercover

  I'm for a form of the Death Penalty.

  There are plenty of cases where there is no doubt as to the guilt of the murderer. They were caught in the act, they confessed, etc. In those cases, I'm all for the death penalty.
  
  There are also plenty of cases where people are convicted on circumstantial evidence and there is no "smoking gun". In those cases, a life sentance would be better. You never know that maybe new evidence is found or a new way of determining who was at a crime scene. I know of a case where a guy was convicted of rape and murder. All the available evidence pointed to him. He was also known as a habitual criminal. It all fit. But 20 years later and DNA testing became available. Once he got the DNA testing done, it proved he wasn't the rapist or killer. He lost 20 years of his life for a crime he did not commit, but he was alive and free to go(with a good amount of money from the state) for all his troubles.
• 

  minimus

  UC, I totally agree with you. Do what they do in "uncivilized" countries and QUICKLY put those that are clearly guilty to death. Get rid of the killers right away and once and for all time.
• 

  not the administrator

  the fact that we let proper medical attention cost so much isn't that like supporting a death sentence for poor people?
• 

  sixsixsixtynine

  I'm for a form of the Death Penalty.

  There are plenty of cases where there is no doubt as to the guilt of the murderer. They were caught in the act, they confessed, etc. In those cases, I'm all for the death penalty.

  So as long as we are super-duper sure that they are guilty, it's okay?

  How many witnesses would we need? One...two...ten...a hundred? Would we need to have it on videotape, and a confession, and DNA?

  Sorry folks, it doesn't work that way. It's all or nothing.
• 

  trevor

  In the UK there is no death penalty for our own citizens who have murdered and are sometimes released and murder again. Hence they will not take life to protect their own citizens.

  But our government will kill people in other countries, including civilians, claiming they are doing it to protect us.
• 

  sixsixsixtynine

  and QUICKLY put those that are clearly guilty to death

  Again, what constitutes CLEAR guilt? We already have a standard for "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", that is far from infallible.
• 

  minimus

  YOU say it's all or nothing. Who made you the final judge? I don't know you but you seem to think that your opinion matters more than others. OK, I'll throw in Proplog in there with ya too.
• 

  minimus

  "Clear guilt" is when there is no doubt whatsoever that the person committed the crime. And if it makes you feel better, the perpertrator would also admit to it so that there's no question.
• 

  greendawn

  Yes they do deserve to be executed if there is absolutely no doubt that they killed someone and they are perfectly sane, especially those that kill for money. However in the past some innocent people did get wrongly executed.
• 

  minimus

  And some killers get off scot free too.