I’m in complete agreement and I did successfully argue for the death penalty in my debate class. No one in the class could come up with an opposing argument.
If I had my way, people with cast iron evidence against them would be given a date of execution one week after the trial ends. One appeal and then an interview with a clemency board and then after, the sentence would be carried out.
It would simplify things.
As for a trial, it would have to be exhaustive; nothing should be allowed to be left out and there should be some mitigating factors (genuinely insane people would be locked in an asylum for the rest of their lives) and abuse victims would just get time in jail until their issues are sorted out.
As for people who are so obviously guilty, I believe that it would be better if in fact a speedy timeline were set up. No more waiting around twenty years for automatic appeals.
- You think the death penalty serves justice because it's an "eye for an eye." Fair enough except for one problem: Somebody has already paid "an eye for an eye" for those criminals and their heinous acts, so unjust double jeopardy is in play here.
- What about the victims and their family? Countless personal and professional examples testify to the fact that there is only one way victims of savagery can recover from the hurt and angst of victimization: forgiveness. Revenge feels good for awhile but does not relieve the pain.
- What about society? You lock up dangerous criminals to protect society.
- What about the cost? Oh, OK well I guess there is such thing as killing for convenience, but let's take another tack which hits directly at our medieval penal system: prisoners should be productive and at least pay their way in prison.