1. It presumes that our justice system, unlike any other human endeavor, is perfect. Yet we see examples of post conviction evidence exonerating men presumed guilty and sent to prison. There was recently a man in California released after 40 years in prison after a detective reported evidence of his innocence to the DA. Certainly we have executed innocent people.
2. For those who are truly guilty, it usurps any possibility for them to exercise repentance.
That doesn't mean I don't feel disgust at some of the crimes we read about and, from an emotional standpoint, wouldn't feel impelled to render the ultimate punishment. Emotions, however, are not an appropriate guide to sound policy.
If “we can’t be sure” about exacting the death penalty, then we can’t be sure about incarcerating someone for life either.
Most opposition to the death penalty is convenient cover for leniency against any criminals. Look at Mumia. He wasn’t executed and yet there is a massive campaign to have him freed although he executed a police officer in cold blood. Same with Charles Manson. His supporters were numerous, horrifyingly so.
Item #2 is actually a strong argument in FAVOR of the death penalty. A criminal facing imminent death may be far likely to be repentant than one who is not.
>> Emotions, however, are not an appropriate guide to sound policy.<<
In any truly civilized society those who maim, torture, or kill other people, and are without any doubt guilty of such a crime, should be tried, convicted, and publicly hanged within 10 days of the commission of their crime. No appeals and no exceptions.
TexasKamaAina,
The death penalty is the only way to make certain that monsters like Ted Bundy don’t kill again.
See, some people are so dangerous that killing them is necessary to prevent the further loss of innocent lives.
But I will concede that it should be used only in extraordinary circumstances and it should NEVER be used in any case in which circumstantial evidence is used to secure a conviction.
>>Emotions, however, are not an appropriate guide to sound policy.<<
In my view that old and trite cliche has no credibility due to the fact that such pronouncements concerning what is or is not “sound policy” are equally predicated on emotion.
Name one innocent person that was executed.
To your point #1, I think this is a good case for restricting...not limiting, the death penalty. The standard for conviction is “beyond a reasonable doubt”, but I would be fine with imposing “beyond a shadow of a doubt” standard for the DP. Use it only in cases such as the Ted Bundy’s, the night stalkers, the John Wayne Gacy’s where there is no doubt whatsoever.
As to point 2, I really don’t see that repentance is a state function, so from that standpoint it is irrelevant. I do believe God will forgive a repentant murderer, even at the point of execution. But that does not change the earthy consequences of ones actions.
I love Catholics, they are my brothers and sisters in Christ. But this pope is a fine example of why I could not be one. He is a man and not infallible...and although some would say that the infallibility only extends to doctrine, this example, or his stances on illegal immigration, or socialism show how easily ANYTHING can be dragged into the arena of doctrine.