-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Texas judge: Death penalty unconstitutional
- Thread starter Tarazet
- Start date
- Status
Frank the Great
Banned
Evilink said:
You ignored my entire post and all the reasoning I used to respond to half of one of my sentences with a rhetorical question. The point of my post wasn't to give a reason for alleged criminals to live, as your question implied I was doing. The point was that we are in no position to decide upon a man's life in any case, and that the only arguments I ever hear put forth are based on emotion and not reason.
If you have a good argument as to why we should kill potentially innocent people, then I honestly would love to hear it.
Asking "why should we let them live?" is not an answer. This question assumes that the problem of whether we are ethically allowed to kill people has already been solved...but that is what we are trying to figure out in the first place.
mugurumakensei
Member
diddlyD said:
Yea, they're also putting innocent people on death row too. So, "it's okay to kill innocent adults" is basically what they're saying. You can't exactly reverse the sentence after a person is executed. You can't bring back a father, mother, brother, sister, etc who was unjustly executed.
By that argument, the founders never intended that we should not have the death penalty for the crimes of witchcraft, horse theft, robbery, sodomy, slave revolt, aiding a runaway slave, forgery, counterfeiting, arson or for the crimes of juveniles or the mentally ill, which were all death penalty eligible offenses at the writing of the Constitution, though many of these have been declared cruel and unusual punishments as time has gone on.Krowley said:
From what I understand he also stacked the panel that's doing the investigation into that case. He is a shitbag, more concerned with his political career than actually finding out if anything is wrong with our justice system and fixing it.diddlyD said:
Hell, Texans do forgive, if he came out and was like "shit, this is FUCKED up, I fucked up, we all fucked up, we're going to fix this so we can have some faith in our death penalty again" people'd probably cheer him on, like him, none of us know shit about what happens in a fire, I don't think too many of his base would truly be against him if he admitted he was fooled by the original case, but apparently we care less about killing innocent people than we do the truth or actually fixing things.
Maybe that's our problem, we want to have faith in everything? Faith in religion, faith in justice, faith in our own righteousness, I don't see too many non religious people so afraid to tackle these kinds of things. Perhaps the part of the brain that makes people so sure of a faith allows them to believe strongly(have faith) in more things than just religion?
I should say so much over your stupid little blanket statement with the PC qualifier but I'll just let it slide and tell you you're confusing some things about Texas. We're actually pretty nice to others down here, you might say we're close minded, too sure of ourselves or cocky or whatnot but we're not asses to people. Your comment is full of shit.Zaptruder said:
empty vessel
Member
mAcOdIn said:
He had the same evidence we have now, which is the opinion of one of the nation's leading arson experts (Gerald Hurst) that (1) the arson testimony at trial was not based on science but on myth; and (2) there was no evidence--at all--of arson. The only thing we know in addition to that now is that more leading arson experts have weighed in with their own identical opinions. I sincerely believe Rick Perry could be charged with (and convicted of) manslaughter--i.e., reckless homicide--for his role in Cunningham's death. Under Texas criminal law, "A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint." In a fair world in which justice existed, Perry would serve as much as 20 years in prison (the max punishment for manslaughter) for his actions.
Frank the Great
Banned
As for the whole abortion/death penalty debate, there IS a contradiction if you believe that abortion is unjust and the death penalty is just.
With abortion, there is a competition between the right of the unborn baby to life, and the right of the mother to bodily integrity. Whether you agree that the mother's right trumps the baby's is up for debate, but the competition is there and is debatable. Just like in war, each side has a right to life that is threatened so they are justified in killing each other. If you believe that the baby's right to life is more important than the mother's right to not have her body used against her will, then you are against abortion rights and abortion is unjust to you. You are "pro-life."
However, in the death penalty example, there is no competition of rights. It is simply a killing. The right of the convict to not be killed does not compete with any other right. It is simply an emotional killing based on intangible concepts such as revenge. Ethically, if you are pro-life in the abortion case, you value the right to life so much that it trumps the mother's right. In the death penalty case, the right to life doesn't compete with anything so you should definitely be against such an unnecessary killing.
With abortion, there is a competition between the right of the unborn baby to life, and the right of the mother to bodily integrity. Whether you agree that the mother's right trumps the baby's is up for debate, but the competition is there and is debatable. Just like in war, each side has a right to life that is threatened so they are justified in killing each other. If you believe that the baby's right to life is more important than the mother's right to not have her body used against her will, then you are against abortion rights and abortion is unjust to you. You are "pro-life."
However, in the death penalty example, there is no competition of rights. It is simply a killing. The right of the convict to not be killed does not compete with any other right. It is simply an emotional killing based on intangible concepts such as revenge. Ethically, if you are pro-life in the abortion case, you value the right to life so much that it trumps the mother's right. In the death penalty case, the right to life doesn't compete with anything so you should definitely be against such an unnecessary killing.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Evilink said:
That is the problem with the death penalty. 'Conclusive evidence' isn't always right. Many innocent people have been put to death. It's incredibly sad.
Well I agree with you on what to do with Rick Perry and everyone involved in the appeals process but I stand by my statement because....empty vessel said:
You can not prove he did not intentionally start the fire only that the theory they had on how the the fire started was completely wrong, Hurst can't even say for certain where or how the fire started. Regardless, that's not important, our whole process is about proving guilt, not innocence, anything that casts suspicion alone is enough to set a person free in my book, yes free, not granting a stay of execution but letting them go.
But actually, I just read that whole article on the case and someone said the same thing I did, that they did not prove to them that he was innocent, you know, I would execute everyone in government serving in some capacity in our justice system who believes that, that is completely fucking backwards and no one of that mentality should be in any position of power over others in our justice system.
What is there to not understand? The worst part about death penalty leading up to it, but after that they don't even exist to care about what happened to them. They're just turned off. That to me doesn't make up for the crime they committed, it just does the same thing back.Freshmaker said:
I never really thought of this angle and I wonder how much this plays into things. I have not studied criminal law or jury trials much. But I wonder if different regions have different expectations, which lead to different conviction rates. Like maybe some areas of the country, the jurors believe the defendant needs to prove his/her innocence, and other places are the reverse and are distrustful of cops. I've always heard that some prosecutors complain about the CSI effect--some jurors are always demanding the prosecution come forth with tons of DNA and forensic evidence because they see it happen on CSI. I also wonder if the way the local area snags in jurors also effects things (some places are easier to avoid jury duty than others, and of course people that move a lot, don't have driver's licenses, or register to vote, are less likely to be selected) and therefore maybe skews jury boxes towards older people.mAcOdIn said:
jamesinclair
Banned
"Fine, a Democrat who is heavily tattooed and says he is a recovering alcoholic and former cocaine user, answered some of the criticism on Friday during a court hearing."
How is this relevant at all?
How is this relevant at all?
Squirrel Killer
Member
I'm against the death penalty for most if not all of the usual reasons; judgments have been reached in error, the fact that the process is reversible but the punishment is not, the process is too expensive and drawn out (which is not a valid reason to speed the process up,) by any measure, the punishment is unequally meted out by race and/or gender, that the cruelty of the punishment is incalculable since we can ask those that have received it, it's a disconcerting use of government power, the executioner has to live with the ethical ramifications of his job (even more so when the executioner is a doctor,) and the potential for errors makes the whole process barbaric.Brazil said:
That said, if I only go on what the quoted story says, it sounds like the judge didn't put much weight behind his declaration, so I'd expect this to get reversed on appeal.
Fetuses, the new mass murderers. Great comparison.goomba said:
theignoramus
Member
i`m not opposed to war criminals receiving the death penalty. the nuremberg trials defines wars of agression as the gravest, most dastardly crime because ``to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole`
War criminals and those guilty of crimes against humanity deserve to die by firing squad, but I`m somewhat hesitant on the death penalty outside of this application.
War criminals and persons guilty of crimes against humanity are almost always acting in some sort of official capacity, and their culpability is generally unmistakable.
War criminals and those guilty of crimes against humanity deserve to die by firing squad, but I`m somewhat hesitant on the death penalty outside of this application.
War criminals and persons guilty of crimes against humanity are almost always acting in some sort of official capacity, and their culpability is generally unmistakable.
Frank the Great
Banned
Squirrel Killer said:
I thought I showed pretty well how being pro-life and pro-death penalty can be a contradiction in my last post. If I did a poor job please let me know, I'm planning on using these arguments in class.
empty vessel
Member
numble said:
I have experience in the field. I can tell you that, probably just about anywhere in the US with the possible exception of New York City (and maybe a couple other cities), jurors are heavily predisposed to believe and trust the State--think about the famous Stanley Milgram experiment. The presumption is supposed to be that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty, and that the State has the burden to prove guilt. As a practical (and psychological) matter, when you factor in jurors' predisposition to believe authority figures (not only police officers who testify but also the district attorneys representing the State who implicitly vouch for the defendant's guilt by conducting the prosecution), the really-existing presumption in fact runs strongly the other way.
Most lay people do not realize that many lawyers--including many prosecutors--are not very bright. They think the prosecutors know more information about the case than they hear at trial and take the very act of the prosecution itself as evidence of the defendant's guilt. This problem is most severe in the deep South, where people tend to be disproportionately more authoritarian and obedient to the State. When you then factor in the huge problem in some states--again, particularly in the South where public defender systems are not common--of the extremely low quality of the defense bar, things go to hell pretty quickly. Some states give bar cards out like candy, and, unfortunately, some of the worst of the worst gravitate towards the criminal justice system where they can make pretty good livings on court appointments not doing shit for their clients. Willingham (I mistakenly said Cunningham in my prior post) fell victim to all of this.
Squirrel Killer
Member
Your presumption that the two issues can be viewed through a prism of a "competition of rights" is not universally held. To the pro-lifer, the right to life of the <insert development stage pro-lifer chooses to hang their hat on> trumps the right to do whatever a woman wants to do with her body. (Also, granting <dev stage> rights, which you inherently do by setting up this rhetorical "competition of rights," is loser argument. "Life" trumps pretty much everything.)Frank the Great said:
But to the pro-death penalty-er, the lack of competition doesn't matter. The convicted criminal has somehow forfeited his/her right to life by the commission of their criminal act. (The paradox that gets me is how criminals can forfeit their right to life, but terminally ill patients can't.)
That's not to say you can't make your argument, just be aware that it only holds up under the perspective that the lack of competition matters. It's like arguing against universal health care by only arguing cost, the first person to stand up and mention quality of care makes you look like an idiot.
numble said:
I would expect that in many cases those were removed via actual legislation, and not judicial action, but I haven't done the research, so I can't be sure. Regardless, it doesn't change my opinion at all.
As a general rule, I prefer legislative action over judicial moral decisions with no basis in law. If the people want to change things, and they should, it's up to them to elect legislators with the courage to make changes, and stick by them when things get tough.
Not that I'm arguing in favor of the death penalty in any way, and I certainly won't shed a tear if someone avoids execution based on the actions of this judge. It's actually a very courageous thing he is doing, especially in Texas, but it's not really a legitimate legal action. It's basically the equivalent of civil disobedience in the service of a right cause.
Frank the Great
Banned
I mostly get what you're saying Squirrel, but the only reason I view both issues through a competition of rights is because I don't really see any other way of doing it. If we believe in natural rights, then those rights cannot be taken away by men in a just manner unless they lose out to other, more important natural rights.
This part is where you find the fundamental flaw in my reasoning but I don't really see how it stands on its own:
This just doesn't make sense to me. If we accept that rights are divine, how can a human court remove them? (Only a court can determine whether a convicted criminal has "forfeited" his right to life, after all.) If a pro-death-penalty-er uses this argument, they are assuming that courts have the power to determine when a right is lost, which is basically what we are trying to figure out in the first place. It's kind of assuming as a premise the conclusion which it seeks.
This part is where you find the fundamental flaw in my reasoning but I don't really see how it stands on its own:
Squirrel Killer said:
This just doesn't make sense to me. If we accept that rights are divine, how can a human court remove them? (Only a court can determine whether a convicted criminal has "forfeited" his right to life, after all.) If a pro-death-penalty-er uses this argument, they are assuming that courts have the power to determine when a right is lost, which is basically what we are trying to figure out in the first place. It's kind of assuming as a premise the conclusion which it seeks.
Nonsense, the fact I take your comments seriously have nothing to do with me being a cock bag.Zaptruder said:
What the fuck is a cock bag? lol
All you do is hurl insults and generalities without adding anything or partaking in any discussion, a cock bag would probably be a better replacement poster and more fun as well.
It's tough love, I still love you all the same
I would agree with all of this. Sadly.empty vessel said:
What????Frank the Great said:
That's assuming that two "rights" are even equal.
Further that's assuming that pro-lifers believe in the right to life in the strictest sense or the pursuit of life. You don't have to believe that everything has the right to live to be a pro-lifer, just that everything has the right for a chance to live, that's a very different stance. I think believing everyone has a right to live is just silly, too ideological for me and not based in reality. Humans as a species are violent and simple creatures. We come up with these rights, laws and society in an attempt to maintain order and bring some semblance of civilization to ourselves but at the end of the day we can not escape the fact that the only true laws we are bound by are natures and no others. If someone were truly pro-life then even killing someone in self defense or war should be a travesty, someone is free to hold that view if they wish, I really don't care but it's an incredibly simple, unrealistic, unnatural and naive world view. Now, if one accepts that you do have the right to kill in self defense then clearly there is a right to kill that we have.
So taking that into account, that killing is sometimes justifiable, I find the position that capitol punishment is wrong because there is no right ever to kill and that everyone has the right to life laughable and hopelessly flawed.
Now, that's not to say I'm inflexible on my view of the death penalty, which as I've stated I support in theory. Everything Empty Vessel said about the perils of our system is true, I can't vouch for 100% because I have only limited exposure to it and even to the smaller extent that I know of to be true is more than enough for me to state that I currently can not support this current legal system using the death penalty. Currently, using the system we have now, I think it is a total injustice to carry out death sentences.
You've seen me state that I support the death penalty in absolute certain circumstances and that's true, I do, I always will. So as an idea I always will support the death penalty. The problem lies in whether it is even possible for us as a people to ever get all the conditions including valid scientific investigations, competent lawyers for both sides, jurors not predisposed to believing the defendant is guilty and a universally acceptable understanding of what "beyond a shadow of doubt" means. There are many, many cases that I have doubt on that 12 people clearly thought were open and shit cases, that just may be something that despite all the preaching you do at the beginning of a trial, despite all the education in the world you just may not ever be able to undo that.
So in the end, while I'm for the idea of the death penalty I am probably against the idea of a governmental applied death penalty. I just don't think it's possible to get all the players involved to the degree that my take on certainty requires.
What's even sadder is, throwing out the concept of the death penalty at all for a second, beyond a reasonable doubt is supposed to be the standard to convict anyone of any sentence not just the death penalty. So not only do we know[/i] we have lots of innocent people, at least of the crimes they were sentenced for, people sitting in jail but I also think it highly probable if not 100% certain that we've already executed innocent people in our justice system.
Frank the Great
Banned
mAcOdIn, so you don't think natural rights exist? Perfectly understandable, and that's the reason my post didn't make any sense to you. A premise of that post was that natural rights exist, if you disagree with that then everything I've been saying falls apart. And I want to make clear that I'm not passing judgment, it's not exactly a given that natural rights exist, I was just arguing as if they do because I think most people have that intuition, especially in America.
mAcOdIn said:
I've been through the death penalty discussion more times than I can remember.
My position on the death penalty was summarized by the pithy statement that the modern death penalty is the equivalent of a blood sport.
It's for the satisfaction of our societal lust for blood, violence and our baser instincts.
We try to hide this fact via the justification that these people are no longer people; they've forfeited their right to live, blah blah blah.
Many men sentenced to the death penalty may well deserve their fate. But in my honest opinion, it simply lessens us as a society to partake in their deaths. In part, the death sentence is a society condoning killing as a solution to problems.
But that's an american thing. Australia abolished the death sentence long before I was even born. This country (and many others) have taken a stand and said; fuck that shit, we don't need it to fufill our high standards of justice.
Squirrel Killer
Member
You're trying to find absolute truths for an ethical debate, it's not going to happen.Frank the Great said:
It's fine for you to view the issues in a certain way and come to a conclusion based on that perspective. It's fine to make an argument based on that perspective and it's fine to attempt to persuade people to adopt your perspective. You can make a compelling speech to that effect, and depending on the setting and context it may be entirely appropriate.
However, just because that's the only way you can see it doesn't mean that others will. So if this school assignment that you're constructing these arguments for allows for a challenge from another presenter or will be viewed critically by a teacher or other judge, be aware that you're leaving your flank open. Your whole argument is destroyed in a ten second opening, "While Frank brings a new and interesting approach to the topic, we can all agree that there's no "competition of rights" (they will use the rhetorical middle finger "air quotes") when issuing the death penalty. Rather, these hardened criminals have earned their punishment, yada yada yada..."
Look, I'm pro-choice because I know enforcement is impossible, but since I know that's not a winning argument, that's not the only one I make in debate or back-and-forth discussion contexts.
Well, if we're going the whole religious divine rights angle (which is a big presumption even when you're talking about pro-lifers/pro-death penalty-ers,) my understanding is that Christian and Muslim religious texts are pretty OK with the whole human "eye for an eye" system of justice, so that wouldn't be a stumbling block to pro-lifers/pro-death penalty-ers.Frank the Great said:
If we're going off Declaration of Independence's "unalienable rights," pro-lifers/pro-death penalty-ers would probably use prison as denying liberty for a convenient escape from your paradox.
Squirrel Killer
Member
Which makes it a bad premise.Frank the Great said:
Maybe, but that could also mean that we try and hide the fact that as a species we're animals by holding ourselves up to "higher standards."Zaptruder said:
As a member of society you partake in many deaths, indirectly we all have a shitload of blood on our hands and opposing the death penalty on the grounds of lessening yourselves by partaking in it is merely a means of placating ones conscious. The universe doesn't care about some mass murderer, fate doesn't care, Karma doesn't care, I don't believe there is a God that cares, and as you probably feel deep down inside, you yourself probably don't care about that person, the only thing you care about is living up to some self imposed standard so that when you go to a zoo or some shit you can feel as if you're some kind of higher being.
Now, I can partly agree with your statement as I believe there is more than enough evidence that no current legal system in the world is capable of properly doling out capital punishment so perhaps many people who despite these not so hidden flaws in all of our systems still wish there government to partake are doing it out of some desire to kill but I don't think the concept and the human execution of the concept mean the same thing.
mAcOdIn said:
What the hell is this bullshit? Do you just like typing words, or do you actually read the shit you right?
You're pretty much wallowing in a self-made puddle of angst at this point.
If you're going to take this position, you might as well ask yourself, why do we bother trying to rise above our baser nature?
Frank the Great said:
in the cases where a mother's life is in stake, this would be valid. i'm confidently guessing that the amount of abortions that happen where a mother's life is in stake are less than one percent. in the other 99% of cases, your statement is absurd. you're saying a mother's convenience vs the child's right to life is debatable? yikes!
a proven murderer who acted deliberately has shown he's capable of doing such a thing (that's a big deal, most people are incapable of this act), and the only way to make sure it doesn't happen again is to end his life. who knows what can happen over 60 years in prison: escape, release from overcrowding, prison violence, etc. there are plenty of examples of these things happening, leading to more murders. and execution is a valid punishment, not murder, just like imprisonment isn't kidnapping and fines aren't theft.
ideally everyone who is executed is guilty. i still believe that in recent history they all have been. people with agendas try and spin stories to make it seem one or another were innocent, but when you read all the facts, it's always obvious they were guilty; like that guy in texas people above mentioned who burned his children up in his house. read the court case. he did it. he got the proper sentence. but even if 1 out of a thousand are not totally deserving of the sentence, the other 999 murderers who are out of commission are worth it in my opinion.
Squirrel Killer
Member
What if you're the one?diddlyD said:
Why would I read what I type? For the satisfaction of both having the thought and then reading the thought? Sounds like a waste of time.Zaptruder said:
Angst is one feeling I don't believe I've ever felt and it surely does not apply here. If somehow accepting and even embracing myself somehow fits the definition of angst, well then I like it. But truthfully, if I were to want to use angst correctly, unlike yourself, it would apply more to someone like yourself who is, or believes we all should be, in constant struggle to improve ourselves. That fits angst way more than my perspective on things.
Ehh? For one, if the problem people have is the case itself, what difference would reading that case serve?diddlyD said:
As for the assertion that 1 innocent person's worth 999, why? I mean, I can easily see situations in where someone would do that if there was one person amongst a fucking group of dudes about to set off a bomb that'd kill even more, or one person left outside some door and opening it kills everyone, I get the argument, Spock's "the need of the many outweigh the need of the one(or few I forget)" but in this case it doesn't fit because you don't have to kill that man to keep the other 999 off the streets.
The problem is that you can't reverse a sentence like that once it is carried out.diddlyD said:
With jail time, you can always release someone when the mistake in the conviction is revealed. No, you can't give them their time back, but you can set them free.
With execution, you can't do that. Once it's done, it's done. You can't bring back someone executed on a wrongful ocnviction, just like you can't bring back the victims of murder from the dead.
I agree that ideally, every person who receives the death penalty is guilty, but we happen to not have a perfect system where every verdict is correct. And in consideration of the innocent who receive the misfortune of a wrongful conviction, the death penalty is just too severe to exist in an imperfect system.
slidewinder
Banned
99% of your posts are complete fucking shit, but this one isn't.mAcOdIn said:
slidewinder
Banned
What kind of experience? What kind of (professional, presumably) experience do you have that gives you insight into how well, say, PD systems work, comparatively, in various parts of the country?empty vessel said:
I'm not asking you to rat yourself out with specificity, but just to narrow things down a little at least. Where are you coming from?
The death penalty is an archaic, savage, pointless penalty and its supporters are barbaric idiots who think seeing blood makes anything right. The fact that a few supposed modern countries still make use of this form of penalty speaks volumes about how far we have to go before living in a civilized world. The neanderthals still roam the earth and make decisions on life and death.
slidewinder
Banned
I hear those neanderthals are some tough motherfuckers.
Patrick Bateman
Member
Maybe it's a simple point of view of mine, but I don't get how a state can continue to speak out death penalties where earlier prisoners, who received the death sentence appeared to be innocent. I know that this point has been mentioned quite often and is one of THE main points of people opposing the death penalty. But I still don't get how politicans can accept the death of innocents "just" to continue painting a fair picture of revenge or justice.
So they put an innocent man (who's three daughters just died in a fire) in prison for 12 years and then killed him even after evidence was found that the fire wasn't arson but was "just a fire".numble said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham:
How do these people sleep at night? The governor basically cancels the meeting two days before it happens, and it's so completely obvious to everyone what's going on. How can our society fail us this badly?
Yea, listen, dude. You may now be known as the first governor to preside over the execution of a factually innocent person, but you know...that's a lot better than a) losing three kids, b) being falsely imprisoned for 12 years, and then c) being murdered by the legal system and government that is supposed to protect you.
I don't support the death penalty at all but I also don't agree with what this judge is trying to do. If we, as Americans, are actually going to stop putting people to death then it has to be something we come to through legislation. It has to be something we give up, not something that is taken from us. Otherwise, we'll forever fight to get it back.
The death penalty has always been a difficult issue for me.
There are some people, I believe, who do indeed deserve it. They've earned the full right to be put down.
Nonetheless, I partially oppose it for a few reasons: a.) you still can never know that the person did it, so you might be killing someone for no reason and b.) I have some issue with the government being the ones who decide who lives and who doesn't.
There are some people, I believe, who do indeed deserve it. They've earned the full right to be put down.
Nonetheless, I partially oppose it for a few reasons: a.) you still can never know that the person did it, so you might be killing someone for no reason and b.) I have some issue with the government being the ones who decide who lives and who doesn't.
I´m against death penalty (lol, soft on crime Yurop guy).
But even if you´re pro death penalty from a ethical or moral point of view, the uncertainity factor and the fact that innocent people have been killed, making the executioner no better or even worse than the person gassed/injected/hanged, should be enough not to apply it.
Few things are foolproof andin Germany we had a case of a phantom woman commiting murders and other crimes all oer Germany and even neighbouring countries. Turns out that some dumb pitch packaging the q-tips for forensic test contaminated them. With humans involved everything can and will be screwed up.
But even if you´re pro death penalty from a ethical or moral point of view, the uncertainity factor and the fact that innocent people have been killed, making the executioner no better or even worse than the person gassed/injected/hanged, should be enough not to apply it.
Few things are foolproof andin Germany we had a case of a phantom woman commiting murders and other crimes all oer Germany and even neighbouring countries. Turns out that some dumb pitch packaging the q-tips for forensic test contaminated them. With humans involved everything can and will be screwed up.
- Status