Death penalty

But that blood was planted by a cop who used the N word in the past. It makes perfect sense. The cops who kept failing to take action against OJ as a wife beater because he was a famous, and wealthy, sports figure, then turned around and planted evidence against him. It's perfectly logical if you think about it.

 

No I haven't, but my dad has, and he wasn't destroyed for life or anything. He lived a long procuctive life thereafter and is now retired. Was he innocent? Not legally, but morally in my and my dads opinions. He refused military service for religious reasons.

Could you please stop making things either 0 or 1? Of course it's not right, and of course it's harmful. But it's less harmful than death. Otherwise death penalty would be on theft and prison for murder and rape.
Imagine someone does something harmful to you (whatever that may be), and you're damn sure you know who it is. So you beat the crap out of the guy. Later however you learn that you were mistaken. What can you do? You can try to explain why you thought he was guilty, and tell him you're sorry, ask for forgiveness and pay for his medical expenses. It still won't make it right, but at least it's not as terrible as if you had just shot him on the spot.

 

Yes, so long as you're not SENT TO DEATH FOR A CRIME YOU DIDN'T COMMIT! It has happened before, it will happen again.

Then your problem is the jail system. Look no further than where the problem resides.

 

I see dead people.

 

Death penalty is also a solution though, even if it is last resort, but it shouldn't be use for sake of revenge. It should only be use if the jail system is not good enough to contain the offender, instead of risking these offenders causing havoc in society again, death penalty is an option.

If the offender conforms to what's required in jail, than death penalty is not necessary. For severe crimes, life imprisonment is enough.

But as I see it, death penalty is use as an eye for an eye type thing, I just don't think it should be use like that.

 

I don't think death penalty is an option just because security is low. The whole point of a state governed by law is to achieve justice, not security. If you're going to apply the security argument, then you must apply it in other cases too. What if there's a murder case, and only two guys were at the crime scene, but no evidence can say who of them is guilty and they both blame each other. What do you do? Kill them both? Or even inprison them both? No, "innocent until proven guilty", and therefore both as released since noone can be bound to the crime. But this is a security risk, the murderer is going to be running loose in the public again, but this point come in second hand and justice first.

 

Your example is not a security risk that can be solved by death penalty.

Even if you put both suspect to death, there is still chance the real killer is on the lose.

Say terrorists who has taken over a building, death is one option to apprehend them. But if they were captured alive, once they're found guilty, death sentence shouldn't be handed down to them.

If they stayed in jail abiding the law, than death shouldn't be used. However, if they and their terrorist group are planning for their escape, than death is an option.

 

That's always a chance, so my example is equivalent and a good example why the security argument doesn't apply.

Here's you're talking about a ongoing action of violence. That's a whole different issue. Terrorism, acts of war, hostage case etc. In all these cases the lives of potential victims are valued above the lives of the suspect, though the goal is always to avoid violence if at all possible.

It's the same thing as with murder vs. self defence. Attacking and killing someone is wrong, while killing someone who's attacking isn't, if the situation demands it. It's a different thing to demand someone be killed because he is a potential security problem.

 

The "death penalty" LOL

Since when is death a form of punishment?? Do you people actually think the person is gonna suffer when he's dead?

Anyone ever heard of suicide?

Death is a way out...........

 

Like I said, death penalty is a last resort option, when it applied it needs to actually solve the problem. Not something to be taken lightly.

So you agree with self denfence reasoning as I take it ? So you basically have problem with death penalty after the guilty verdict is handed out in court ?

Potential security problem, I take it means he hasn't done anything wrong in prison ? The offender who was found guilty might have been serial killer who admitted to murder 50 people or a terrorist who ploted terrible actions, if the offender serves the sentence that was handed out (and I don't agree the sentence should be death penalty in this case either), than security risk is low. There is no need to seek out death penalty.

Its only when the offender made attempt to break out from prison, if the risk assesment said there is a very high chance of the offender succeed the next time, than death penalty is an option. Or if he succeeded in breaking out of prison and murder one more person or not, when the offender is caught again than death penalty is an option of many.

Its a serious option, not one to be taken lightly, its a last resort after all possible options are exhausted.