Con: Let’s just do it quicker
May 8, 2012 • 185 views
Filed under Voice
The death penalty has been controversial for decades.
What is wrong with it?
Are there times when ending the person’s life, as to not risk the chance of a break out, or paying to imprison them for decades on end, is the best thing to do?
Maybe, but that’s up to you. But if we are going to execute prisoners then lets do it quickly.
However, with the huge amount of scientific evidence out there combined with things like surveillance, digital footprints and the many other tracking systems out there, we have a much higher degree of certainty than previous generations.
Is it 100 percent? No, it is not. If you’re on a jury and you demand 100 percent proof then vote not guilty on everything, because there is no such thing as a certain conviction, 100 perceent does not exist.
For everyone who believes in beyond a reasonable doubt (the criteria on which jurors are asked to judge cases on), 90 percent is beyond reasonable doubt.
The major problem with the current death penalty is the appeals process, the unlimited appeals are overkill now.
They make it so that a person convicted of the death penalty lives in solitary confinement for 30 years before being executed, if they are ever executed at all.
Of course a person should be allowed to appeal if they feel they are wrongly convicted. However if a person is convicted three times in a row then they are out.
Why should the country spend hundreds of thousands of dollars housing and prosecuting convicted criminals of the same crime over and over?
If a person is found guilty multiple times of the same crime by a jury of their peers then they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The death penalty’s morality comes down to the the jury that is judging the case.
If you agree with it then vote for it and if you don’t agree with it then don’t.
However if a state law allows it and a jury deems the death penalty worthy again and again and again, then it should be done.
Why spend more to execute someone than imprison them for life?
Don’t leave them in solitary confinement with their own cell and better food service. What’s wrong with general population? Seems like they should be put in the worst confinement seeing as how they received the worst conviction.
Should we let them appeal for 30 years of stalling?
No, they should be able to appeal, however there needs to be a limit on the number of appeals, something between three and five. Of course there should be time limit to these as well.
Perhaps the time period should be as long as 6 months to maybe a year between appeals.
However once they have run out of time they should be executed and see justice served as multiple juries of their peers have deemed necessary.