Given our judicial system is not perfect, why do we have the death penalty?

[OtterMan68]

Since 1973, 197 people have been freed from death row. Some because of prosecutorial (government) misconduct, and some have been freed because the court (government) appointed attorney was incompetent or failed to properly do his job.

As long as our judicial system is prone to mistakes, shouldn't the death penalty be off the table? Life in prison as the max gives the person more time to appeal.

Should the government have control over matters of life and death? Do we trust the government that much?

Yes, it's OK if a few innocent people slip through the cracks and end up on death row

No, it's cruel and unusual for an innocent person to be on death row, little less killed by his own government

Updates

12 d

The fact anyone is OK with innocent people being sentenced to death is a sad statement on the US

Updates

11 d

if you're OK with innocent people be given the death penalty, you're sick

[Juxtapose]

I completely and utterly repudiate the very concept of the government being able to kill someone who is locked in a cell. Whoever thinks the government deserves the power of life or death has not looked into Hitler or Stalin very much..

The criminal is already not a threat to the population.. killing them only serves evil, sadistic revenge.

[OtterMan68]

yes, I find it ironic when people say "I don't trust the government with my guns or my money, but heck yeah, I trust them with matters of life & death!"

[Juxtapose]

It's a strange mental deficiency with our species that I hope is corrected before our extinction.

[Juxtapose]

Thanks for mho. This is definitely one of the things we agree firmly on.

[Juxtapose]

Kind of wish more people answered this question though.

[Kaneki05]

Or you just kill people who've been proven without a doubt. Like Bundy, Gacy etc. That's what they should do.

[OtterMan68]

hasn't everone who has ever been convicted of a capital offense been convicted becuase the jury felt they were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

[Kaneki05]

Feeling it is not proving it without a doubt. The Jury go based on what they most likely feel to be true from the evidence. Most cases are convicted purely on bias which is the absurd thing about the law.

[OtterMan68]

so should we do away with jury trials for capital offenses and just let the judge decide?

[Kaneki05]

I mean in reality you need a computer or a upstanding psychopath who's not bias at all to judge.
But we can't do that yet at least. So you still need all that rubbish. But that rubbish should never lead to a death penalty.
Death should be only considered when it's undoubtfully proven.
Like we've got him on Camera or it's Dahmer with body parts in his fridge.

[Akam93]

Well if there is hard core evidence that a certain person committed a very evil crime then yeah they should get the death penalty.

[OtterMan68]

hasn't everone who has ever been convicted of a capital offense been convicted becuase the jury felt they were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

[msc545]

No. A lot of people have been convicted and executed simply because the jury was angry at them. Whether or not they thought the person was really guilty was beside the point.

[OtterMan68]

@msc545 so should juries not be used in capital crimes?

[msc545]

There should be no such thing as capital crimes. We need to do away with the death penalty.

[msc545]

The death penalty is evil and barbaric. The law should not function to satisfy the vengeful urges of the population.

[jahaims]

To appease the public and make it seem like justice exists