Quote from: AverageGlabella on May 16, 2018, 09:21:44 AM

Quote from: blazingcherub on April 25, 2018, 10:43:23 PM

Quote from: joms123 on April 16, 2018, 12:19:57 AM

My opinion is Mixed.

I recognize that the state has the authority to administer the death penalty. I have no problem with this, in principal. However, it is poorly administered and does not perform its function well if at all.The death penalty is inequitably administered. Everyone knows this. If you are poor and/or a minority, you are vastly more likely to be given death than if you are wealthy/white.

Thats unacceptable.

Additionally, programs like the innocence project have proved that many people presently on death row were in fact innocent and had been improperly convicted, either by incompetent representation, faulty evidence, jury bias, or prosecutorial malfeasance. (withholding exculpatory evidence, not putting contrary witnesses on the stand)

Thats horrifying.

There is nothing to add to this. If there was 100% justice in courts I would gladly support capital punishment for murderers. But people (incl. judges, jury, police et c.) are often corrupt and greedy and making mistakes and neglecting their duties so there is no small chance to execute innocent person. In such case (in terms of revenge which is the reason why caspital punishment supportes are so agressively defending it) there should be also capital punishment for judges, police officers and prosecutors who have convicted innocent person and for lawyer who didn't do his best to defend his client if it was proved later that executed person was innocent. Or, maybe just make execution of innocent person equal with first-degree murder with appropriate punishment for those involved in it. That would be fair.

Otherwise it looks like:

- Robber broke in to a house and killed the old lady living there
- Execute him!

- Jury sent innocent father of three to electric chair
- They have to say "I'm sorry"

When do you draw the line too? If a robber broke into your house and made it obvious that they wasn't interested in confrontation and try to run away yet the home owner kills him for breaking and entering who's the one that should be put up on trial?

This depends on the situation and what country you are located in. But in my opinion breaking into an house isn't the same as murdering someone. Quite often people turn to theft when they are struggling yet they don't actually mean any physical harm. I've had a burglar come to my home and caught him. He try to explain rather nervously that he's struggling and didn't mean no harm and agreed to leave quietly.

I let him go and told actually gave him some advise about consulting a professional to deal with his issues. I never saw or heard from him again but I hope that he's taken my advice and gotten himself out of the rut he was in.

The only time you should take a life is if they are trying to take yours and it's out of self defense. Capital punishment isn't doing this but acting on the behalf of a jury on whether someone should be executed or not. Which as you mentioned are easily bribed etc.

I totally agree with you! But my point is:
- When thief murders soneone he most likely will be sentenced to capital punishment or long term imprisonment.
- But when judge or jury and prosecutor, careless lawyer et c. are murdering person (i. e. executing the innocent person) they bear no responcibility.

That's disgusting injustice!