(June 19, 2011 at 6:14 am)martin02 Wrote: I'm taking it as as comment, but back to my argument; we can be wrong with absolute state of the art impunity. An appeal to getting it right doesn't go to the fallibility of the justice system, and invoking this argument begs the question of it being a double edged sword. Opponents of the death penalty have to accept the certainty of releasing the guiltiest imaginable party as much as supporters have to accept killing the wrong people. For this reason I don't think fallibility should constitute the heart of either side's argument.
Ignoring fallibility momentarily, let's take an example already cited; Timothy Evans, now accepted to have been hung for one of his neighbor John Christie's murders. Christie murdered at least four more times (not including Evans himself) before he was caught. Regarding this as a result of the penalty rater than prosecution, how do support feel about the state becoming Christie's accessory? With Evans alive in jail there was at least some possibility of his evidence leading to further investigation. For opponents, those four more murders Christie got off? Even if he'd been imprisoned, he could have killed again.
Mart you bring up a good point. I think to both sides of the argument there are good reasons as to why we should have the death penalty and why we shouldn't.
At the end of the day it all comes down to what the individual's own ideas of morality are. Some will say you shouldn't reward murder with murder, others won't see the problem.
Humans will likely argue about this till the end of time. So I think if it is to be legal or illegal, let the people of the country vote, and go with the majority. I personally don't have too many gripes with the death penalty, but I could understand if everyone else disagrees and decided not to have it. The way it is now, I don't think is a problem for me at all, it's just I would have it differently if I could. But again, it's nothing more than personal preference.
