(January 21, 2016 at 12:12 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:(January 21, 2016 at 11:30 am)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: 1985 was before Texas and a few other states became infamous for rushing the death penalty, therefore I believe the antiquity of the article and the relative short span from the 1973 SCOTUS decision which allowed this says plenty without any follow-up.
Well...then, that is pretty fucked up. I didn't realize the stats were that high. I don't know if I'm ready to say 'ditch the whole thing,' though. There are serial killers in prison who CERTAINLY committed (and even confessed in detail to) the crimes they were convicted of: BTK, Charlie Manson, R. Ramirez (died, I know) for example. I don't see why capital punishment can't be reserved for only the most heinous crimes where the guilt of the accused is unquestionable and involves a legitimate, verifiable confession.
I'm pretty much in the same camp here. Although this is one topic that i've turned around on, from pro death penalty, to it's probably better without it, mostly just from looking at the statistics of innocent people wrongly convicted. Being an innocent person and executed by the state is what nightmares are. Although I still feel for someone like Debra Tate, Sharon Tate's sister, who's been to 30 parole hearings over 40+ years to keep Charlie Manson in jail. It seems like punishment to subject her to that type of anguish over and over again.
If water rots the soles of your boots, what does it do to your intestines?