I used to be 100% for it, but as I get older the more I start to question my support for it as well. I have no problem with it being used for treason, crimes against humanity and desertion in the face of the enemy during a time of declared war, but I start to wonder about it otherwise.

There have been nearly 300 persons serving sentences for rape or murder - the majority of them life - who were later exonerated by DNA evidence since its use became in vogue around the beginning of the 1990s. Almost all of them involved eye witnesses who got it wrong, prosecutorial misconduct, or shoddy defense work and even still had their cases survive the appeals and review processes. While I oppose capital punishment on moral grounds, the latter should given anyone pause who believes our justice system to be air tight.

There isn't always DNA in every case and DNA can be misleading too, if you come to my house today and fall and scrape your knee, should traces of your DNA on my porch be used to convict you tomorrow if the murder succeeds in not leaving any DNA?

To clarify I'm not advocating that DNA is the end all for convictions. I'm just saying what would be wrong if it's a requirement in order to issue a death penalty sentence? As Habib states above, it's been proven rather well that DNA evidence is successful in exonerating the innocent which as I said should be the #1 goal.

I used to be 100% for it, but as I get older the more I start to question my support for it as well. I have no problem with it being used for treason, crimes against humanity and desertion in the face of the enemy during a time of declared war, but I start to wonder about it otherwise.

Crimes against humanity provide the main reason are the strongest reason I'm not fully against capital punishment as a sentence.

It ends right there. A life sentence is reversible. Pretty black and white for me.

So is a death sentence. Wasn't Davis on death roll for better than 20 years? It's not like these guys are convicted then drug out of the court room and strung up.

There have been nearly 300 persons serving sentences for rape or murder - the majority of them life - who were later exonerated by DNA evidence since its use became in vogue around the beginning of the 1990s. Almost all of them involved eye witnesses who got it wrong, prosecutorial misconduct, or shoddy defense work and even still had their cases survive the appeals and review processes. While I oppose capital punishment on moral grounds, the latter should given anyone pause who believes our justice system to be air tight.

So if there is no DNA evidence we are ok with someone dieing in prison of old age or a shank while in the shower so long as we can sleep at night knowing he wasn't executed by the death penalty?

So if there is no DNA evidence we are ok with someone dieing in prison of old age or a shank while in the shower so long as we can sleep at night knowing he wasn't executed by the death penalty?

 

That's better than the government executing innocent citizens, yes.

That's better than the government executing innocent citizens, yes.

Beat me to it. I'm still trying to figure out why there is opposition towards making it harder to execute innocent citizens.

So is a death sentence. Wasn't Davis on death roll for better than 20 years? It's not like these guys are convicted then drug out of the court room and strung up.

Ummm...no. If we put a man to death tomorrow then DNA evidence comes out the next day that he was indeed innocent, I fail to see how that's reversible.

After last night I think this is a fair question. The ultimate goal if we are to use capital punishment is ensuring that no innocent person is ever executed. I feel it is much better to release a guilty person than to execute an innocent person. Overall I'm quite conflicted on capital punishment---I do believe that some cases warrant it as a punishment, but more often than not I do not feel it is properly carried out. And as I grow older I am less inclined to support it at all.

 

I couldn't agree more with this.

That's better than the government executing innocent citizens, yes.

So allowing an innocent citizen to die in prison is different? It's still the government executing them. It's just a slower more painful death.

Ummm...no. If we put a man to death tomorrow then DNA evidence comes out the next day that he was indeed innocent, I fail to see how that's reversible.

A man/women dies in prison, the next day DNA evidence comes out that shows he/she was indeed innocent...

 

I want to be clear that I am not necessarily disagreeing with you. I am more so playing devils advocate. Either we are sure someone is guilty or we aren't. Allowing someone to spend the rest of their life in prison so we can sleep better at night knowing we didn't technically pull the trigger is no better in my mind. If you are willing to take the rest of someones life by letting them rot in prison why are we not willing to flip the switch?

So allowing an innocent citizen to die in prison is different? It's still the government executing them. It's just a slower more painful death.

A man/women dies in prison, the next day DNA evidence comes out that shows he/she was indeed innocent...

 

It is different, inherently. The government isn't executing them. That's not to say an innocent person sitting in prison, no matter how long, is a good thing, however. But we are talking about the government killing its citizens, whether or not you believe that is justifiable or not if there are serious doubts about the integrity of that process then it needs to be stopped and reformed, for everyone.

It is different, inherently. The government isn't executing them. That's not to say an innocent person sitting in prison, no matter how long, is a good thing, however. But we are talking about the government killing its citizens, whether or not you believe that is justifiable or not if there are serious doubts about the integrity of that process then it needs to be stopped and reformed, for everyone.

Then we disagree on the bolded.

 

As far as the process it probably needs to at least be looked at.