Replies

The rationale for the death penalty is a mystery to me. Even the proponents do not claim that it deters crime, and it costs the state more than imprisonment, given that numerous appeals must be litigated. And DNA evidence has proved that we have come dangerously close to frying a good number of innocent people. So, will someone articulate for me just why you belive we should continue the practice?

If you want to argue against the death penalty on any of the grounds that you've described, then fine. But ruling the death penalty unconstitutional on any of those grounds is intellectually dishonest. And deciding that the death penalty is unconstitutional only when it is applied to "retarded" people is such an idiotic application of the law that the U.S. Supreme Court has less moral authority than a cockroach.

The rationale for the death penalty is a mystery to me. Even the proponents do not claim that it deters crime, and it costs the state more than imprisonment, given that numerous appeals must be litigated. And DNA evidence has proved that we have come dangerously close to frying a good number of innocent people. So, will someone articulate for me just why you belive we should continue the practice?

I'm from Illinois, where we've had a moratorium on the death penalty for several years. I'm also a paralegal who worked for a defense attorney for over a decade and yes, we handled a few murder cases. I can certainly understand the arguments offered by both sides.

My position is that in some cases, we need the death penalty because certain people simply don't deserve to live and because the surviving relatives of the victims deserve retribution. I think that every death sentence should mean that the state forfeits jurisdiction of the case directly to the United States Supreme Court.

Let the Supreme Court divide into three panels of three justices each, just like every other appellate court in the nation, in order to hear the increased case load. And let this be the one and only appeal. We'd see brutal murderers executed within 18 months of a guilty verdict, rather than 18 years. Justice delayed is justice denied.

The rationale for the death penalty is a mystery to me. Even the proponents do not claim that it deters crime, and it costs the state more than imprisonment, given that numerous appeals must be litigated. And DNA evidence has proved that we have come dangerously close to frying a good number of innocent people. So, will someone articulate for me just why you belive we should continue the practice?

When the US ousts Saddam should he be allowed to live in prison? Should his scientists who are pursuing research and development of weapons of mass destruction, be allowed to live? If they are allowed to live they can pass on their knowledge to other rogue states that could be dangerous to us. If they are executed after tribunals in which all documents showing their methods are sealed, then their knwoledge will be made neither public domain nor available for other rogue states. If we allow them to live, we could be endangering the lives of millions of people.

My opinion on the death penalty is that it should not be used when there is a question of fact. But otherwise should be used a lot more often( car thieves should be executed IMHO if there is no question of fact).