[iltc]

I think ideally executions would take place within 1 year of the sentence, but the reason that I oppose the death penalty is the chance of executing an innocent. I believe that with as many executions as we have carried out in this country since 1976, we have almost certainly executed at least a couple. And that is unacceptable to me.

As the saying goes, I would rather see 1000 murderers go free than have one innocent be executed. With the death penalty, if DNA evidence is later found proving the innocence of someone, or another person is linked to the crime through DNA, then you cannot reverse the execution. Just think about it.

[Junior_G]

As the saying goes, I would rather see 1000 murderers go free than have one innocent be executed.

Interesting. I wonder what that equates to...another 100 innocent people killed, rather than 1?

[Chena]

I think ideally executions would take place within 1 year of the sentence, but the reason that I oppose the death penalty is the chance of executing an innocent. I believe that with as many executions as we have carried out in this country since 1976, we have almost certainly executed at least a couple. And that is unacceptable to me. As the saying goes, I would rather see 1000 murderers go free than have one innocent be executed. With the death penalty, if DNA evidence is later found proving the innocence of someone, or another person is linked to the crime through DNA, then you cannot reverse the execution. Just think about it.

You are contradicting yourself all over the place! ROFL! You say that you oppose the death penalty but you also think that "ideally executions would take place within 1 year of the sentence". Do you even see what you're saying?

You are against death penalty because someone who is innocent MIGHT be executed. But on the other hand, you want them excuted within one year which would of course deny them the possibility of having their case reviewed or appealed. Amazing logic there, iltc. Me thinks you're a little one.

[weegee]

Were the innocent "innocent" of any crime (including murders) or just the case they were sentenced for?

Gary Graham was not prosecuted for his multiple murders. Such cases can be expensive to prosecute. Get one conviction and they are "done" with it. He shot one of his victims through the jaw. But that victim lived to testify.

But since Gary was unsuccessful in that attempt, it wasn't "murder". There were other cases. But the defenders of Gary Graham (and his was one of the high profile celebrity causes) were unhappy with some details of the case he had been sentenced for.

Any doubt that he was guilty of murder? Or are we going to haggle over which murder?

I don't believe in using the death penalty lightly.

I DO believe that the death penalty should be an option in some vote fraud cases. There is no crime more in violation of the principles of this nation.

[Chena]

BTW, do you think that Moussaoui is guilty of the charges against him?

[AliVeritas]

As opposed to 45 million abortions... all innocent, for convenience.

[weegee]

As the saying goes, I would rather see 1000 murderers go free than have one innocent be executed.

45million babies have been executed in America since Roe v. Wade.

Certainly at least some of them were innocent.

Even if scientists are still "unsure" about when life begins (even though we know the origins of life in the universe). Think at least one of those was a baby and not a "thing"?

[BlueStateDepression]

but the reason that I oppose the death penalty is the chance of executing an innocent.

Therefor you believe that lack of perfection equals total failure and that this deems inaction the proper course of action. I truly feel sorry for you because that is one looney tune way to go thru life.

[Revenge of Sith]

"With the death penalty, if DNA evidence is later found proving the innocence of someone, or another person is linked to the crime through DNA, then you cannot reverse the execution."

All of the death row inmates who were supposedly exonerated through DNA evidence weren't executed. Even Barry Scheck has said this. If these inmates were sentenced to life instead of death, what's the big difference? They still lost several years of their freedom. It's also contradictory to argue that life imprisonment is more severe than the death penalty and then simultaneously claim that you're concerning about innocent people being executed. Would an innocent person dying of natural causes in prison while serving a life sentence make you any happier?

[Bubba_Leroy]

As the saying goes, I would rather see 1000 murderers go free than have one innocent be executed.

But what if those 1000 free murderers go out and each kill several more innocent victims?

In Texas, the poster child for the death penalty is Kenneth Allen McDuff.

McDuff was first sentenced to death in 1968 for murdering two teen-age boys and raping and strangling a 16-year-old girl. In 1972, the Supreme Court abolished the death penalty. His sentence was commuted to life in prison and he was released on parole 17 years later.

Making up for lost time, he started murdering again. In the early 90s, he was convicted of abducting and murdering two more women, but several other victims have been identified. Authorities believe he may have murdered as many as a dozen other people. He was finally executed in 1998, saving countless other victims.

I could accept life in prison as an alternative to the death penalty if it really meant life in prison. Too often, after 20 years or so, victims' families are gone and the public forgets. Then some parole board feels sorry for an old coot who has spent most of his life in prison and decides to turn him loose.