Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Well look at it this way: should there be only people who support the death penalty on juries where the death penalty may be an option? Does that seem fair?
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a jury must be unanimous in its decision. By placing people who disagree on a jury... you get a hung jury every time.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jorgelito
There are a few reasons why I against the death penalty:
1. Human error
2. Raising the Standard
3. Death Penalty doesn't work
I'm sorry, but I will channel DK here and suggest that having a well armed citizenry (lawful) serves as the best form of criminal deterrence in my opinion.
|
1: As long as there are humans... there is human error. What about the poor sucker who gets imprisoned for 25-to-life in error? Which is worse? Death or life in a concrete matchbox? Keeping people alive for 25 years in prison is expensive. As it has been said many times before, I'd rather not pay for a convicted murdering rapist to enjoy a boring but cushy prison stay. Right, wrong... relative... but money isn't. Money just keeps on going in the toilet.
2: If a sterile, quick-n-painless death is the most barbaric act you've witnessed, you need to travel more... check out what my favorite band refers to as "The Violent World."
3: Despite having DUI laws... people still DUI. Oh well, too bad, right?
While I concur with the well-armed citizenry being an important aspect to crime deterrence... it can't be our social / legal safety net. God still needs some lightning bolts up his sleeve if he is to be a god that is to be respected.