Love does not compute.

So, not even a single argument?

The common sense tells me, when you execute the killer HE WILL NEVER KILL AGAIN.

The burden of proof is on those that support the death penalty to demonstrate that it works rather than those that oppose it.

Killing somebody who may or may not have killed anybody does basically nothing for murder rates as most folks would only have murdered one even without being caught.

and what about innocent killed like that?

are they acceptable casualties of justice?

Small, you view is. Wider, your gaze must fall.

Non sequiturs, you must stop speaking. Rational arguments, you must make.

I always thought you sentence someone to prison/death only if you're 100% sure his or her is guilty.
But i forgot about U.S. case law when there's no 100% sure rule, rather "beyond resonable doubt"
And please, do not tell me there are no 100% proofs. If so, release all prisoners from prisons, NAO!
PS. The only thing that matters to me is executing a murderer is 100% protection against RECIDIVISM :D
PPS. And what about people who were sentenced 25 to life, die in prison, and being "innocent". Aren't they "victims" of justice?

Lets be absolutely honest here; the death penalty has never been about prevention, it has always been about some sense of revenge, payback, justice, etc.. I don't really have a problem with that. If someone committed a heinous act that resulted in the loss of an innocent life, their own life should be forfeit, if only to give the family of the victim some sense of closure. Having said that, I don't believe the decision whether or not to seek the death penalty should be in the hands of prosecutors with a political agenda to follow. That decision should be left with the family of the victim.

I don't give a crap about rehabilitation. I just want to be sure that a murderer will not kill anybody again. This is the main tihng important to me.

The second one is society shoudn't pay for prisoners meals, accomodation and so on. If you will find a way to make prisoners cover 100% of the costs of being imprisoned for life (without possibility for probation or release before death), I would pass with death penalty.


Once more: I have witnessed a trial, where some homeless dude told to the judge, he killed a stranger just to have some WARM PLACE TO LIVE AND SOME FREE FOOD! I was shocked, but the judge after the trial told me, this shit happens every year. Of course, it's not always a murder, more often a robbery, but still. For such people prison is rather a reward than punishment.

The death penalty kills innocent people. That's the short version.

This is the point of beyond rational doubt. Because there is no 100% proof beyond delusion. All you do is consider whether or not the doubt is rational (he could have simply been at home alone, the unaccounted for whereabouts do not necessarily mean he was at the crime scene) or irrational (it's a police conspiracy, the judge is in on it!).

If you feel such that no convictions should ever exist until even the unreasonable doubts are disproven, then you're going to have a lot of problems with every justice system. Not just the US's.

When every crime has video footage, then we'll have 100% proof. Until then, you're stuck with a flawed justice system.

If you sentence someone in U.S. who was just "in the whereabouts" , I pity you...

In Poland, the probability has to be NEAR ONE or ONE to accept the evidence.

But i think this is the effect of having a jury. OJ Simpson, anyone?
Release all the prisoners. NAO. People die in prisons, you know? INNOCENT PEOPLE DIE IN PRISONS! Release them.

Reasonable (I can't quite make out if that is indeed the accused and the expert who claims it is has his credentials called into question)
Unreasonable (the police manufactured that tape with photoshop to put down a social reformist)