|
So you believe that some of these people we are keeping alive merit death? But there are many people that die that merit life, so maybe we shouldn't be so quick to kill these others . . . Sorry just watched Tolkien and that seemed Apropos of the moment.
I am not sure its possible to argue death penalty to a final outcome. Because that would pressupose some type of objective reality that we could perceive and go "look, there is the absolute truth in this matter".
With that disclaimer in place, I have some statements.
I am uncomfortable with a government that has a mechanism in place to kill its own citizens. Especialy when it is differentially applied, and often left for an economic and/or an unequal adversarial system to decide the outcome.
I believe that the if the jurors are comfortable enough with their decision to execute they should have to take part in the process. For example all 12 jurors will have to press a button, but only one button gives the signal to administrate lethal injection or elctric chair.
PRison, especially death row is not a comfortable affair, although it will differ from place to place. In fact I have read some things about some prisons that makes me wonder why amnesty international doesn't look into it. But I think they are only worried about people that suffer for politcal reasons. But certainly some of the prisons don't qualify for humane.
By the way, I am pretty sure I would want to kill someone for hurting someone I know . . or even cutting me off . . . But that is not necessarily a legitimate reason to nationalize a death sentence.
For the Death penalty to truly work, you have to execute for much lower levels of crimes. If you are killed for stealing 5 dollars you won't even get to the point of stealing more. If any situation that wasn't self-defense was punishable by death, and I mean immediate, like dragging them out of the courtroom and putting a bullet through their heads, it would be a more effective deterrant against murder.
|