Capital punishment

[Aeolus]

The question is sort of loaded, since one must vote "yes" if he would accept capital punishment for any circumstance, even if it's only restricted to highly unusual cases like Osama Bin Laden. I think the results will be misleading as a result.

Anyway, I would support capital punishment if the following conditions could be met:

1) It is only used for crimes involving murder; capital punishment as a penalty for a crime lesser than murder would only create an incentive for criminals to escalate from the lesser crime to murder itself, because ... what's the difference? That is the justification for not making rape a capital offense.

2) A much higher standard of proof is required. Actual physical evidence should be required. Anyone convicted on circumstantial evidence or eyewitness testimony alone should not get the death penalty. Both have been shown to be highly unreliable.

3) The defendant is given his choice of public defendants, and failing a decision, he is given a reasonable budget to hire a competent private defense lawyer. Assigning an apathetic public defendant to a low-income defendant is a travesty of justice, particularly when men like OJ Simpson are walking around free.

I would agree with these 3 conditions with 1 addendum, Treason if it meets the difficult constitutional definition would also merit the death penalty (as it does now)

[Master of Ossus]

2) A much higher standard of proof is required. Actual physical evidence should be required. Anyone convicted on circumstantial evidence or eyewitness testimony alone should not get the death penalty. Both have been shown to be highly unreliable.

Legally, DNA evidence is circumstantial. That would prevent capital punishment is almost all cases.

[RedImperator]

Got a name? No? You just have examples of wrongs being righted by the system.

Between 1992 and 2002, 47 death row inmates were granted unconditional pardons after they were found to be innocent; in most of those cases, multiple factors were found to have led to their convictions (including prosecutorial misconduct and incompetent defense). God knows how many are going to get released when DNA testing becomes widespread. In the meantime, some jurisdictions are REFUSING to allow DNA testing in cases where a conviction has already been obtained. Logic tells me that there have been and there will be innocent men executed, unless I accept your baseless argument that the process has been 100% efficient in overturning unjust convictions, which is laughable because some death row inmates are being REFUSED access to the evidence and processes that could set them free at this very moment.

[Hamel]

Got a name? No? You just have examples of wrongs being righted by the system.

In the meantime, some jurisdictions are REFUSING to allow DNA testing in cases where a conviction has already been obtained.

WHICH jurisdictions?

That's fucking crazy

[Darth Wong]

2) A much higher standard of proof is required. Actual physical evidence should be required. Anyone convicted on circumstantial evidence or eyewitness testimony alone should not get the death penalty. Both have been shown to be highly unreliable.

Legally, DNA evidence is circumstantial. That would prevent capital punishment is almost all cases.

Why would that be the case? It is physical evidence, is it not? There are differing degrees of DNA test accuracy, but an extremely rigorous test is hardly circumstantial.

[Darth Wong]

In the meantime, some jurisdictions are REFUSING to allow DNA testing in cases where a conviction has already been obtained.

WHICH jurisdictions?

That's fucking crazy

I've heard about this as well. It's a simple matter of cost; they don't want to "open the floodgates" for every criminal demanding DNA tests and consequent retrials. Rather disturbing mentality, when you think about it.

[RedImperator]

http://www.amnesty.it/news/1996/25109196.htm

An example of the 100% reliable justice system for Sea Skimmer.

[Dahak]

Capital punishment is a cheap cop out.
It is more fitting to have people spend the rest of their lifes in jail, with no future, nowhere to go, and having to think about that one little mistake that ruined it all.

[HemlockGrey]

As it stands now, the capital punishment system is thoroughly unreliable.

I would like to leave it up to the individual states to decide whether or not to legalize capital punishment, but if they do legalize it, several criteria must be met-

1) Rigorous and conclusive DNA and forsenic evidence must be presented
2) Defendent cannot be convicted on eyewitness testimony
3) Method of execution must be completely painless, 99% of the time
4) Defendent always has the right to re-examine the evidence and introduce new evidence up to the point of his execution

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

I'd say "for", but only in certain cases. I say it should only be used if it is known that the person to be executed is confirmed to have commited the crime, and the person to be executed was a mass murderer or killed several people in greusome and inhumane ways for little or no reason. Leeway may be given to the poor prisoners. And, the execution itself should be kept in private.

[Stormbringer]

I've heard about this as well. It's a simple matter of cost; they don't want to "open the floodgates" for every criminal demanding DNA tests and consequent retrials. Rather disturbing mentality, when you think about it.

It's stupid. But that is a problem, you couldn't send every last criminal thorugh the system again. Some reasonable standard needs to be established.