I have seen alot of members adamantly opposed to the death penalty and was wondering what their other options would be. So....



How would you punish those guilty of 1st Degree murder?

And do you think life in prison serves our country better than the death penalty?

The Death penalty does not act as a deterence, America have an overwhelming amount of homicidal first degree murders. Thus rendering a lot of its supporters claims useless.

1st Degree murder should just be put in prison, outside of society - possibily not even for life - since just because they did it once, why does it mean they will do it again?

The govt kills people around the world, for 'supposed' reasons - an individual may have a very good reason - though not in any way making the crime not a crime - for killing someone. Why do we assume they will kill again. I do not agree that prison acts as a punishment, its primary aim should be rehabilitation.

Rehabilitation will serve the country better than either killing your own civilians, or locking them up and throwing away the key.

I shudder to think that there may be elected officials who think this way. What about that person they killed? Will they have a second chance to live again?



How do you rehabilitate people like Charles Manson or Ted Bundy?

The death penalty is strictly for punishment, not for deterence.

Those who commit murder (for the most part) know what they are doing is wrong and that if caught, they are facing a long prison sentence, or death.

You don't write speeding tickets to deter speeding (that doesn't work, either, for the most part). You write them to punish those who break the law.

Life in prison (edited to add) without parole.


Yes. I have struggled with the death penalty for a long time now.
1. I think the mere fact that one person could be put to death for a crime they didn't actually commit is enough reason not to have it as a possible sentence.
2. For my morals (and yes this is subjective to me) I don't believe in an eye for an eye.
3. Isn't the cost to the state higher for death penalty inmates than that for life in prison? I remember reading this, if I can find a suitable study I will post it. Assuming that is correct how does it better our country to allow state approved murder versus life in prison?


Ideally yes I would agree with you. Realistically I don't. Someone who commits first degree murder, as I understand it (I am not sure if the definition differs from State to State or not), is someone who committed premediated murder. They thought about, knew it was wrong, and still proceeded to commit the act. Life imprisonment in that sort of instance to me is a punishment. Can that type of person be rehabilitated? I don't know, would I want that person near my family and friends? NO.

edited to add: I found this link, it demonstrates the cost of a capital case vs. a regular case in California.

Would the victim have a second chance to live again if his assailent were executed by the state? No? Then your comment is irrelevant, and the death would only be seeking revenge.



The reason that Bundy and Manson are so famous is that they are completely UNLIKE the majority of prison population. They cannot be rehabilitated, and if the thread was "Should we execute only Manson and Bubdy" well, I would still not agree, but at least I can see the argument.

Rehabilitation does not work at bringin all murderers back to useful members of society. But then again, killing them brings no murderers back to useful members of society.



Then, the final point in my mind: The death penalty cannot ever be used so long as it is affected by things other than the crime itself. Race is a huge factor in the death penalty in the United States, as is error, with several death row inmates having convictions overturned in the US in the last year alone.

Show me a system that works, and we can talk about the pros and cons of implementing it. Until then, thank God my country does not see the need to institutionalise revenge.

Life in prison. death is too nice. Revenge is for the weak

What is punishment though? Its an abstract term? Are you merely suggesting punishment is a eye for eye situation? You should have done to you what you have dealt, please explain. The concept punishment makes no sense. What gives the state the moral superiority and right to 'punish' - whatever that may be?

Please define punishment. I belive collective agrrement can take people out of society for the good of everyone, but does nayone on earth occupy such moral purity and superirity to 'punish'?

Back to the topic generally:

If punishment is an abstract concept that no one has the right to practise, what else can the Death Penalty offer? Nothing.

It is a crude, brutal act of revenge nothing else. You cannot say killing is wrong and then kill - It is completely contradictory and impossbile to defend. I look forward to people trying.....

I think we need to introduce another aspect here, one which throws the dealth penalty into question.

Guantanamo Bay

There are people in there who have had no trial. The have been ripped from the streets of America, England and Europe with no fair trial. That alone is a crime and is worrying enough. However, with the dealth penalty it gives this injustice a whole new dimension.

Guantanamo Bay + Existence of Dealth Penalty = The Possiblity for the governemnt to rip anyone off the street and kill them no questions asked

We do not know what is going on in there. It contains 700 people, some of which may be condemed to death for nothing.

In principal, it is a crime equal to the slaughter of the jews. The rounding up, putting into camps and execution of people is exactly what Hitler did, and is Exactly what Bush is doing.

I am vehemently opposed to the death penalty for a different reason: Lawyers.

I have no problem with the premise of executing a person who has taken the life of another. The victim never had a choice and I don't think it's up to us to support the SOB for the rest of his life.

With that being said, the flaw is in who is in control of that person's life. Almost any lawyer, whether they are prosecuting or defending, will lie, cheat, and steal to win their case. It has almost nothing to do with justice anymore. It's about prosecutors getting their quota of convictions and lawyers getting their firm more business for being successful.

In the meantime, there's a person involved in a way that hardly anyone could see as the straight truth.

I wouldn't let a roomful of lawyers decide the life of my goldfish - let alone a human being. Until the court system is 100% truth and justice, I cannot see how we take a chance with a human life.

Lastly, if capital punishment were a deterrent (which it is not, and I wish it was), my stance may be different. Meaning, I could be willing to accept the tragedy of the state murdering innocents because it saves the lives of exponetially more innocent lives. But that's not how it works.

First off, it's not revenge seeking the death penalty; it's JUSTICE. If I had a loved one murdered I sure as heck wouldn't want to pay the taxes to keep him alive in prison for the rest of his life. That's sick and it's sad that so many people who are the victims of such heinous crimes have to live with the fact that their loved ones murderer is getting three square meals a day, pumping iron and watching tv.

btw... lawyers do suck.

I don't think life in prison is such a cake walk. My view is prison(vs. death) is a much harder life. I would even say that the death penalty would be an easier way out for the murderer. They don't have to live with the results of committing a murder.

Also I believe much more tax dollars are spent on a capital punishment case than life in prison.

Jusitice is not, and in fact cannot be based on revenge. Life in prison is justice for crime committed, if that is the sentence determined.

Secondly, the oft-used argument: "If Somebody I knew were killed..." is completely irrelevant. There is a reason the justice system determines the fate of people, and not the family of the wronged party. If someone raped, or kidnapped, or beat up my daughter or mother or whatever, I would want them dead too. Does that mean the state should make it so? Hell, I would want somebody dead if they keyed my car. That does not mean that my anger and desire for vengeance should determine the process of the justice system.

Thirdly, if prison is such a paradise of food, relaxation and leisure activities, why is it everyone seems to want to avoid it? Prison is an awful punishment, and I hardly think we should consider someone stuck in a concrete building for the rest of their natural life to have gotten off easy.

Excellent points, vermillion.

Billy Jean if you are so keen to give this a personal edge - how would you feel if Michael Jackson was found guilty - should he be bum raped, surely using your logic that would be justice......

Depending on the severity of the crime and if it was premeditated.



I don't know about that. There is a reason that the courts allow the victims mother or loved ones time to face the accused in the court room and tell him\her of the pain that person has caused. The courts definitely take the victims loved ones feelings into account.



Gee, because people don't want to own up to what they've done! That's a silly question. And jails do NOT deter people from committing crimes. If it did, why are there so many repeat offenders? Why do people still commit crimes?



I've bought rope before at the hardware store and it's not that expensive.



You know, I really enjoy how some people LOVE to take pop shots at me about Michael Jackson. What do you accomplish?

To answer the question; If he's found guilty and it's PROVEN: He deserves whatever he gets.

Does THAT make you happy?

Capital punishment does not act as a deterene either. Dont make me explain why capital punishment doesnt have repeast offenders

Surely the mass crime in America is evidence that even Capital punishment is not a deterence?

No capital punishment isn't a deterrent and you're right why it's not, some people loose their right to a second shot when they take an innocent life.

I have no remorse for putting murderers that are convicted beyond a reasonable doubt doubt. Most of which (2 of 3) have committed prior felonies and some of those including murder (1 of 12.) Some of these murderers so no remorse, torment the family of the victim by hiding the bodies, and in some cases state that they would do it again.

Yes, in some cases a victim impact statement is allowed, which the judge may or may not take into account before giving sentencing within the parameters assigned to him. That is still the courts in control of justice, not the application of revenge as wished for by the injured relatives.




I never claimed that they did. Though I find it interesting that you use that argument, as it is usually death penalty advocates who are preaching the advantages of deterrence. Indeed, neither the existence of prisons nor the death penalty deter criminals in the slightest. Prisons are however not the comfortable vacation spots you seemed to be making them out to be in your initial post.


Clearly your rope comment was tongue in cheek, as you must know of the enormous cost of the proceedure from sentencing to execution. Thus I will not bother addressing it.



Considering your picture, name and Sig, it seems pretty clear why some people choose to take that particular tact...

Regardless, if he were to be convicted, I am sure the parents of the victims would want him dead, yet the state would not grant their requests...



We are not talking about setting people free here, we are just talking about locking them away as opposed to killing them. Clearly they deserve punishment, but that punnishment should not be institutionalised revenge.

With regards to the cost of the death penalty, I posted a link above that shows a study done California.
Here is another site to take a look at:
Death Penalty Information Center.

If a person was proven, in court, to be guilty of 1st degree murder, sentenced to death and executed, and then later found to be innocent, how would you feel? Would you feel that the cost of that 1 life was justified so the others that really did murder were put to death?

This is, of course, not just a random hypothetical question either:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I can't support a system which in its administration has proven to be so fraught with error that it has come so close to the ultimate nightmare: The state's taking of innocent life"
Governor George Ryan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Original Article: LINK
EDITED TO REMOVE FULLY COPYRIGHTED ARTICLE - POSTING FULLY COPYRIGHTED MATERIALS IS AGAINST THE Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If our capital punishment system were implemented more efficiently it would, but if you can sit on death row for 10-15 years and cast appeal after appeal the threat is moot.

Personally I believe you should face the same type of punishment that you administered to your victim.(These being conscious acts of crime of course)

But then again, that would be (sniff, sniff) insensitive to the criminals.

No, actually study after study in states all across the US have clearly shown that the eath penalty does not act as a deterrent at all, the fact that you might have to wait a long time in a tiny cell before they kill you has nothing to do with its effectiveness.



It has nothing to do with sensitivity for criminals, and has everything do do with not reverting 400 year in civilisation. Every western state in the world (but one) has realised that the death penalty serves no purpose but to increase bloodshed and get the state involved in institutionalised revenge. If you really want to reduce crime, then get involved in combatting the root causes, and work with active rehabilitation. It works well in other countries. Killing the perpetrator is just the state going "So there!"

I think that is shortsighted. If someone was horrendously tortured, should the statethen mimick the actions, to the very last details, exactly?

If the state can innact such revenge, does that not give rise to Vigelante Law? An eye for an eye - It is no different from A group of people getting the perpetrator and lynching him?

Personally I disagree with this because it doesn't take into account the situation of the criminal when he committed a crime. A person stealing food to support his family when he has no other means looks far better then stealing from his impoverished belongings to teach him a lesson.

According to the DOJ 2 out of 3 inmates on death row have a prior felony conviction. Obviously rehabilitating doesn't work either. Since you have agreed that death would easy be too easy of a sentence for a murderer why keep him alive and torment him for the rest of his life?

If you don't believe the State has the right to punish law-breakers, than you are an anarchist. Obviously, you would disagree with ANY punishment.


Actually, the vast majority of Gitmo detainees were apprehended in Afghanistan, not New York City. No one was "snatched" off a street in Europe. Please try to be realistic here. Even I ( ) have some reservations about the Gitmo situation, but I don't blow it out of proportion.


I think you are jumping to conclusions here. No one has been put to death. I hadn't heard it proposed, either. They are simply detainees (POWs by another name, really...) who are being held until the end of hostilities in the theatre of operations.

The death penalty is about punishment. No repeat offenders after the death penalty is enforced.

Please provide some links to show this as I(and I am sure others) would like to see this.




There will always be people who are just(without a better word) BAD. As Rev's link from the DOD show some people cannot be rehabilitated, thus they should be removed.

Rev: I am curious, though, how you would respond to the innocent being convicted question I posed earlier? Would that 1 life be justified? If in Ill. they released 13 death row prisoners, some due to DNA evidence, how can we not question any of the other death row prisoners? In my mind this shows the flaws in our legal system. How is allowing just 1 innocent death row prisoner to be executed good for our country?

His link shows nothing of the kind. It simply shows that a majority of people on death row have committed prior felonies. What is not mentioned is wheither any serious rehabilitation was ever even tried on these people. If it was not, (and most US prisons do not offer any serious attempt) then one must instead ask, with a effective rehabilitation, could the recidivism have been prevented?

Well that is what the appeals are for, to weed out the mistakes. If I were selected as a jury I would not send a person to death unless there is concrete evidence linking him to the crime and that he showed no remorse for the slaying and could not have been rehabilitated.

What do you think prison sentences are for? I personally thought it served as a "time out" for a person to think about his actions and prepare himself to become a better person as he or she is released.

That was not what I was saying. I disagree with 'punishment' what is it - you still havent said? I do see certains action as legitmate - like taking someone out of society to protect everyone, but what is punishment exactly? Do you see what I am suggesting?



There are some from the West and depsite the fact they are small in number it still introduces the principle I suggested. Like this guy here : David Hicks I just cannot see how they can accuse him of being guilty....



In The London Guardian it was reported that



Both of which are British...

So then... clearly you do not know what rehabilitation is then.

Sticking someone in jail to think about what they did is not rehabilitation, it is not even close. Look up how prisons in France and Scandinavia are having great success with their rehabilitation programs and what they do, then we shall continue this discussion.

Exactly, Rev Del Fugo is claiming that the fact that there are repeat offendors suggest that rehabilation is not working. This may be true, but it doesnt discount the concept of Rehabilitation altogther. If anything, it just suggests that the US system of rehabilitation is pathetic, and needs immediate reform.

The thing is while we would like to think our judicial system is such that the only the truly guilty will be found guilty, it is made up people and people make mistakes. My main (but not only reason) not support the death penalty is just for that reason. We make mistakes and to rely on appeals to exonerate a possibly innocent person is still too risky and in my opinion not worth it. While I would like to believe that all jury members are as conscientious as you, I have less faith.

Vermillion- regarding the rehabilitation issue, Do you have any direct links to share with us? Thanks.

Well judging by previous pasts, not many will like my opinion.

If someone is found guilty (beyond a shadow of a doubt, with DNA evidence, and has exhausted his appeal process) of willful, pre-meditated capital murder......

Then they have forfeited their life as well. They should meet the same fate EXACTLY as their victim. I have exactly ZERO tolerance for murderers. In my opinion, they are not worth the cost, time or effort to rehabilitate. They are waste, scum and oxygen thieves.

I can just not sympathetic for someone who decided that another person should not live. I realize that approach would be viewed as barbaric by most, but this is one subject that I let emotion rule.

Obviously I'm not about to be crowned emperor, so this would never happen. But I strongly support the death penalty (duh) with conviction by DNA evidence and the proper appeals process.

If the death penalty were not available, then the convicted should be remanded to a life of forced labor, serving the community that they exacted a life from. I have no interest in rehabilitation. One must abide by the decisions they make in life, their victims don't have that opportunity anymore.

What about murder in the Military? There have been instances throughout the last century where the government has quite literally ordered the death of certain people: Nicaragua; Venezuela; Haiti - the list goes on. What about economic sanctions - they harm the innocent people anh have killed many more - is that murder? If it is, should the government not also be held accountable in the same way indiduals are? Is George Bush SCUM, an oxygen stealer? he has condemed many Iraqi's and Afgahans to death, should he be put on trial, should he be executed?

My point is this, if we hold governements in the same way as we hold indivduals accountable - which we should - is their crime really only answerable by death?

We must all surely concede that the most important factor is to get them out of power, or in the case of the individual, out of society to protect the masses, in our country and abroad.

Saying a criminal has lost the right to live isnt a reasoning for the death penalty - since, does the govt have to GIVE me a right to live in the first place? Are the foundations of my freedom and existence so fragile that it can be legitmaelty taken away from beneath me, if the state desires? Of course it doesn't - it should be there for my own protection, not as a paternal figure which has to punish me, sometimes in the form of death.

I have no right to take away the right to live of another, but using the same logic the governement doesnt have the right to take the life of another - whatever they may have done.

You did read that I'm talking about 1st degree capital murder, didn't you?
I'm staying on topic with the question for debate.

If you would like to start a thread on sanctions, military operations, or CIA black ops...be my guest. I'm sure I can add something to them.

For a long time I had conflicting beliefs on this question. While I find the prison system extremely inadequate, the idea of state approved executions seems a little barbaric. What really pushed my opinion against corporal punishment was a highly publicized case in Canada, that of David Milguard.

For those of you who aren't aquainted with this story I'll sum it up briefly. In the 70's David Milguard was convicted of murdering a teenage girl in Winnipeg. His family (especially his mother) made constant pleas to have his case reexamined claim his innocence, even getting as far as a personal meeting with the Prime Minister (Brian Mulroney @ the time); naturally no one believed there story though. BUT, in the late 90's with the advent of DNA evidence etc.. Milguard's innocence was proven, but only after 23 years in prision.

Thankfully Canada does not have the death penalty in any of the Provinces, but regardless how do you repay a man and his family for taking 23 years of his life, let alone for the taking of an innocent life.

Even with DNA evidence today I don't believe that we can always prove guilt beyond any doubt (remember it's just a "reasonable" doubt to convict) and besides even if we thought we could who's responsibility would it be to make the decision this person is "undoubtably guilty" I certainly will pass on that position. As previously mentioned from what I have read the death penalty costs more than life imprisonment anyway, and I read of another story somewhere (if I can find it I'll post it) that a team from a university somewhere in Illinois went through Capital cases and found 12 cases of individuals on death row that were in fact more than likely innocent

In the end I think the possibility of putting a single individual who may be innocent to death discredits the whole idea. After all what is the price of that one life? And how can we ever repay a mistake as such....

Unfortunatly, this is not uncommon at all.

That's a problem. This should be extremely rare, but it's not. Not even close.

I won't go off on lawyers again, but these cases aren't honest mistakes. It's gamesmanship, manipulation, and fraud. All part of the mainstream of our judicial system.

The reason that the appeals process is so exhaustive in Capital Cases is exactly that: the sentence is not revokable.

In a "Life w/o Parole" scenario, the appeals process is much more speedy. The innocent are even MORE likely to be convicted.

DR: lawyers don't convict people, juries do. All that is required to release someone is reasonable doubt.

How many people have been raped/robbed/assaulted/killed by repeat felons?

How many people have been raped/robbed/assaulted/killed by repeat death row convicts?

Appeals process info

This particular link refers to the process in Tennessee, which is one of the longer ones in the country. Please read this, and tell me what part of the appeals process you suggest be removed. Considering a person's life is on the line.

Juries decide the fate of someone's life based on what lawyers say and do on both sides. The lawyers cheat and lie to make the jury beleive whatever they need them to beleive. Facts have little to do with the case.

The lawyers in a trial almost always know a great deal about the facts of the case then the juries will during the case. Evidence and facts get thrown out because of gamesmanship, relevant issues get resolved outside of the jury's presence, and juries are told to disregard many statements made by witnesses.

I'm not saying it should be a perfect system, but we don't take a person's life while we allow gamesmanship to override simple facts in a courtroom. And especially from a class of society that would lie when the truth would be easier.

The death penalty is a barbarous act, and I'm sorry, but I consider its supporters to be either confused or barbarians. Some will try and play to our emotions, declaring that my position is "coddling" the killers of little girls. Such emotional appeals ought to be ignored. The United States shows an ugly face with this practice, limited as it is to the world's most despotic regimes.

St. John's Professor David L. Gregory has written an excellent article about the death penalty. His conclusion:



I may not be a Christian, but can't disagree with his scriptural reference, let alone any of his legal arguments.

I see alot of posts denouncing the death penalty but no viable suggestions being made to replace it.



Also, I want a coherent explanation on why those who are guilty of raping and killing a child deserve to live.

Should not justice(not revenge) be served?

And also tell me the difference in putting someone to death quickly and putting them to death slowly in a prison. Isn't leaving them in prison to suffer possible sexual and physical abuse in prison till they die of old age cruel and unusual punishment?

There is only one viable alternative. Life in prison without the possibility of parole. If we are talking premeditated murder, that would be the only reasonable way to keep this person from society.

Whether it's a child or not makes no difference (or should not, in any case). The fact of the matter is, a person was convicted of killing another human being. If they are truly guilty, and can never get out of prison again, how are they going to commit these crimes against society again?

The answer, of course, is that they will not. And that's where justice is served, without revenge. In removing the guilty party from the rest of society, so that he can no longer harm society, for the rest of his natural life.

Life in prison has never been deemed to be cruel and unusual punishment by the Supreme Court, as long as the state take the necessary precautions in seeing the convict is properly housed and fed.

The main difference, for me, in life imprisonment or the death penalty is the finality of death. How many have already been released in this country because of new evidence in the last ten years? A hundred?

How many more, because of the differences in state laws, were unable to adequately prove their innocence, and were unjustly committed to death. For instance in Texas, I believe it is, you have only 60 days to bring forth new evidence to exonerate you. Two months! How many in other states sat in prison for ten or fifteen years before the right evidence was unearthed to get them released.

No, DaytonRocker and others here are right. The state has a "convict at all costs" mentality in a lot of cases, particularly murder. They have to show they are "tough on crime" to get re-elected. There have been many cases of death row inmates being released after finally being able to show that evidence or witnesses were suppressed, or someone else had confessed, but the DA already "had their man".

So, sleeper, how about a coherent explanation of why it's ok for the state to kill an innocent on death row. Because if it hasn't happened already (and I believe it has) it most certainly will happen the way our justice system is currently organized.

As I mentioned before I do believe the prison system to be very inadequate. So what is a viable alternative to capital punishment? I don't know, but I can't support a policy that has the potential and has been demonstrated on several occasions to inflict this irreversible and ultimate sentence on those who may be innocent. As for the appeals system being so exhaustive? First off I am sure that is first and foremost responsible for the high costs associated with capital punishment. Secondly I can't see how exhaustive the process is...in the end can we truly determine beyond any doubt that someone is guilty of the crime they are convicted of? Can we predict what new technologies may be available to possibly exonerate the wrongly accused? I am sure 20 years ago today the use of DNA would have perhaps seemed like a fantasy, who are we to deem that we are at the zenith of are forensic capabilities?

Just some thoughts...

Someone guilty of raping and killing a child may or may not deserve to die. We can't bring back the dead child, and we think we are better than the murderer, so we should choose life.

Life imprisonment without parole is hugely preferable to the death penalty for all the reasons set out above, especially the risk of executiing innocents, plus one which hasn't been mentioned yet, which I outline below. Your point on the possibility of abuse or murder while in prison is moot, since a crime is still a crime if committed in prison, and is not committed by the state. That is like saying that you could sure your employers if they move you to a city with a higher crime rate - it isn't their fault, it is the criminals'.

After exlcuding "deserves to die" over which we have no control (the murder may think their victim "deserves to die" but it doesn't make the killing itself right), I think it is more important that they deserve to suffer.

Even if I believed in heaven and hell, which I don't, I would have no cast-iron certainty that the convicted murderer would suffer at all under a death penalty, especially since we have rightly abolished most of the cruellest methods (even the USA never sanctioned stoning or crucifixion, no matter what your opinon of electrocution). They might burn in hell for all eternity, but there might not be a hell, and so their death effectively ends all their woes, and does not force them to endure them.

Since we are civilised, we do not torture criminals with whips or flames - we just incarcerate them and deprive them of their liberty.

I am quite content that the worst murderers, provided they are sane, will suffer greatly from permanent incarceration - especially if some of the "luxuries" of prison life (parole, TV, tobacco, socialisation, reading materials, etc.) are seen as privileges - to be earned, taken away, or forever withheld - and not rights. What's more, if I have any doubts, I can physically go and visit to see for myself whether or not they are suffering from their sentence or not. I cannot do that if they are dead, because I cannot tell by looking at a headstone whether the person marked by it is in eternal bliss, eternal damnation, or is merely rotting gently beneath my feet.

And if they are not sane, they deserve treatment, not punishment.

So if the functions of the justice system are retribution, deterrance and rehabilitation, I don't really see how the death penalty fulfils any of them on close examination without an appeal to higher authority (a belief in an afterlife and/or deity). As we all know, an appeal to higher authority is one of the classic logical fallacies, so that, for me, ends the argument in favour of the death penalty. Proponents have no case, so they lose their case.

Ok now this is a contradictive argument when you apply it to the idea of execution of an innocent person. So let's throw out the death penalty so the innocent person can suffer instead of having a quick end?

And since it is always brought up in this debate. I would like to see link showing the actual numbers and percentages of those who were innocent that were put to death.

And like Amlord asked. Please show me where a convict who was put to death was able to commit a crime again... oh yeah that's right he/she can't, because their worthless carcass is under 6 feet of earth.

No it is not - a living innocent can be released and compensated. A dead one can't. I cannot give you any figures for US innocents wrongly imprisoned or executed for murder, but there are plenty of British ones - the Birmingahm Six, Winston Silcott, Trupti Patel and the rest of the recent raft of mothers released after being found guilty of murdering their children on the evidence of a small group of scientists now thought to have been fundamentally mistaken - there are plenty of examples.

Since the US system of justice is the same as the British in most major aspects (habeus corpus, double jeopardy, innocent until guilty, jury trial, adversarial court systems, and so on), and it is much larger, it is not unreasonable to assume that sometimes innocent people are found guilty, just as guilty people sometimes go free.

Well, until I see some credible stats on the number of innocents being put to death. It is an argument that does not hold water with me.

Show me a convict who was put to death and found innocent later that got to hug his kids again.

As far as your as your last post on credible stats, why do you come to this board where serious debates exist if you're not willing to do the research on your own? How about showing US why we're wrong?