I’m all about the death penalty. It is a punishment that is as old as time. It works and it is certainly a deterrent – at least for the person who receives it. The death penalty is a divisive subject. People are clearly for it or adamantly opposed to it. I am with that crowd that believes in it. In fact, I believe it should be used more often. I am going to explain to you why we should keep the death penalty and why we should use it more often.
Let’s see – used more often, hmm. First, let’s figure out what is an appropriate crime for death penalty punishment. Murder, definitely. What about manslaughter? Why not? An eye for an eye I say. But wait a minute. Some manslaughter cases are really almost like an accident. Then there are those jealous spouse cases and you know that was probably justified even though they were convicted. May be we shouldn’t do it for manslaughter cases.
So, we only use it for murder cases. That’s still a lot of death penalties. The reason we should use the death penalty for murder cases is because it’s the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime. I got to thinking while I was typing punishment that not all murders are the same and maybe some of them should be punished differently. That makes sense too. So we should only use it for the people that committed very heinous crimes. That’s still a lot of death penalties.
So, we only use it on people that are guilty of very heinous crimes of murder. That should be easy enough and should satisfy even the staunchest death penalty opponent. I got to thinking about the word guilty while I was typing and I guess we should make sure a person is guilty before we kill them. That makes sense too. So we should only use the death penalty on people that we are sure that they are guilty.
So, we only use it on people when we are convinced of guilt (might even throw in there beyond a reasonable doubt). I shouldn’t have thrown that in there because as I did I got to thinking about it. If we want to make sure someone is guilty before we kill them we just need to do a few things. First, make sure the state follows the rules (no hiding evidence). Second, make sure the defendant has a competent attorney. Third, we should have some type of oversight.
So, we should only use the death penalty on people that have been convicted by an impartial jury, with a fair prosecutor, a competent defense team, and after a review by the appellate and PCR courts. Well, maybe that’s not as many death penalty cases because I’ve heard that it’s difficult to have a fair death penalty case for many reasons. Some death qualified juries are vigilantes, some prosecutors are more apt to cheat in a DP case and some of the defense lawyers are asleep at the wheel. Not to mention that the appellate court doesn’t look for innocence – only errors of law. Many innocent people have been convicted, and some executed, without any errors of law.
I shouldn’t have thrown that part about fair trials and innocence in there because it got me to thinking about a couple of other aspects of a death sentence. It’s an expensive and time consuming process. But you know, it’s worth it when you get the state to get the eye for an eye. Of course, sometimes the wrong guy gets killed. That’s just wrong.
You know I’ve been thinking about the death penalty while I typed this stuff and it has convinced me.
I’m all about getting rid of the death penalty. It is a punishment that has run its time. It doesn’t work and it is not a deterrent. The death penalty is a divisive subject. People are clearly for it or adamantly opposed to it. I am with that crowd that adamantly opposes it. In fact, I believe it should be abolished.