Well, it seems we've reached an impasse.
In any case, I was asking the question because it never seemed to bother you. It bothers me to know that it has happened, and that that power is held by the state, but that's just my personal view.
You honestly think I've never considered the other arguments? I didn't bring them up because they've been discussed to death, and it all just falls off into ideological divides anyways.
Anyways, reposting just because you haven't seen fit to address it yet.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/...fact_grann
Simply put, it's a man who was denied commutation of his execution despite new evidence being presented to the governor of his state. My argument is not limited to problem within the courtroom, but outside as well. I'm sure the people who convicted these people at that time thought they were using the most reliable forensics technology too.
Not that it really matters, because any and all flaws that exist in the system are irrelevant...
And if you really cared to know, I don't support the death penalty for the reason that it is unnecessary and too final to allow mistakes. Actions made by an individual do not necessarily warrant equal reactions by society, and the "taint" you mentioned about letting convicted murderers live seems to be an archaic concept, not fitting for the current era.
So, may I ask, what is the exact purpose and reasoning for the existence of the death penalty?
In any case, I was asking the question because it never seemed to bother you. It bothers me to know that it has happened, and that that power is held by the state, but that's just my personal view.
You honestly think I've never considered the other arguments? I didn't bring them up because they've been discussed to death, and it all just falls off into ideological divides anyways.
Anyways, reposting just because you haven't seen fit to address it yet.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/...fact_grann
Simply put, it's a man who was denied commutation of his execution despite new evidence being presented to the governor of his state. My argument is not limited to problem within the courtroom, but outside as well. I'm sure the people who convicted these people at that time thought they were using the most reliable forensics technology too.
Not that it really matters, because any and all flaws that exist in the system are irrelevant...
And if you really cared to know, I don't support the death penalty for the reason that it is unnecessary and too final to allow mistakes. Actions made by an individual do not necessarily warrant equal reactions by society, and the "taint" you mentioned about letting convicted murderers live seems to be an archaic concept, not fitting for the current era.
So, may I ask, what is the exact purpose and reasoning for the existence of the death penalty?