Quote:
Originally posted by Tuor:
I believe strongly in the death penalty with some provisos.
Firstly there has to be overwhelming, incontrovertible non circumstantial evidence (dna or fingerprints etc) that the person being executed committed the crime. If there is any doubt they should get a life sentence instead.
Secondly they need to have the right to appeal against the death penalty more than once-three times is probably the best.
Third the method of death needs to be as quick and if possible painless.
I believe there are crimes so disgusting the only way they can be punished is by taking someone's life in return, those that spring to mind are:
1. murder (except when proved to be in self defence)
2. any rape
3. terrorism
I would also like to point out that I strongly believe everyone, defence and prosection should have their lawyers assigned to them by the state and not be able to pick and choose. (but it'll never happen)
|
A few points/questions:
Fingerprinting and especially DNA evidence are not the fool proof gifts of God to law enforcement that it is fashionable to assume nowadays. Assuming a useful sample can be found in a serious case, we must always remember that the laboratories which do the analysis are run by humans, and the results interpreted by humans. Mistakes can and do happen. That is even assuming that the underlying theories about DNA comparisons are valid -- the fact that people are quickly jumping on the DNA bandwagon as a tool for law enforcement does not mean they are correct in doing so. There is actually reason to question the underlying theories, but the voices of those who do so are being drowned out in the rush to adopt this latest quick fix fad.
Regarding the right to 3 appeals -- I am not sure I understand you. What would be the point of that? Are the appellate judges going to change their minds the second and third times around?