Advocates of the death penalty recognize that no system is perfect and that applying the death penalty runs a small risk of executing someone who is innocent. Is this a price society should be willing to pay?Weegy:
Any risk of the State killing an innocent person even as a penalty for a crime is not an acceptable risk.
DNA evidence is a new thing in US jurisprudence, [ yet
"Seventeen people had been sentenced to death before DNA proved their innocence and led to their release."
Society should not take the risk of executing even one innocent.
In the U.K., reviews prompted by the Criminal Cases Review Commission have resulted in one pardon and three exonerations for people executed between 1950 and 1953 (when the execution rate in England and Wales averaged 17 per year), with compensation being paid.
Since 1973, over 130 people have
been released from death row with
evidence of their innocence. (Staff
Report, House Judiciary
Subcommittee on Civil &
Constitutional Rights, Oct. 1993, with
updates from DPIC).
A lot of innocent people are sentenced to death, see
The costs of the death penalty are unacceptable and society is equally protected from real murderers by a sentence of life without parole.
Also the death penalty is applied disproportionately to minority defendants and disproportionately against defendants who kill a white person regardless of the race of the defendant.
So the penalty appears to be applied in a discriminatory way, based on the statistics, and imposing death is final. Being exonerated after being executed really does not help the innocent person killed by the State.
It is inherently illogical for the State to kill people to show that killing people is wrong. ] Auto answered|Score 1|uxiali|Points 588|
All Categories|No Subcategories|Auto Answered|9/8/2012 1:01:37 AM