The Stella awards!!! you gotta read this.

[Blight]

I guess I have been drawn in. I have read a few times in this thread that the crime can't be proven one-hundred percent, so the death penalty is just too risky because death can't be taken back (that is obviously a paraphrase ). Well, that is true in a lot of circumstances, but there are definitely occasions where people are guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Like surveillance footage of them actually killing someone or a room full of witnesses at a robbery. It was also said that the death penalty is a punishment that goes to far. I also don't think that is the case in all circumstances.

I read in this thread as well that some were worried about people that have mental problems. Those are separate cases here. Even slight mental trauma is usually brought up in a case to help defendants, and in most cases the smallest skeleton in a closet can help get the accused a better deal. The courts no longer take that stuff lightly. However, If you walk into a quicky and cap the clerk and a customer, just to walk out with like fifty bucks and a carton of cigs, then your punishment should be to pay for that horrible and meaningless crime with your life. There was nothing wrong with you to make you go kill those people. Taking a gun into a convenience store to rob the place is a conscious action, and not something a disturbed person would do JUST because they have problems. They could have robbed the place and not killed them, but they took lives anyway. Taking theirs is not revenge; it is simply the price you must pay in exchange for your horrible actions.

But this issue is not a plain one. When death is involved any small variables become vary significant ones. I believe that some changes do need to be made to systems that have this sort of punishment because, at the very least, we owe it to hour nature as human beings and to TRUE justice to make absolutely sure before the condemned are put to death. What kinds of changes need to be made? I think there should be a special law organization that go over cases and decide independently if there is truly enough doubtlessness to go through with the death penalty as punishment. This is of course just a different kind of filtering system, but their job is totally different from deciding guilt or innocence. They will be deciding solely if we are sure enough that they can be put to death. This would mean they have different criteria to judge the facts by. Beyond that, I?m not sure what would go into to deciding positive or not, but I think some kind of system like this would be beneficial and more effective than what we have now.

So it should be clear that I?m torn on the issue. Almost everyone should be torn. Anyone who is like ?kill!? all the time is just an idiot. And people that don?t think death should come to the perpetrators of some horrible crimes are probably of a bit off as well. If the death penalty is seen a proper punishment it should always be an issue that people stand divided on. If it ever becomes to easy to do away with criminals, that is the time that it needs to disappear.