Connecticut abolishes the Death penalty

Yes, but you don't address the question of wrongful conviction. In the case of Gacy or Bundy I suppose it's quite definite that they're guilty, but in other cases of murder there have been errors ... so what are we to do? We could give juries the choice of three verdicts ... "Not Guilty", "Guilty", and "Really Really Definitely Guilty, This Isn't One Of Those Dumb Mistakes You're Going To Read About In The Papers Ten Years From Now".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I have. Not many, if any, can be proven beyond doubt to have been wrongful executions. And nowadays with DNA evidence the risk of wrongful conviction is minimal, if it's even present at all.The future will also reduce even that most minimal of chances of being wrongfully convicted. Some people need to be put to death for what they've done, and some form of humane capital punishment should be in place.Remember, Dahmer was killed brutally by inmates. In cases of rape or child killing, the inmate's life is at risk of being brutally punished and/or murdered by other inmates. Deathrow ALSO is there to provides a safe place, away from those dangers, to the convicted and a humane death in the end.- Oni

Frankly, IMNSHO, Dahmer got what was coming. And the child rapers. There is a certain code in the prison, similar to the job questionnaire asking of the applicant's drug experience: Alcohol, check. Marijuana, check. Acid, check. Cocaine, check. Amphetamines, check. Heroin, check. Sniffing glue - WHAT? Sniffing glue? NO WAY! - only an idiot would sniff glue! A lifetime sentence for a prisoner is fraught with these sorts of relative moralities. For the believers, they can rest in solace, knowing what will happen to the lifers who really were the most heinous. And they could be argued to rest in solace about what would happen to the innocent. I suppose this is similar to the bizarre notion of throwing a grenade into a room of battling soldiers, exclaiming loudly "God will sort them out!"Let them all gnaw on Dahmer's thawed-out fingers......*urp* Edited by xongsmith, : my bracket-slash-"oni"- bracket did not show up as advertized in the preview

"If any"? There are cases where people have been convicted for murder and their supposed victims have turned up alive and well. (Examples here, and here, here.)As for "proven beyond doubt", that's not how we do it. You don't have to prove beyond doubt that someone is innocent, or just think how many crimes you could be convicted of. Can we execute you because no-one can prove beyond doubt that you're not a murderer? It is true that DNA evidence has exonerated many innocent people. But the moral of that is not that the Angel Of DNA will always turn up in time to save the innocent. There are plenty of cases where DNA is not a factor in the evidence. And we should expect a similar proportion of wrongful convictions in the cases where it isn't a factor as in the cases where it has been retrospectively applied. Also, we'll live in cities on the moon, hooray! But until that great day comes, perhaps we should shape our policy around the circumstances obtaining in the present. (1) Why?(2) Some people don't need to be put to death for what they haven't done. The statement that the guilty should be put to death, even if true, does not entirely abrogate the (more easily justifiable) statement that the innocent shouldn't.If you execute the guilty, you must occasionally execute the innocent. Is it worth the price, and if so, why? What exactly do we get out of executing the guilty that compensates us for executing the innocent?Does it also compensate them? If you were sitting in the condemned cell yourself, contemplating your own innocence, would you think: "Despite its occasional flaws, this system is still superior to one which would let me live"?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I have a grudging respect for those who believe in the death penalty for pure revenge and don't hide behind false arguments of deterrence.But what little respect I have, disappears when they can't properly address the execution of the innocent. You see, if you don't allow for a deterrence effect, you can't even argue that lives will be saved by having the death penalty - even if a few mistakes are made.

Hi Oni,I have to ask; do you really trust the authorities with your life?I mean, it's not as though you have previously expressed a great deal of trust in the USA's system of government. In fact you've always been extremely sceptical of authority and with good reason. It is a fact that America has corrupt cops, corrupt DAs, corrupt public prosecutors, corrupt judges, even corrupt public defenders. America is hardly alone in this of course, every barrel has a few rotten apples, but I am constantly amazed at the stories of police and judicial corruption that come out of the US. Are these really the people you want to have the power of life and death over you? You trust them that much? Really? You've never expressed much trust in them before.Things like DNA evidence are only as good as the justice system that handles them. There's no value in exonerating forensic evidence if it is withheld by prosecutors. There's no value in DNA evidence if your own lawyers aren't going to bother to look for it. It is very easy for corrupt officials to make a case look far more watertight than it really is and we know that there are individuals who are willing to do these things.You say that in some cases there is so little doubt that we can execute without fear of error. I find that naive, not usually a trait that I would associate with you. "One of my {colleagues} said on the radio that if no one else is prepared to hang people he is quite prepared to do the job himself. I ask him a rather different question. Because of his views, is he prepared to be hanged by mistake?" - Edward HeathMutate and Survive

Hey look they weren't wrongfully executed. I'm talking about cases, the very few, if any, where someone who was executed turned out to be innnocent. There are none you can point to where there is serious proof of that. Some are maybe's but certainly not with any real assurance. Is that reason to abolish the whole system of capital punishment? We're addressing wrongful executions not wrongful convictions.Show me cases of wrongful executions. Wrongful conviction will always happen. But wrongful executions don't. No matter what my reasons for feeling that way are, you'll add your spin on it and we won't agree but:A) Why not?
B) Because they can hurt others in prison. And have. Including guards, therapist, doctors, innocent people.
C) Justice for the victims
D) Burden on the state financially to house these monster Occasionally? Get the fuck out of here. Show me when that's happened. Specific cases.Also, as I pointed out with war, assassination missions, military attacks, etc... many innocent lives are lost then, but no one calls for an end to those things. They simply ask that we do a better job when carrying out those attacks. In other words, the innocent mean shit to people until it's time to make a righteous statement like the one's you're pumping out here. If you can justify war you are justifying the death penalty, you're just spliting hairs as to how you like you innocent killed.If Seal Team 6 carries out the hit and an innocent woman dies, oh well, cost of doing business. If a guy pulls a switch and maybe just maybe once in a blue moon an "innocent" person is executed, time to cry out for the abolishment of the death penalty?I can't imaging how that makes sense in your brain? But I'm curious to see how you'll try to reason with it.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Examples of wrongful executions:Wrongful execution - Wikipedia

Was killing Bin Laden revenge or a deterrent? Then your beef is with the US military, not the prison system. Show me cases where innocent people were executed in prison. Many unpredictable killers have gone on to kill in prison, other inmates and civilian workers. In fact, placing these killers in population has gotten the killer killed, as I pointed out in the case of Jeffrey Dahmer. So you can't protect other innocent people from the killer or even the killer from other inmates who will execute them anyway.- Oni

Just providing a links dosn't help. Be specific. I've already looked at the wiki page before I began this argument, so I know what you'll bring up and I know it won't be solid evidence. And I also know it won't be many case, and you''ll even produce one from the 1800's.So show me exactly where an INNOCENT person was executed.- Oni

I figured someone would try to play into my anti-authority beliefs, but I'm just here to debate the points not my personal opinions about authority. How sure are you about Bin Laden's guilt? How sure is anyone? He had no trail. But he was executed without fear of error, and many, many innocent lives have been lost in the process.That is offensive. That is truly horrifying.One person, if even that, executed who was innocent surely doesn't even come close to what is done to innocent lives in third world countries. Yet that few, if any, gets the attention of the self-righeous and their selective moral compass?Putting John Wayne Gacy to death is the right thing to do, and should not be suspended because maybe one innocent life maybe be lost. We clearly don't care about innocent lives in the grand scale.- Oni

It just seems odd to me that you would distrust the authorities to the extent that you can accuse of gross corruption on multiple levels and yet simultaneously trust them with your life, or that of your children.It strikes me as hypocrisy, or at least inconsistency. I can see why you don't want to talk about it. You want to gloss over this because it highlights how your little scheme involves handing over innocent lives to the trust of corrupt scum. I would call that a flaw in your system. He did freely confess to his guilt, multiple times. That's kind of an indicator. But this is a red herring... I agree, it is.Where exactly did I say that I was in favour of killing him? Not the point. The point is that that one person (in actual fact, certainly more than one person) is being killed in cold blood, by their own government, to no tangible benefit to society.These people are at the mercy of the authorities. The practicalities of whether to kill them or not are simple. The practicalities of preventing "what is done to innocent lives in third world countries" (whatever that is supposed to mean) are not simple, and you know it. There seems to be no comparison here. I would not dispute that he deserves it. That does not mean that it is right for any individual to actually do it. And if that life were yours? Or your child's? Would you be willing to sacrifice those lives for society's revenge? Clearly you don't. Please speak for yourself.Mutate and Survive

Sorry, that was a series of red herrings; this discussion is about the abolition of the death penalty - not war and not Bin Laden. I can see why you need to change the subject, but I'm not biting.

That isn't of course the test. The test is to prove GUILT beyond reasonable doubt.However, this is the one that changed the law in the UK (from the wiki which you have read.)Timothy Evans in the United Kingdom, was tried and executed in 1950 for the murder of his baby daughter Geraldine. An official inquiry conducted 16 years later determined that it was Evans's fellow tenant, serial killer John Reginald Halliday Christie, who was responsible for the murder. Christie also admitted to the murder of Evans's wife as well as five other women and his own wife. Christie may have murdered other women, judging by evidence found in his possession at the time of his arrest, but it was never pursued by the police. Evans was pardoned posthumously following this, in 1966. The case prompted the abolition of capital punishment in the UK in 1965.

You don't think Cameron Todd Willingham was innocent? I don't see what other conclusion is possible based on the scientific conclusion that the fire that killed his children was not arson.By definition, he cannot be guilty of a crime that did not even occur.