AbdullahD said:
. . .
I just feel if it is clear cut, clean verdict etc, then it is acceptable to execute murders. I also believe a waiting period should exist and if no new evidence, information or testimony comes forward to change the verdict then it should go forward.
Not all murderers would be executed or well I should say in my opinion should be executed in my view, in order to protect someone from being wrongfully convicted and executed.
But if it is an open and closed case, heck even with a prior criminal record etc.. string em up after the waiting period. Maybe I am a hardliner, maybe not, I do not know if it would curtail murders or not etc, I just feel it is right and just.
How would you define "clear cut, clean verdict" or "open and closed case"? No need to get into the semantics, it was a rhetorical question. Capital punishment, especially for anyone who may have a personal connection to it, is a very emotional issue. Whether the connection is with a homicide victim, revenge is a justifiable reaction, or if the connection is with an alleged murderer, it's natural to want them to live. For the rest of us, it is a philosophical question - should the state deliberately take the life of someone who has transgressed societal mores.
I have no problem with the imposition of a capital sentence for certain crimes, however my objection is with the all too often politicization of capital punishment. Though the debate is mostly over in this country (and in most other developed western nations), south of the border it is still an issue in some jurisdictions and all too often politicians (whether running for legislative, executive or judicial positions) will use their support for or against as a campaign point. It is very easy to say what the mob wants to hear. But would those individual politicians sing the same tune if they were confronted with a more direct role in carrying out such a sentence.
The killing of someone is (or should be) a horrific act. In those jurisdictions that still kill human beings following judicial approval, this act is usually carried out in a clean and clinical manner, well separated from public view. But as the execution of a citizen is probably the most extreme action that a government official will approve, then that government official (the senior executive) should be the one to actually perform the execution. And none of this "cruel and unusual punishment" BS, if someone deserves to die because they wronged society then that society should be there to witness it in all its horror. My personal preference would be garroting, Yes, there would obviously be some technical hitches with my proposal, the Governor of Texas would probably have to a facility set up in the State House just to keep up with demand and cut down on travel time, but that can be worked out. Oh, and to ensure that they a personal stake in the game, if it transpires that a "mistake" was made and a innocent person was executed then the person who performs the execution would be subject to prosecution for murder. It's only fair if that executioner (a politician) wants a single standard of justice.
The death penalty could be a highly effective deterrent, though probably not of murder. While I would not solely advocate the widespread inclusion of the death penalty as a punishment for other violence offences, if it was required to be considered for any single illegal action that "directly wronged twelve persons" (if 12 bodies can decide one's fate, it's an appropriate threshold number), then a whole lot of white collar criminals would have received a more fitting punishment that a few months in a "Club Fed".
