3 ms·
THose defending him are doing so because the evidence available almost certainly indicates that he was convicted solely on the lies of someone under threat of t
by zentiggr 11y ago
THose defending him are doing so because the evidence available almost certainly indicates that he was convicted solely on the lies of someone under threat of the death penalty himself.
If he legitimately didn't do what he is almost certainly falsely accused of, that makes your bloodthirstiness even more uncomfortable and unjust.
Are you comfortable with your judgment to take someone's life on the desperate accusation of a meth-head avoiding death himself?
- dreamdu5t 11y agoStraw man. The innocent are punished for crimes they didn't commit regardless of the crime or punishment. It's irrelevant to my issue of how the guilty are to be punished.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- mrsharpoblunto 11y agoOne key difference being that the death penalty removes the ability for later appeals and compensation if they are found to be innocent. According to one study the wrongful conviction rate of prisoners on death row could be around 4.1% [1] - that equates to around 120 innocent people currently being on death row. [1] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/many-prisoners-on-death-row-are-wrongfully-convicted/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/many-prisoners-on-...
- dreamdu5t 11y agoWhy doesn't that argument apply to all punishments? Isn't it better to let the guilty go free than falsely imprison someone for life? There's more than an estimated 20,000 innocent in prison who are not on death row. Why are the innocent good enough to be spared the death penalty but not life in prison?
- alextgordon 11y agoIf an imprisoned man is later found innocent, you release him. If an executed man is later found innocent, you can... uh...
- oberstein 11y agoSolution: forced cryonics, with elements of Demolition Man thrown in as desired.
- steven2012 11y agoHave you read through the facts of the case? Glossip did some things that indicated that he knew the victim was dead in the room. There was testimony from others that he was planning on leaving town immediately after being brought in for questioning. And the "hitman" had no real motive for killing the victim, but Glossip did, because of the $6000+ dollars that were missing from the motel over time. There are far more convincing anti-death-penalty cases than this one.