Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt
Sure there is. Example: quality surveillance video of a thug shooting a gas station attendant during a robbery. If there is clear cut proof such as that which implicates the perpetrator(s) then how can that not lead to a safe conviction? If it is absolutely clear with no reasonable doubt that the person(s) charged are in fact guilty of an exceedingly violent or heinous crime (murder, multiple DWI's, child molestation, rape under threat of death or bodily harm, etc.), then a bullet to the head and a 2'x2' piece of stone are cheaper than a lifetime in prison, and IMO more appropriate. People who prove themselves to be destructive to those around them and deem themselves through their actions to not be capable of living in "civilized" society should be dealt with swiftly and accordingly.
|
A fair point about the cctv...but how would that be legislated? Evidence that's clear enough for a jury to convict cannot then be graded into definate and not so definate proof. It's either enough to convict or not.
Sundae used the term state sanctioned killing. I think that is what I most abhor about the death penalty. I do not believe the state should have that kind of power. There is too much potential for it to be abused. If we'd have had the death penalty at the time, the Birmingham Six would have been hung. That would have been a political as well as a criminal execution. They were convicted unsafely because of political (and racial) concerns. That is far too much power for any state to have over its citizens.