Why the death penalty must be abolished

Just in the news:

Many lawmakers use tax dollars to travel on private planes


See - THAT is a REAL injustice. That is way more despicable than paying money to spare a brutal criminal's life.

It's still a tough one. I've interviewed many of the accused family members. And I will say that many of them were very sincere, wonderful individuals. I can't imagine having to say to them, "sorry, we are going to kill your child".

That's not the subject.

That's the other thing. You are still killing a loved one of somebody. I mean somebody probably loves them. It is still tragic.

reply to post by Donnie Darko

---

It is an injustice amongst many. But do you honestly think a government could remain afloat in a capitalistic set up paying for the things you propose tacking onto the budget?

Sure it is. The topic is about why the death penalty is bad and will be used against us if we vote to expand it.

People who believe it is necessary for justice need to look at the injustices of the system and if they support the DP because of the taxpayers, the far greater injustices that our tax money funds.

reply to post by KEMIK

---

Yea, as I said, the solution sucks......... But so does reality a good part of the time.

Yes I do.

Just leave the damn potheads alone, stop wasting money in pointless wars, and stop making prison an industry and we could easily afford it.

Now that my friend, I can agree on.

reply to post by Donnie Darko

---

Believe me, I would be out there trying to kill that person.

So what does that make me? Human, I suppose.

reply to post by Donnie Darko

---

*chuckles* In a simplistic world perhaps that would work. This one, highly doubtful.

Yup, I suppose humans aren't designed for forgiveness.

reply to post by Donnie Darko

---

It's not about forgiveness, just like it's not about revenge. At least not the point I am arguing.

I'm not focusing on whether or not it can be used against us.

Most states appose it. Should we expand it? NO . It has nothing to do with the tax payers.

[edit on 12-6-2009 by KEMIK]

reply to post by KEMIK

---

I think it should be somewhat expanded and somewhat contracted. More readily used and definantly quicker but with the stipulation that the evidence is irrefutable, for a somewhat weak example the person was caught at the scene with weapon in hand as he or she was doing it by multiple people.

[edit on 12-6-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Donnie Darko

---

Unfortunately, humans are tribal.

Firstly, they protect their family; secondly they protect their tribe, but they are too dumb to protect their race.

Humans may be brilliant at some things, but they are so dumb that they have not realised that if you do not protect your own race, the whole race is wiped out.

This is a simple equation that young children could understand.

I am off topic here, but then again, maybe I am on topic.

I guess that's what makes me different from other people. I'm autistic (slightly), so I see things like a Vulcan might, ie, logical.

I do love my family first and foremost, but I also realize other people's families are in the big picture, just as valuable as mine. So for that reason, I'm not tribal like most people, does that make sense?

I'm not saying I'm an angel, actually I can be a bit apathetic sometimes, but that's why I don't "get" the death penalty. Most people who support the death penalty do so because they know they would if it happened to a member of their family (especially their child).

I'm not sure the death penalty necessary even helps victims' families - I've heard the process is extremely painful. Plus blood doesn't make a good memorial for someone imo. I actually hate the idea of my parents putting my killer to death for what they did to me.

The only problem is, the forensic field is not completely developed. I originally began my college career in forensic science. Think about the evolution of forensic science. It was crude then. It is crude now, if you believe that there are many more break throughs to come.

reply to post by KEMIK

---

Which is why I say only in cases in which the evidence is irrefutable. There are such cases.

So would ya spare OJ?