So the real problem is:
____”Government cannot provide a fool-proof death penalty that precludes the possibility of executing the innocent.”

That in itself is a huge indictment of the US criminal justice system. That also means that many people who have been convicted of *non-capital crimes* are actually innocent. Now that is a huge problem, and a country without integrity in their criminal justice system is, well, criminal. A rogue state. So, everything else aside, you good people should fix that problem first, as it leads to many other, consequential problems, and many tragedies.

Case in point. Because the criminal justice system does not have integrity, you cannot confidently apply ANY sentence (capital punishment being just the ultimate sentence). You probably have your share of wrongful conviction lawsuits.

And of course, when you have a history of masses of wrongful conviction (particularly young blacks, particularly not-very-intelligent), then sure, taking the wrong life is a very sick thing to do.

But this is therefore not a capital punishment problem (and therefore debate), it is a criminal justice problem. If the causative problem were resolved, and you had confidence in your system, then the capital punishment debate can be had cleanly, without being contaminated with unwillingness to kill innocents (which is a result of some other problem).

It is like having two terminal diseases. The patient has terminal cancer, a localised kidney tumour, a very curable kind, and a tried-and-tested clinical procedure that eliminates it: chemotherapy. But the patient also has a blood condition, extreme anaemia, which will be severely affected by the chemotherapy, and if it is used, it will kill the patient. And there are all sorts of side effects from the anaemia. Inability to withstand medical procedures that normal people can withstand is just one of them.

Well, you have to clear the anaemia first, then attack the cancer with confidence second. Wringing your hands and wondering what to do will kill the patient. Attacking the cancer first, because it is in your face or it is the more upsetting disease, will kill the patient.

If the governor cannot implement the will of the people, regardless of the subject (capital punishment; war in Iraq; medicare; anything) then you cannot suggest that you have a democracy. I would be totally outraged if I lived in a country that was alleged to be democratic, but the democracy was not implemented.

The alternative, is to accept that the criminal justice system has no integrity (integrity is a black-or-white concept, there are no shades of grey), and eliminate capital punishment across all states.

Note that I am not posting my views on capital punishment, because the problem here is not capital punishment, it is the US criminal justice system. The second problem is the evidenced non-democracy being paraded around as something else.

Let’s refresh-

100 people on death row. One possibly innocent.
Argument being that it’s better to allow 99 people to keep living, get fed, have prison social lives, and the security of never having to work for their own food or take care of their families… so that one hypothetically innocent person does not get executed?

And this is called logic? In my estimation, there are at least 100 innocent people involved here- the innocent victims these POS killed. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time. They just had bad luck. Since most POS don’t just abuse/kill one person, those 99 people may be responsible for even more innocent people being hurt/killed.

So, if you are going to be erring on the side of the ‘innocent’ people involved, one innocent death row inmate vs at least 100 innocent dead people… it’s pretty clear you should side with supporting the DP. It would suck to be that supposed innocent DRI that got executed, but how is that any different from any of the other victims? They obviously were just in the wrong place at the wrong time, or perhaps are actually guilty anyway.

Pandering to a large number of people who have harmed just to prevent harm to one person isn’t very logical.

The whole thing is laughable, considering how much it costs to house DRIs, and provide them with free appeal lawyering, and how many years they fuck the system before they actually get killed. How many people are on death row currently, how long have they been there, and what percent of DRI have actually been executed anyway? How many proven innocent people have actually ever been executed? I would also like to know how many DRIs have DNA evidence against them, and how many have agreed to and/or passed polygraphs.

The way DNA is scientifically advancing, plus the massive number of years the DRIs just sit there…. they have plenty of time to get evidence to clear themselves. Such as the case where the someone raped a girl and her grandmother, killed the grandma, and the girl’s uncle was sentenced to death. It took a few years to get DNA evidence to clear him, but he was eventually cleared. At the very least, how could anyone object to at least having all the DRIs who have DNA evidence against them getting the quick fry? Let them have only ONE appeal, then flip the switch?

The death penalty is a joke, in that there is no set time period for it to be administered. Getting the DS is pretty much the same as getting LIP the way things are set up. Exactly what is the average amount of time a POS sits on DR until they are executed?

Math is one of my biggest weaknesses, and still, even I can see that the 99/1 ratio is not logical as a factor regarding the DP.

c

If this offends anyone, feel free to go fuck your self’s