Capital Punishment

[elcorazon]

Very very few innocent people are actually convicted. Of course a criminal in jail is going to say, "I didn't do it." That's just human nature.

1 innocent person executed is 1 too many.

[elcorazon]

One person murdered by a piece of human garbage is to many!

True, but the reality is that nothing the state does will ever fully prevent murders.  The state does not have to participate in the murduring however, particularly when there is ANY chance the state is murduring an innocent person.  Better that 10 guilty men go free than that 1 innocent man is imprisoned.  This concept increses in significance exponentially with the death penalty in my opinion.

[elcorazon]

One person murdered by a piece of human garbage is to many!

True, but the reality is that nothing the state does will ever fully prevent murders.  The state does not have to participate in the murduring however, particularly when there is ANY chance the state is murduring an innocent person.  Better that 10 guilty men go free than that 1 innocent man is imprisoned.  This concept increses in significance exponentially with the death penalty in my opinion.

If you remove someone right to live you yourself should have your right to live removed.

1) you failed to address the question of executing an innocent person;
2) gustaf is correct;
3) I suppose you suggest executing drunk drivers who kill others in accidents - that would make sense using your logic.  Same goes for any accident's you "cause", whether through negligence, recklessness or even bad luck.

[elcorazon]

bej, all your ideas had merit except for the increasing of executions.  I understand your reasoning, just disagree with the conclusion.  Maybe by implementing some of the other ideas you have, the increase in executions wouldn't be necessary.  Although many here have pointed out how rare it is for an innocent person to be executed, cutting appeals would change that.  Personally, I oppose the possibility that ANY innocents could EVER be executed, but any plan that increases the chances of executions of innocent people is wrongheaded, in my opinion.

[elcorazon]

bej, all your ideas had merit except for the increasing of executions.  I understand your reasoning, just disagree with the conclusion.  Maybe by implementing some of the other ideas you have, the increase in executions wouldn't be necessary.  Although many here have pointed out how rare it is for an innocent person to be executed, cutting appeals would change that.  Personally, I oppose the possibility that ANY innocents could EVER be executed, but any plan that increases the chances of executions of innocent people is wrongheaded, in my opinion.

The whole system would fall apart if there were no executions because there would be no long-term prison facilities.

Also, aren't most people who are "wrongly" convicted already in possession of a rap sheet a mile long.  Many of these individuals have done a lot of stuff they never got caught for as well.

so we should execute people because they "might" have commited a crime?

Did I say that?  Please attempt to read more carefully.

You did not say that, but think about the implications of what you did say. MOST wrongly convicted people have a long rap sheet. MANY of these have done stuff they didn't get caught for.  
Well, what about those that DON'T have a long rap sheet and you certainly aren't suggesting people be punished for crimes we don't know they committed are you?  Frankly that's barbaric.  It's like a constant state of war, which is the scenario where people who "might" harm you are therefore killed.  I don't want to live in that society.