I am very much opposed to the Death Penalty on the grounds that not only is it extremely unethical and unreliable on the grounds that there is always a risk of getting the wrong person but it's not even an effective punishment in the long run.
Even putting aside DNA and the massive improvements we've seen in forensics, how much more effective do you get than not having someone around? No chance of re-offending there!
The thing about execution, once the guy's dead it's not exactly possible to resurrect him, is it? Furthermore, there is always going to be the risk of getting the wrong person, which on those grounds alone helps to make Capital Punishment an unacceptable method.
Yes but are you going to give him back all the years he wasted in prison? And what about all the people that wind up being murdered, horrendously beaten or otherwise dying there? Plus with new technologies the rate of error is again, nominal. We're not talking about fingerprints or things like that which are falling by the wayside (justifiably so).
But many, many, many of the convictions already on the books are without DNA evidence (which I agree is very good) and many of the cases being tried now are without them.I'd agree that there's still a lot of convictions that should be commuted or at least re-examined. That's not to say that I think DNA should be used for all cases. If there's something like say, several eyewitnesses to corroborate that could be sufficient.
Actually according to studies it only adds about
$1,397, and the rate of conviction is more than twice as high. If we streamlined appeals and mandated DNA testing it would actually be significantly cheaper than currently. And that ignores the millions which many estimate are saved simply through increased plea bargaining.
Poll
