I have mentioned the death penalty in several posts in the last few days, and I thought it would be appropriate to give you a general understanding of my views. I am not opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances. I believe that there are some crimes that are so heinous the perpetrator deserves to pay the ultimate penalty for the crime. However, I believe that certain criteria must be met before the accused can be put to death.
I do not believe that all murderers should face the death penalty, but multiple murderers definitely should. In addition, when murders are committed with extreme brutality or with extreme disregard for the humanity of the victim, then I believe the accused should face the death penalty. An additional requirement in my mind is that the accused must be guilty beyond any doubt -- not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond any doubt. I believe that an accused person could be found guilty under a less strict requirement, but must not be punished so severely without a guarantee of that person's guilt. It is too high a price to pay for a nation to execute an innocent person.
I'm not sure if I would argue for the death penalty in any cases other than murder, but if I did argue for it, the case would have to be of such an extreme or horrible nature that I thought the accused could never feel remorse for his/her crime.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Too bad you lost the other post. I'm not sure of the argument you are making. The 'Furman v. Georgia' case in 1974 outlawed capital punishment on the grounds of capriciousness, but the subsequent ruling on the reformed laws justified those capital punishment statutes for cases of murder, particularly of a grievous nature. Actually sounds a lot like my argument!!
Post a Comment