Quote:
Originally Posted by AProducer'sWetDream
Definitely not. For two reasons:
a) if we allow it for certain extreme cases, where do we draw the line? Everybody has a different idea of what constitutes extreme cases and when jt should be used.
b) There have been far too many miscarriages if justice in the past where the death penalty would have been used if it had been available. If only one inmocent person is killed for a crime they didn't commit, then that is one too many to jistify the death penalty.
|
A) It is common sense where to draw the line. Child murderers and serial killers, terrorists etc... who have no chance of rehabilitation or who do not deserve rehabilitation. It would also solve the overcrowded prisons.
B) Yes but they were a decade ago. Advances in technology means that the likelihood of DNA evidence being wrong is very small.
I actually think jury's should get to decide whether someone should receive it. All 12 have to agree or it doesn't happen.