I have no issues about putting better systems in place--better higher paid public defenders, more funding for DNA tests, systems of review that aren't as restrictive--for instance allowing more lenience in cases where counsel was incompetent--not freeing such individuals, but at least giving them a new and fair trial.Originally Posted by Griever
The truth is, jurors are hesitant to enact the death penalty, and starting in the mid 19th century, our system quickly and thoroughly reformed the jury system, insisting on racial integration (forcing bigots to take their 'justice' to the streets), and that's mostly why, despite hundreds of anti-death penalty organizations around the world sniping at the US system, a massive, high quality, university system staffed with anti-capital punishment tenured professors with publishing requirements and time off for research, there has yet to be a demonstrable case of an innocent person being executed.
Of course, our system has led to lots of murderers walking free or not being prosecuted, such as the vigilante lynchers referenced in the above paragraph.
As someone else said, the death penalty doesn't make anyone feel better about their loss, or even out any cosmic balance, but then, neither does taking away someone's else's freedom. That doesn't mean there doesn't come a time when the system should draw a line and refuse to participate in the continued existence of the most heinous offenders. Even if it does cost more to bring them to their end.
I'm not trying to change your mind, but on worldwide forums, the pro-capital punishment crowd is either shy, vastly outnumbered, or weird and a little crazy--that is, not representative of the American opinion on the topic. Just letting the other side be seen.