death penalty

I myself have the same story as you, I was against capital punishment but have now changed my mind. I like the idea of setting them to work, i would be in favour of this 99% of the time. However there are some cases in which just the mere fact that the person is alive, could be a torment for the victims and/or family. For example, in rare cases where somebody could have tortured and raped multiple children, condeming them to a life of darkness and a higher likely-hood of suicide, it should be implemented. For the parents and family of these children, who are now broken people, must feel tortured by the fact that the individual responsible for this action is still walking around and protected by the system. In these circumstances the death penalty should be used too give some closure to the families. Indeed the damage could not be repaid through any amount of attack on the perpetrator, but allowing them relative comfort. Also for those victims knowing their taxes are paying for the aggressor to stay alive, has got too hurt and not help them gain closure. I do not believe murder alone should result in the death penalty. As you have said, which I agree, that the jury system does make mistakes and wrong convictions. In any case where there isn't significant evidence (significant being defined as DNA evidence, cctv footage or even a confession not through forced interviewing), capital punishment should not stand. Although I have not tackled the moral issue yet I will try to explain that now. I believe it should only be on the table, if the victim in most cases has been morally wronged in a severe way. I'm not arguing two wrongs make a right. But who is to say that the guilty party has a right to basic human rights, if they are not willing to follow them themselves. There acts clearly shows that they don't care for human rights, so why should they be pitied with sentiments they take from others? I'm not deluded into thinking that the death penalty results in lower crime rates. Although it does reduce the number kept in prisons. This makes room for other criminals that would otherwise be turned lose onto the streets. Also, why should we as innocent tax payers carry on supporting someone there whole life if they couldn't make the right decisions to support themselves in the first place. This isn't an argument for the death penalty its just a bonus that comes with it. I agree that those who can afford good lawyers may take advantage of this and it could end up targeting the economically disadvantaged. If systems were put in place where a theatre of lay people had to listen to only the evidence not the lawyers themselves, then cast their vote, it would create a fairer system where the system could not be 'worked' by the more economically advantageous. It may seem barbaric on the surface but if you go about it in a sensitive way and have a clear judgment on what is and is not judged worthy of the penalty, then this can help to lessen the barbaric view placed on it. Barbaric in the sense means savagely cruel; primitive and unsophisticated. If long judgment in the right way was carried out and the actually penalty just an injection rather than a more brutish actions. Then this in a sense is not barbaric but a collective calculated action