DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**erubresen** · 12-13-2005, 01:38 AM

That's just silly. You act as though putting someone in jail for 30 years and then releasing him after new evidence is found is infinitely better than executing him. It's not like everything wrong is undone when the life sentence wrongfully accused convict is released. He still lost 30 years of his life. What about the prison and court system in general? I mean, there have certainly been some people put in jail wrongfully. So, the system is, by your definition, broken at that level, too. So, should we get rid of jails?

Well, if you imprison someone for thirty years, and later find evidence that he was innocent, then you are able to at least do something to compensate him. That's not true for the death penalty. When you're dead, you're dead.

The main reason I oppose the death penalty, however, is that it costs too much. For me, it's not a matter of morality, but utility.

12-13-2005, 01:38 AM	#15
erubresen Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 431 Senior Member	That's just silly. You act as though putting someone in jail for 30 years and then releasing him after new evidence is found is infinitely better than executing him. It's not like everything wrong is undone when the life sentence wrongfully accused convict is released. He still lost 30 years of his life. What about the prison and court system in general? I mean, there have certainly been some people put in jail wrongfully. So, the system is, by your definition, broken at that level, too. So, should we get rid of jails? Well, if you imprison someone for thirty years, and later find evidence that he was innocent, then you are able to at least do something to compensate him. That's not true for the death penalty. When you're dead, you're dead. The main reason I oppose the death penalty, however, is that it costs too much. For me, it's not a matter of morality, but utility.
	Quote