- Pope Francis used his landmark address to Congress on Thursday to reiterate his belief that the death penalty should be abolished, directly tying the issue to his advocacy for the poor and underrepresented.
“I am convinced that this way is the best, since every life is sacred, every human person is endowed with an inalienable dignity, and society can only benefit from the rehabilitation of those convicted of crimes,” Francis said.
Living as a Catholic in a state that has struggled since abolishing the death penalty, I love Francis. Still don't agree with him on abortion or homosexuality, but this is still pretty cool.
See, I agree with you, and I still don't think that we should use it. Is there any group of people whom you trust<90% of the time with the life and death of another human? I can't think of any. Have we killed innocent men? Oh hell yeah Personally I think a life sentence is a harsher punishment than execution, and that a prisoner with a life sentence without possibility of parole should have the option to end their own life at any point. And I agree with briandmyers, mostly.
Which is why I don't think the decision should be based on a group, the decision of guilty or not guilty should be. If the life sentence is used should be based purely on a strict set of situations. Mass murders that are highly publicized, have definite recordings, and so on, where the person captured clearly isn't mentally stable, clearly has no regrets, wrote a manifesto, and so on. Those all deserve death, and in those situations the trial is little more than formality.Is there any group of people whom you trust<90% of the time with the life and death of another human?
Again, we agree. But those aren't the cases that concern me. I'm more interested in mercy for the living and wrongly accused, than 'fair' retribution upon the wicked.Mass murders that are highly publicized, have definite recordings, and so on, where the person captured clearly isn't mentally stable, clearly has no regrets, wrote a manifesto, and so on. Those all deserve death, and in those situations the trial is little more than formality.
My opinion : Some people deserve to be killed - but that does not mean it's okay for the State to do it.
If in fact that person was guilty of the crimes of which they are accused then yes, there could be times where the death penalty is justified. The Nuremburg Trials are a good example. However, there are many cases where the death penalty has been handed down to people later proven innocent. Unfortunately this proof often comes after the person has been executed. I agree that the amount of innocent people for whom the death penalty is considered is small, but the death penalty as a policy is simply not worth becoming the perpetrator of the same crimes as those who are being punished. Murder is murder, regardless of whether or not the state commits it, and the death of an innocent prisoner, while rare, is more important to me than the availability of that punishment and the possible cost savings of removing someone from life imprisonment.
And maybe if there were a push for severe limitation of the death penalty, people would support that, but the national discussion is split between leaving it alone or abolishing it. yellowoftops comment is an argument for the latter--if we refuse to change it, we shouldn't use it at all.