@bluecollar:"1. There is no evidence ...."No one
executed has ever reoffended, included killing guards or fellow prisoners."2. The death penalty is used disproportionately..."The wealthy--including OJ--can always afford a better defense than the poor.
The poor and minorities end up prison more than wealthy whites. Shall we
eliminate all penalties for crime?"3. The risk .. innocent
person ..."Has never happened in Utah under modern rules. There
is zero doubt about the guilt of any of the 7 men we've executed here. You
cannot return years spent rotting in a cell. Avoid convicting innocent men, and
there is no risk."4. In some countries.."This
has what to do with Utah laws?"5. It could be you ...."Only if we commit a capital offense."6. It costs more
taxpayer ..."It costs more to lock someone up than to let him
roam free. It costs more to provide due process than to lynch someone. It often
costs more to do the right thing."7. Jesus wouldn't do
it."You can't prove that. But if you want to bring
religion into this public debate, will you accept me bringing religion into
debates about abortion, the definition of marriage, or other issues?
1. There is no evidence the death penalty deters crime or increases public
safety.2. The death penalty is used disproportionately against poor
persons and persons of color.3. The risk of executing an innocent person
can never be eliminated. Many innocent persons have been put to death and others
have been executed despite serious doubt about their guilt.4. In some
countries, the death penalty has been used by persons in power to punish their
political opponents.5. It could be you or someone you love.6. It
costs more taxpayer money to execute a prisoner than to keep him/her in prison
for life.7. Jesus wouldn't do it.In no particular order.
@ Thomas JeffersonYou decry the death penalty yet you advocate for
elective abortion. You don't want to execute someone who
egregiously murders people, yet you don't mind taking an innocent human
life even before it has a chance to see the light of day.How do you
reconcile these opposing thoughts?
@ ConservativeCommonTater"If the evidence against someone is
mostly circumstantial, then the death penalty should not be used..."No one under our Constitution should be convicted of anything based on
circumstantial evidence. That would indicate a reasonable doubt. That being said, I wholeheartedly agree with both you and @ Lia that the
sentence should be carried out much more quickly than it is now. Our letter
writer cites the millions of dollars it costs to have someone put to death.
However, carrying out the execution is certainly not that costly. The cost
incurred is the 30 years of incarceration and the myriad of appeals afforded to
these animals. I also have an issue with this touchy-feely attitude
about executing these people "nicely." A man who rapes and kills little
girls, for example, should not be afforded the luxury of being, "put to
sleep." Executions need to be done the old fashioned way: electric chair,
firing squad, hanging. Their murderous actions were certainly cruel and unusual
for their victims, so why are we supposed to feel any compassion for them?
Good letter.The death penalty needs to remain on the books. Utah
has been very careful with it's use of the penalty, there is no doubt about
those we send to death row. So how do we control the cost. Cut down the
appeals. Appeal questionable evidence and testimony once. Appeal on quality of
representation, once. And one appeal on a possible insanity commutation. Once
those are done, and it should take less than a decade. Then carry out the
penalty. Cut the time and number of court trips and the cost drops.
"Maybe the number of mass shootings would decrease if perpetrators were
executed instead of pleading mentally ill."This simplistic
argument is trotted out all the time but it is a super weak argument. It assumes
that MURDERS think about the consequences of their actions beforehand and make
some sort of cost-benefit analysis and then decide to commit murder. The death penalty is good for one thing, vengeance, and I get that. But I
personally think life in prison would be worse than the death penalty.
Agreed.But don't drag it out.If the death penalty is handed
down, they should act quickly.
If there is absolutely no question about the egregious acts of a murderer, the
death penalty should be on the line, with a limit of one appeal. Then, stick a
needle in them in a timely period.If the evidence against someone is
mostly circumstantial, then the death penalty should not be used, just in case
future evidence turns up to show they didn't do the crime.