the death penalty should only be used when there is the uttermost proof. I'm talking witnesses (who actually have been proven reliable and have undeniable proof of being a reliable witness), DNA potentially, extensive investigation of the detectives/police/court process involved in their crime and their conviction.
Its concerning to me the number of inmmates who have been not only let out of JAIL but also let out of death row because they've been found to either have been falsely convicted by bad evidence or literally framed.
That said I do believe the death penalty is a wise thing to use to some degree. In cases where a person being alive will only serve as a danger to others unless they're constantly locked in a square cube. Because lets be honest- whats the point of someone living if they're contained to a little cube and can't leave that one room? Sure, its possibly fair for a rapist or mass murderer to suffer in solitude BUT I doubt you can ever be certain they won't be a threat to others. We do hear about prison guards being killed time to time or even escapes.
I think it just falls down to a logical standpoint. If someone has done such awful things as to clearly have no grasp on their humanity or a degree of what is right and wrong then its doing THEM a disservice as well as a society a disservice of keeping them around.
There's no point in spending money to keep someone alive who is dangerous and will forever have a strong potential of hurting others. I'm talking serial killers and serial rapist sort of things though.
It definitely is disturbing some of the criminals who have been put to death by the flawed justice system whom clearly were not constantly committing crimes or 'evil' per say.
And that's where it comes back circular, the death penalty should only be used if there is extensive proof of all of the committed involved crimes AND those who helped convict the criminal are also to some degree investigated. It sounds like detective 'inception', but truly there needs to be fullproof investigations of former investigations. Too many detectives and police just want a quick road to glory and will put together pieces to fit however they want to get a conviction or 'criminal'.
At any rate I'm rambling but I definitely think the death penality serves as a tool in society to get rid of incredibly dangerous and evil people, as well as serves as a tool of warning and (hopefully) preventing others from taking such a dark road. It logically shouldn't be about being vengeful as much as it should be about simply following a code and setting a precedent in society: if you kill or rape others repeatedly and prove yourself a danger to society then there's no room for you here.
Hell if you want to technically get rid of the death penalty so you don't have guilt on your conscience, just make an island where you send all of the worst criminals and let them deal with each other there.
All I know is the worst thing you could do is set a precedent that no matter what someone does, no matter who they rape or kill or abuse, that they won't get killed due to our PC society. that sort of ideology creates a society and mindest in which certain criminals will consider it worth it to commit their crimes. Life is the biggest thing you can take from somebody, and as awful as it is I do think its logical to use it as a leveraging tool to attempt to keep evil people from doing evil things. Its that simple.
There's a huge issue though when we have strongly convicted serial killers/serial rapists who sit on death row for the better part of a decade before they're excecuted. That sort of thing shouldn't be happening. If someone has damaged and destroyed a ton of other lives then there's no excuse to feed them and let them sit in (sometimes) moderate comfort
