The decision affirms a lower court’s ruling nullifying Jimmie “Chris” Duncan’s 1998 first-degree murder conviction. Duncan was convicted based in part on forensic evidence that is now widely regarded as junk science.
Mussolini was not tried in court, neither were the Romanovs. The Ceaușescus were summarily executed immediately after a brief show trial held by the fledgling provisional government in Romania shortly after the revolution.
None of these qualify as death sentence cases. When I think of capital punishment, I think of a strong state with a mature judiciary (whether fair or corrupt) which has a standing defined policy whereby the state is allowed to kill citizens and non-citizens alike.
As long as the death penalty exists it will have an error rate. Abolishing the death penalty is about sparing the innocent a wrongful execution. The guilty can rot in prison for life, thats still a punishment, and anyone wrongfully incarcerated has a chance to be exonerated.
You can free an innocent person from prison, but you cant un-execute them.
There’s a man on death row in Texas, named Robert Roberson. He’s come days from execution at one point, and he’s VERY likely innocent. He was accused of killing his daughter through “shaken baby syndrome” and it was long since proven to be junk science.
He’s got a stay now and is awaiting a new trial.
If there’s ANY chance of executing someone innocent, it should be abolished, and because it’s brutal and has no place in this day and age.
I can think of a few legitimate cases for death row.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Benito_Mussolini
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_and_execution_of_Nicolae_and_Elena_Ceaușescu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_the_Romanov_family
and we can only hope for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_family
Mussolini was not tried in court, neither were the Romanovs. The Ceaușescus were summarily executed immediately after a brief show trial held by the fledgling provisional government in Romania shortly after the revolution.
None of these qualify as death sentence cases. When I think of capital punishment, I think of a strong state with a mature judiciary (whether fair or corrupt) which has a standing defined policy whereby the state is allowed to kill citizens and non-citizens alike.
The state should not have that power.
As long as the death penalty exists it will have an error rate. Abolishing the death penalty is about sparing the innocent a wrongful execution. The guilty can rot in prison for life, thats still a punishment, and anyone wrongfully incarcerated has a chance to be exonerated.
You can free an innocent person from prison, but you cant un-execute them.
There’s a man on death row in Texas, named Robert Roberson. He’s come days from execution at one point, and he’s VERY likely innocent. He was accused of killing his daughter through “shaken baby syndrome” and it was long since proven to be junk science.
He’s got a stay now and is awaiting a new trial.
If there’s ANY chance of executing someone innocent, it should be abolished, and because it’s brutal and has no place in this day and age.
the death penalty should exist exclusively for politicians using there position to entrench themselves in power