Death Penalty: Justice, or Just Too Far? | Learn Liberty

Death Penalty: Justice, or Just Too Far? | Learn Liberty

Articles, Blog , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 100 Comments

In 1983, an 11-year-old North Carolina girl
was raped and suffocated, her body later found in a soybean field. Two mentally disabled
half-brothers, Henry McCollum and Leon Brown, quickly became targets of the investigation.
After hours of interrogation, McCollum and Brown each confessed. They were convicted
and sentenced to die. Sounds like well-served justice. Public officials
in North Carolina and across the country praised their death penalty conviction. But here’s
the problem: McCullom and Brown were innocent. After 30 years on death row, DNA evidence
revealed another man, who’d lived near the scene and had a long record of sexual assaults,
was the murderer. He was never investigated during the case.
We nearly executed two men for a crime they did not commit. That shows just how dangerous
the death penalty really is. Even if you think that some people deserve to die, governments
make mistakes. That means having to accept the unacceptable: innocent people will die.
That can’t be undone and we cannot compensate for it the way we can with mistaken imprisonment.
What if the death penalty doesn’t make us any safer? It hasn’t deterred crime more than
life sentence without parole, nor have we seen a spike in murder rates following its
abolishment in different states. Innocent people can and have been wrongfully
sentence to die for many reasons. Take Curtis McCarty. He was sentenced to death for the
murder of a police officer’s daughter. After 22 years in prison he was exonerated. He returned
home to his terminally ill mother and now adult son, and a granddaughter he’d never
held. 22 years of Curtis McCarty’s life were stolen from him because a forensic chemist
with the Oklahoma City Police Department either intentionally altered or lost evidence related
to the case. That same chemist participated in over 3,000 other cases; 23 resulted in
death sentences. Does that make you feel safe? How many more innocent people should we let
die before we abolish the death penalty once and for all?

100 thoughts on “Death Penalty: Justice, or Just Too Far? | Learn Liberty

  • fiendin281 Post author

    that idiot chemist needs to be put to death.

  • wyzemann Post author

    Very convincing, although I'll continue further research into this ongoing topic before I fully alter my mindset toward the death penalty. I've been an ardent believer in swift execution for the the atrociously worst convicted offenders, perhaps it's time I evolved.

  • XxIRONxPOTATOxX Post author

    Here is the problem. This video only shows examples of people incorrectly sentenced to death. What about the people who ARE guilty of crimes that are currently deemed worthy of the death penalty? What is the reason to spare them?

  • Anthony Post author

    China executes less total people than the US, doesn't that say something about us?

  • Garry S Post author

    Well since DNA was brought into the picture, we also have to consider the quality of forensics investigations as well, as it could possible lead to inaccurate investigation results, or criminals planting DNA to put innocent people into prison.

    I think science is going to have to advance before we can move on from this "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" approach to Justice. 
    Inside I'm all for putting people to death, but that only makes me, and a few other people feel justice. Putting them to death is an easy way out. It's a fast track to feeling justice. But even being put to death isn't always speedy. People sit on death rows reaping tax benefits for decades, sadly. 

    I really think that Science needs to advance and the minds of these criminals need to be studied and analyzed to the point where we have better predictability on these people when they're younger and can help them.

    Our feelings of justice does nothing for someone else in another state who doesn't know who you may be murdered some day.

    On average there are about 40 people murdered per day. How many of us viewing this page have been affected by those? Are we pushing to get the death penalty for 40 murderers per day? No, it's only when someone you love personally or care much about who gets murdered that you suddenly want the death penalty.

    So given that, we have to accept that it's personal and not founded on reason/logic. We have to open our minds to the possibility that keeping these people alive for the purposes of psychological and scientific/neurological research may benefit us, so that we can reduce those 40 murders a day and have a happier, safer population.

  • sweatybetty321 Post author

    Taking a life when a life is taken is revenge, not justice.

  • watchdealer11 Post author

    Plain and simply put the state should not be killing it's own citizens, especially when proving 100% guilt is almost impossible.

  • engelsseele2 Post author

    Biggest problem a lot of anti-death videos do not take into account. The murders (psychopaths) who have no problem killing and even if released do it again. Or the people who just get released and commit another crime again and again and again. Basically people who will never change and who will always be a dredge on society. Do we just keep them locked up wasting money on them?

    A good example of this is (although fiction) is the Batman series. Where so many lives would have been saved if Joker had been put to death. But due to good behaviour or breaking out of prison. He goes on to kill more people. While we don't have that kind of reality. The point still stands. There are people who will go out again and again and again to commit more crimes. Who have no problem with killing someone and another and another after that.

  • Lentenlands Post author

    What does the Bible say? Because nothing else really matters.

  • 432423429482 Post author

    I agree with this video. Shame the people who aren't crazy tough on justice types are spread out all across the political spectrum and not unified.

  • Benjamin Drexler Post author

    For that last example of Curtis McCarty, that is less about the Death Penalty and more about the fallibility of the justice system. He lost 22 years of his life, but with a life-sentence he would have lost the same, or maybe more if there was less drive to double-check the evidence from that case. And one example of failure for the chemist is very weak evidence that the other cases he worked on may have been innocent.

    Every single person punished by the courts may actually be innocent, regardless of what evidence and how much is brought against them. And many, many factors can increase that chance. But what is wrong is that an innocent person is punished, not simply that they were killed. We should take just about every measure we can to decrease the chance that an innocent is punished, but removing the death penalty still leaves them punished wrongfully and unjustly.

    Whether or not we should have a death penalty is based more on whether that punishment fits that crime. Is the death penalty a proper sentence for someone who has tortured another person to death, or is it not a proper sentence? Or possibly, are more innocents killed by the death penalty or by those who would otherwise get the death penalty but are spared from it by one means or another? Those are questions that should be answered, not whether any innocents are killed or not.

  • Eric Bess Post author

    This would be a more convincing argument if he had examples of people who were exonerated post mortem.  Had the individuals mentioned been instead sentenced to life in prison, the story would have been the same – being on death row didn't affect the outcome in these cases.  If anything, people dug harder to find the truth.  Would they still be in prison had they not been on death row?  Maybe, maybe not.  I'm not arguing the death penalty here, merely pointing out that this argument is also lacking.

  • aaron4820 Post author

    And death penalty, due to the legal system and I guess the finality of its verdict, is also extremely expensive, more expensive than the alternatives… so really, argument for death penalty an entirely emotional one.

  • vipero00 Post author

    One limiting factor on guilt and innocence are the terms. We only have words for two cases (guilt and innocence). Since these terms apply only to the results of a court case there are actually four cases.
    1. Truly guilty – actually did it and convicted.
    2. Truly innocent- actually didn't do it and not convicted.
    3. Falsely guilty – actually didn't do it but convicted (worst case)
    4. Falsely innocent – actually did it but not convicted
    We need words for the last two cases to have a clearer discussion on these topics.

  • Michal Pieter Post author

    Meanwhile in Europe…

    PS: Excluding Belarus.

  • TapOnX Post author

    "I support the protection of life from conception to natural death. But a natural death for a murderer is a death on the gallows." – JKM #Korwin

  • doncourson Post author

    The narrator is wrong.  Government doesn't make just a few mistakes.

  • Quincy Birwood Post author

    The problem I see is that the so called "justice system" is flawed. The cops, detectives, forensics, lawyers and judges all participate in a system that unjustly convicts innocent people. Are you saying that none of these people at any point could figure out the innocent people were actually innocent. The problem is in the system, not so much the punishment. If people's biases due to race, class, religion, gender, hatred, revenge, etc. can be removed from the process and replaced with facts, maybe it would work as intended. Until then, good luck to anyone who gets dragged into that rat's nest.

  • Bill Pigg Post author

    This video is a non-issue.
    Let's have a propaganda video of the .001% of false positives and then play violin music in the background.  Hardly anyone dies because of a "death penalty" now a days.  They sit, wasting away in some privately run jail cell paid for by tax payers while their lawyers file endless appeal after appeal. Those who do get executed actually are guilty.  No innocent person in the US has EVER been executed.  So, STFU.
    The death penalty is not a deterrent because it hardly ever comes to fruition. If it does, it's after 30 years of appeals and constantly searching for evidence to the contrary. 

  • Jack Mcslay Post author

    The very error is in the name – "Penalty". Prisons should be a means of isolating dangerous people to protect the rest of society, not punishment. It's a huge waste of human capital that could benefit the population if instead of providing prisoners with the goods they need to survive they just required them to provide for themselves by getting a job inside prison.

  • thatoneguy 2 Post author

    Hey, I'm going to have to write a paper for a basic philosophy class about the death penalty. We are STRONGLY encouraged to frame the argument in the idea of retributism . Both of these arguements had failed to hold against the concept of retributivism, can anyone please explain why it's wrong in that sense?

  • Mr. Game & Watch Post author

    It costs way too much money to keep someone in prison for life.

  • SirLobsterman Post author

    abolish? no
    restrict? yes. 
    with modern video and DNA technology, I would say better confirmed cases of mass murder like a mass shooter confirmed on video cameras, ect. should have the option of death penalty, when your face is on the video that they're using as evidence against you, you really can't say "the police screwed up the forensics" and you need to be permanently removed from society through death to end all the trouble you're causing for society. there are people in this world that just need to be removed and forgotten, not going to name names, but I can think of a few.

  • superbott Post author

    I didn't see a real argument for complete abolishment there. I completely agree that we should never kill someone who might be innocent, but some crimes really do merit death. The first story the guy shared? Those 2 boys didn't deserve death, but the guy who actually committed the crime sure did. My position is just that the bar should be raised for death penalty cases. Instead of reasonable doubt, or does the crime merit death, the bar that must be crossed should be zero doubt. The crime was caught on film or in front of a group of many ironclad witnesses. Fewer capital sentences, but not outright abolishment.

  • Michael N Post author

    Keep the penalty for terrorism

  • Rev. Patrick McCarthy Post author

    I could not agree more

  • TapOnX Post author

    "If death penalty is murder, then imprisonment is kidnapping" – JKM #Korwin

  • Richard Marques Post author

    I'm a little surprised by the soft arguments.  Seems like the presenter is really arguing for better investigations and trials.  To say a bad chemist is a good argument for disallowing the death penalty only leads me to say to protect the chemical analysis process.  The basic question is, is the death penalty a suitable penalty?  I think it is. I'd offer up Timothy McVeigh.  Any problems in that case?  Probably not so I'm focusing on, is the consequence for his crime, death?  Again, I think it was.

  • tazmania Post author

    If the capital punishment (death penalty) is abolished, what is your suggestion for the alternative? Is life in prison (psychological and physically affected by being jailed), more ethical than the death penalty?

  • MrJimmy3459 Post author

    I consider myself very Libertarian, most as this videos show are anti death penalty but I am for the death penalty. However I have always thought that it needs to be reformed NOT done away with. What needs to happen is if you have hard solid evidence DNA, video etc. and judging by how heinous the murder is he should be put to death within one year, if no solid evidence exists then he should not be put on death row. Reason I am pro death penalty is because i believe there are some people who should not be walking this earth due to there crimes. Plus the system is also flawed that some of theses evil people get out, I'd rather see that they never have a chance to hurt anyone else.

  • william waddell Post author

    you could make this argument about any legal action

  • Maddix Post author

    I think we need to take a closer look at the data. Think about this problem in a scientifically objective way. Lets assume that our main goal is to minimize the death of innocents. We should compare the increase or decrease in murder before and after the death penalty was banned in a state and compare that to the estimated percent of innocents that get wrongfully convicted and get sentenced to death. Just a little bit of math and you will get the answer. If the death penalty turns out that it CAN actually deter people from committing murder, we should apply optimization to find the ideal balance of:
    1) The probability that a given person is guilty
    2) The amount it deters people from committing crimes later on

  • Roland W Post author

    Good points. Do you really want to give the death penalty option to the same institution that gave us Cash for Clunkers?

  • MrBrookshire12 Post author

    This was the worst and most biased video I have see from learn liberty. The whole video was a display of the injustice in a justice system. It made no arguement for liberty. Only that the "justice system" did not provide justice two individuals and there was no discussion of liberty.

  • KingAdrock420 Post author

    I support the death penalty.

    But only for that forensic chemist.

  • jojoinhere Post author

    the problem is with the investigation not the punishment.

  • rng8891 Post author

    The Government doesn't sentence people to die. They are convicted by a jury of their peers. Society sentence's them to death. It is not society that is crooked, it is those that prosecute, those that present to the jury that are immoral and corrupt. According to this video DNA evidence proves Roscoe Artis raped and murdered an 11 year old girl. And then ………………. ??? Roscoe goes free? Roscoe wakes up every morning eating food paid for by my tax's? We treat Roscoe like a slave of the Antebellum South where he works on a state run work farm? A grown man rapes and murders an 11 year old girl – proved by DNA evidence – but this is not discussed. Roscoes crime is so dreadful he deserves to forfeit his life. The other two men were convicted because of corrupt cops. Do not throw away the death penalty because the police have no morals.

  • Sam Dawkins Post author

    seems to me it would have been more humane to kill the dudes than keep them in cages wrongly for 30 yrs

  • Patrick Istvan Post author

    You guys realize people have reasons why they do the things they do. Understanding is key to fighting wrong doing.

  • litoMX101 Post author


  • Racer X Post author

    Of course the death penalty isn't a deterrent. It takes 20 to 30 years to be put to death. The news doesn't report a murder that is soon followed by a trial and execution. The only time the media reports an execution, you can be sure that the crime and trial happened decades earlier. The threat of execution just isn't real enough. It's like the threat of dying from cancer 30 years down the road isn't real to a smoker. If you died months after smoking, not a single person would smoke (unless they had a death wish).

  • Patrick Delahanty Post author

    One person commented that it is a shame folks across the political spectrum are not unified. Well, in Kentucky we are and if you are from Kentucky and want to join the growing number of folks across all faiths and political entities, then visit the website of the Kentucky Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty and sign up to become part of the movement and someone who will make history soon when we abolish it in Kentucky: I look forward to hearing from you. And congrats on this video. Well done.

  • Gosto Tothiwim Post author

    The Sweet Death Penalty

  • GeorgeCostanzaTheMovie2: TheGeorgeCostanza-ing Post author

    I was honestly on the fence about the death penalty. But this video brought up some pretty good points. I guess it's probably better to not have it. However, Idk, I just get the feeling that this channel is kind of manipulative and a little biased. Not a lot has shown me that, but just the way this video and some of there others were made. But besides that, good points.

  • M Silver Post author

    Death is too easy for monsters. They should have to suffer for the rest of their lives. It's too bad there is no way to guarantee that the person convicted is guilty.

  • Parker Delagrange Post author

    Carlos Hernandez was guilty, Carlos de-Luna was the innocent one in that case

  • YamiShadow Kitty Post author

    I tend to be pro-death penalty (for both murder and rape), but for once I'm seeing a coherent argument against my position. Usually the arguments are about racial bias in the police and legal system, which is a fact, but that would not be solved by getting rid of the death penalty. You'd still have racial bias– just a bunch of lifelong sentences instead of death sentences. The risk of being wrong is by comparison one which is actually directly related. I won't say I'm fully swayed, but I will say there's a serious amount of stuff in this argument that is worth thinking about.

  • JayJ Post author

    I disagree. Death Penalty is dangerous because of an incompetent police force and judiciary. Clearly now because of advances in genome sequencing we can now be more certain of identity.

  • sasquatch4liffee Post author

    Getting rid of the death penalty isn't going to save people from being wrongfully imprisoned. You might want to find a better argument.

  • Thomas Seiver Post author

    Has anybody heard of an eye for an eye

  • Paul Webb Post author

    I can't accept the fact that we will inadverdantly throw some completely innocent lives to be executed along with killers and rapists. Let's abolish the death penalty.

  • darline dieudonne Post author

    What's this song?

  • Matthew Clayton Post author

    The Death Penatly sometimes needs to be there if someone is just too dangerous.

  • Ted Comet Post author

    This guy thinks Dzhokhar Tsarnaev the Boston Bomber should live, he thinks john wayne Gacy should still be alive

  • Ted Comet Post author

    Then lets just not imprison anyone dont want to risk sending an innocent to jail lets just let all the accused murders and rapist and drug dealers out we can prove it 100%

  • Ted Comet Post author

    2:08 Thats 0.00766666666 percent you dolt

  • Dylan Block Post author

    Well this was a waist of a YouTube commercial

  • Olivia Nichole Post author

    My dad just always says that instead of wasting all the money on these crazy people, just put them all on an island and let them kill each other off. Wouldn't waste money and it would be their choice on wether to live or defend themselves. I have never felt like the death penalty was a bad thing, ever. Yes I'm sure some people are innocent, but I just think of the people who are not. I don't think About how it doesn't decline murder rates or crap like that, I think about the fact that we waste this money on them to keep them alive while we could spend it on so much more worthy things.

  • Belle B. Post author

    He has a fair point but overpopulation is also a serious epidemic and the death penalty helps with that a lot.

  • Taebby Post author

    I Am Crying So Hard Right Now I Mean An 11 Year Old Girl

  • Froz Post author

    Very convincing! I've always been against the death penalty, but you've certainly secured my position!

  • luckyy boy Post author

    or you could just notmbe an idiot and not get involved in shady shit.

  • ryanconway1991 Post author

    "We can't compensate for [mistaken executions] the way we do with mistaken imprisonment."

    Oh, I didn't realize the government had a magic time machine they used to give back the years lost to people mistakenly imprisoned.

    This video has the feel of something a pre-teen would argue. Logic-less. Inane. Not at all academic. There are plenty of good arguments both for and against capital punishment. This video makes a mockery out of them all. Like it's a poor Saturday Night Live skit mocking Learn Liberty.

    Truly disappointing.

  • Darth Vader Post author

    Murderers deserve to die. The only reason I oppose the death penalty is because innocent people could get killed.

  • Deacon Parsons Post author

    Your premise is in error. NOT having the death penalty is part of why we allow slipshod courts in the first place.

  • Travis Romig Post author

    30 years of torture(prison) vs death????? Please kill me. I'll be killing and/or harming your guards either(if I did the crime or not) way.

  • madrigaldude17 Post author

    Fuck the death penalty and anyone who supports it

  • nejjjen Post author

    I can understand the point of view to discuss liberty concerning wrongful conviction, but what does that have to do with the penalty type?  Death or life in prison is not about teaching someone a lesson.  It's about removing them from the society, so they no longer do harm.The question is how can we preserve the liberty of all people that do not harm or risk the harm of others in order to be truly free.  So how do we protect the liberty of wrongful conviction and most common – how do we protect the liberty of… let's say an 11 year old girl from being raped and murdered?Death penalty?  I'm libertarian, but sure.  If the controls are in for hard evidence data and especially with repeat offenders of violent crimes, remove them permanently from society, so we can have more liberty.  Once determined, do it quickly and as painlessly as possible and move on.I don't see it as retaliatory, revenge or any of that – just remove them from putting the happiness, freedom and liberty of others at risk. If they've behaved this way at this point, I'm not interested in rehabilitation.  I don't care what parental issues or mental issues they have.  Just make it safe for those of us that do not commit violence and infringe on others.The biggest wrongful death penalty is that of our and others military personnel and regular citizens.  They are dying all over the world to fight and kill others for ultra rich and politicians for resource grabs.

  • Don Stacy Post author

    I oppose a State death penalty, but support a market death penalty in cases where guilt is absolutely certain.

  • Intuitivelogic Post author

    what if there is video evidence? and you're 100% certain, can we kill child mass murderers then?

  • Leifur Thor Post author

    It is perhaps not a question of ethics, but in fact a question of mathematics. If there is a chance say 1 in 100 that an innocent person is deemed guilty and executed you Joe public have participated in the murder of an innocent human being simply because of an error. Therefore, because mathematically there is a percentage no matter how small, we really must abolish the death sentence because the state does make mistakes and innocent people do wind up in jail for crimes that they did not commit. It is easy for us to not seriously consider the death penalty being abolished especially if we believe that most of the time genuinely bad people who have committed terrible crimes are being executed which we perceive as righteous justice. But if you were plucked out of your life because the state thought you had committed some heinous crime of which you had nothing to do with that infinitesimally small percentage might suddenly mean quite a bit to you. I believe it was Thomas Jefferson that one said I would rather set a hundred guilty men free then incarcerate one innocent man wrongly.

  • Silver Mango Dragon Post author

    but what's the alternative? Imprisonment is incredibly expensive, especially if it is for life.

  • Silver Mango Dragon Post author

    but what's the alternative? Imprisonment is incredibly expensive, especially if it is for life.

  • Silver Mango Dragon Post author

    but what's the alternative? Imprisonment is incredibly expensive, especially if it is for life.

  • Olliewildlife401 Post author

    The death penalty should apply only in cases where the evidence could not be disputed in any way.

    I do not want to waste our tax dollars on keeping a guy like James Homes, Vincent Lee, or the Boston bomber brother alive in prison.

    We decide not to rehabilitate a dog who rips a mans throat out, we just put them down. Tell me why we shouldn't do the same to humans.

  • Rick Holden Post author

    As the brilliant economist, Thomas Sowell has pointed out, looking at whether the death penalty is legal between states, or before and after, isn't meaningful. What matters is whether people are actually put to death for capital crimes.

    When looking at the data this way, Sowell has concluded that each execution does explain a significant amount of variance in the capital crime rates of states. The most important aspect of any form of justice or punishment is that it's transparent, and relatively immediate. When someone can stay on death row for 30 years, then it just becomes prison. The execution is completely disconnected from the crimes as any kind of a deterrent.
    You can argue against the death penalty on moral grounds if you'd like, but there's a cost in future deterrence on future crimes. Everything is a trade-off.

  • zakaria mohamed Post author

    locking up someone for thirty years is injustice. The person can't get back the time that they've lost in prison. No amount of money is able to compensate that.

  • Brendan McClelland Post author

    I say we not only execute truly convicted murderers, but also execute corrupt prosecutors.

  • Beltims Post author

    If someone is wrongly convicted then that is not the fault of the punishment. I agree death penalty is dangerous and it should not be used lightly, but if done properly I think it should be an option. Because the other option is to let mass murderers like Breivik sit in prison while their victims are dead. Unless you think Breivik and others like him are innocent and I would like to hear arguments supporting that. This is not about money, or deterring criminals. It's about justice.

  • TWM22 Post author

    what's the music in the background? btw great video

  • Pepega Joestar Post author

    Gentlemen. 40-60% of those that commit murder will commit it again when freed. Is the society really secure?

  • thegreat one Post author

    seems like a really bias video especially without any counterclaims or even facts of the thousands that have died to the death penalty for crimes they have committed.

  • emilly c Post author

    Honestly, the answer is: life sentence. They dont die, and they will still suffer for their crimes as there is no way out.

  • Charaykee Shilla Post author

    Wtf, a murderer doesn't deserve to live.

  • lilith shopping Post author

    we should abolish all penalties.

  • SalveMonesvol Post author

    If we could be sure though… some people needs to die. If there is undeniable, unambiguous proof of a heinous crime, so that there's no room for doubt, he should just die. Not be tortured, just die.
    This should only be applied to violent criminals, and those unrelated to polytical "misconduct", like those being accused right now of inciting violence and sedition in Venezuela just for protesting against a government starving them.

  • David Perry Post author

    I am strongly against the death penalty. For the spree and serial murderers and terrorist bombers they should serve their entire life without parole sentence in super max so that they wish themselves death.

  • vino peroni Post author

    UN Amnesty International say that death penalty should be abolished worldwide because it's not a deterrent to crime, but even jails don't deter nor eliminate crimes, so if they follow their logic they should demand governments to also abolish jails. I'm Italian living & working in Singapore, I admire Singapore's death penalty law, death penalty is justice particularly for premeditated murder. Criminals are a menace & danger to us they deserve death by being killed.

  • Dylan Bratisax Post author

    Who are we to decide who lives and who dies? Just because they feel like they have the power to decide doesn't mean as a society we should think the same way. Every living thing is precious and everyone deserves a chance to reform. That's what prison is all about. it's supposed to reform the criminal into someone willing to function in society again. Killing is wrong no matter what the reason is.

  • Des Saster Post author

    What if those criminals were pyscopaths…
    Pyschopaths never change..They had very different thinkings because they are not normal and impossible for them to make change
    They waited to get out of prison not to have a new life but to have a new victim

  • Des Saster Post author

    What if those criminals were pyscopaths…
    Pyschopaths never change..They had very different thinkings because they are not normal and impossible for them to make change
    They waited to get out of prison not to have a new life but to have a new victim

  • c hopkins Post author

    It's a tragedy that would lead someone to being executed but we have to get rid of the death penalty.

  • WarmPotato Post author

    Its VERY easy to pick cases from the 70s and 80s and show that people were wrongfully convicted, of course because now we have DNA evidence and can avoid those situations ever happening – thus, completely destroying your argument. Show me the false conviction death penalty case happening in 2018, then we'll talk

  • Truth Warrior Post author

    Todd Willingham was not proven innocent .

  • Drawde_064 Post author

    In the UK the life sentence achieves the same thing but we can release peopled we find they’re innocent

  • Earl Driskill Post author

    One thing is for sure, once these murderers are executed, they will never have a chance of getting out and to commit more crines.

  • Fahad the Random Guy Post author

    Honestly, it bothers and scars me that innocents get executed…

  • krankenheim13 Post author

    The state does not hold ownership over the life of any human. The state does not have the right to take the life of any human – guilty or not.

  • Lance Baize Post author

    The constitution gives government the power to protect life not take it away.

  • Firelord Eliteast67 Post author

    Its just math. You get a case wrong, an innocent person dies. You let a murderer walk around alive, who knows how many innocent people will die.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *