Recently I've been watching a Frontline documentary about a man named Clifford Boggess, who was convicted of murdering two elderly men on separate occasions and sentenced to death (Clifford, and the men he killed, lived in Texas).
I think that there are good and bad sides to the death penalty. Starting with the good, the death penalty is cheaper than a life in prison sentence. Once they're dead, they're dead (this is also a bad thing but I'll get into that later). Additionally, if there is concern that the person will/could escape from prison, the death penalty means that they wont get that chance.
The main bad thing about the death penalty (as opposed to life in prison) is that it is final. There are no take-backs if more evidence is brought to light later. This is a pretty big idea to consider, especially if there is any doubt as to the guiltiness of the suspect.
In Clifford's case however, there were no such doubts. In this case he definitely deserves the death penalty because there is he has confessed to his crimes. However, in cases of doubt, I don't think the death penalty should be used.
To conclude, I think that the death penalty is necessary, but should be used sparingly because of the fact that you only have one chance.
In each of your posts I found myself wanting more. Sometimes more passion (it's unclear what you really care about here), more opinion (in the previous post, why is it so important for people to be informed? What are the consequences? What does it say about our democracy?) or more information (why did Boggess definitely deserve the death penalty? What made you come to this conclusion?)
ReplyDelete