Convicted at 14 and now 70 years later but too late he has been exonerated.
And death penalty supporters always pretend that innocent people are never executed.
What ever "justice" is gained by the death penalty is not worth even a single innocent life when we could just give the convicts life w/o parole.
Okay, there are lots of times that the convicted are actually innocent but for whatever reason (and there are lots of reasons!) couldn't be proven at that time. It is not fair to them, or their family/friends to be sentenced to death for something they didn't do. As we keep creating all of these new technologies, it becomes easier and easier to frame someone else for something they did not do. Actually, it happens just about Every day. Don't put them to death. While I don't agree that our tax money should go towards keeping bad people in jail, I also don't agree with killing people for their crimes. If you think about it, you probably commit a crime every day. It could be a simple innocent crime, but it's a crime nonetheless.
George Stinney wasn't the only innocent sentenced to death. In fact, in 2014 alone, 7 convicted men were declared innocent in the State of Carolina alone. Also, the DP solves nothing. It's not justice, it's revenge. And a civilized society shouldn't lower itself to those levels. It's a shame that the US still uses this form of punishment. It's the only country in the G8 to do so by the way.
This case highlights the flaws in the death penalty system.
First, the case is a clear example of how a defense attorney refused to provide a decent defense to help him along in his career. (something that is a reoccurring problem with publically appointed defense attorneys. The town saw two dead girls and wanted a conviction, so they got one.
Second, if there were no death penalty, this boy would still be alive today. The argument could not be made that he "would have spend his life in jail" because his vocal decent and the recanting of the witnesses happened long ago.
This case is only one example. The death penalty is a permanent solution. We can't afford to live in a society where we claim we are rehabilitating criminals whilst executing the "bad ones". No clear cut off can be made for those who are "too dangerous for society", therefore the death penalty should never be used. People need to understand the justice system isn't about "getting what your deserve" , its about preventing the behavior from occurring again whilst trying to reduce future losses.
But it still should have been long gone by now, the Death Penalty is nothing more than an artifact of long gone bloodthirsty society. Really is a shame there still exist remnants of such savagery in modern times.
My desire to outlaw the Death Penalty is the same reason I want to outlaw torture, it's not humanitarian, it's actually a selfish motive. As an American citizen, I don't want to sit quietly while my country commits atrocities, otherwise, I'm just as low as the people we're killing, I'm by extension, accessory to thousands of murders a day just by paying my taxes.
It is never right to take someone's life. If we sentence someone to death it is no better than when they killed someone. We have no right to decide who can live and who can die. Nobody does. We need to prove that we are better than this. Thank you
I personally am ambivalent about the issue of the death penalty. However, my opinion on the death penalty is not the topic at hand here. I do not believe this is good enough because there are a few holes in your argument. The death penalty is meant to remove people from society who have been deemed too dangerous to live. Do a few innocent people slip through? Of course. However, abolishing the death penalty will not change that. Innocent people will still end up in jail for heinous crimes, death penalty or no. Had this boy been given life in prison instead of capital punishment, he would have been released at age 84. His life would essentially be over. At this point, there would be practically no difference between the death penalty and life imprisonment because of the fact that he would have spent 70 years of his life behind bars ever since he was a kid. Lethal injection was probably much less painful than what he would have had to endure for 70 years, only to be released into essentially a foreign world of freedom.
As said before, I am not super hyped over the death penalty. However, I don't believe this particular example is enough to convince at least me.
I agree with most of what PurpleDuck said, aside from a few minor details. Additionally, this is a terrible example to support your case. This was a black man in 1944, accused of murdering two white girls IN THE SOUTH. It was the society's mindset that got him the death penalty. We have evolved as a society to the point where racial barriers have been broken down (mostly) and no black man would be wrongfully convicted solely due to the pigmentation of his skin. Now continuing with how our society is more advanced, we no longer allow minors to undergo execution. So far that makes two reasons why this case is completely outdated. Finally, we have better forensic evidence nowadays. With improved investigations, there is a much lower likelihood of this happening in modern times.
I respect your argument of "not worth a single innocent life," but this is a terribly outdated and therefore invalid example you have provided.
If we get rid of the death penalty our criminals will not be able to pay for their crimes. Here's an example, if you kill 50 innocent people and you get caught. When the judge decides your sentance it showed be the death penalty but, if we abolished that sentence the killer could be sentance for 20 years of prison or prison for life. Either way there are put to justice but they should pay for their crimes. So no, we do need the death penalty.
He deserves a serious punishment. That's how the world works. Do bad things and bad things happen to you. Do terrible things and terrible things happen to you. He may be young but his crimes are serious. If he acted the right way, the punishment need not be feared. If he did the right thing he would be a free man.
In Mississippi, a girl was doused with gasoline inside and out, and set aflame. The heinous fashion of this murder is Exhibit A for Capitol Punishment. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg spied for an enemy, putting millions of Americans at risk. Surely such treason is Exhibit B. The fact that the Founding Fathers did not ban the Death Penalty in the Bill of Rights is Exhibit C.
That picture in that boy is during the times when things are not as free and open as our time today. You can not base this argument during the times when that poor boy was living. Death penalty should be the highest penalty of crimes since our time has more accuracy in finding killers, rapist, and bad people. Although it can never be accurate so maybe regulating death penalty by how many people a felon had committed could be a start.