Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
Sure if it were widespread you may actually end up reducing crime in the long run and ultimately that could save a lot of money. I guess I envision a different end to things. I could see a situation where someone is convicted of a crime, sentenced to death and killed then we find out that the person actually was innocent. Their family sues the state that put this person to death and wins a multi-million dollar settlement. This could open up a whole new can of worms
Sadly, there is no easy answer. We can either deal with massive overcrowding and costs or deal with the possible issues that come from a rapid death penalty.
|
Good point and example; I suppose the only solution there is to give the Court final authority where they are not liable and thus, cannot be sued in any way for wrongful death. Of course that would open up the question of "If you give them x power, why not also let them do y." and then you get stuck at "Where is the line drawn"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
For sure, if you are just sitting in your house watching TV the cops aren't going to kick your door in and drag you away just because they need someone to arrest. Most of the people who eventually were found innocent of the crime were originally caught because they had existing criminal records that made them suspects. So one thing for sure that could happen is that it may encourage people to not get yourself involved in petty crime of any sort. If you end up a criminal that could get you in a line-up for a different crime you didn't commit and then you could be wrongly ID'd.
|
As you mentioned though, with new techniques such as DNA testing becoming cheaper and more widely used and they fact they'd still have a traditional trial, I'd think it going forward you won't have as many wrongful convictions as in the past...