I go back and forth when it comes to the death penalty. Sometimes I feel there is a real need for a death sentence, and I realize that may be the "human" emotional part of me that vents when a heinous crime has been committed. Other times I think how sad it is that the State can legally "murder" someone while at the same time saying murder is wrong. The death sentence is also not always carried out fairly, those who have money and can find a good attorney or attorneys often get off while the poor, unfortunate ones, get the needle. In NJ, the debate is a mute point since the death penalty is no longer an option.
Recently in Alabama, the Alabama Supreme Court postponed executing a man after an inmate claimed in an sworn statement to defense attorneys that he committed the murder that sent the condemned man to death row. This is another reason for my position the death penalty should not exist; the fact that sometimes innocent people are executed. To me, one innocent life taken by the State is wrong. Throughout history, there have been many individuals executed when they did not commit the crime.
I guess when it comes down to it, I can see the death penalty in some cases in which there is clear evidence someone committed a murder. I am talking about cases where there are several witnesses or a video camera catching the event. Cases where there is irrefutable evidence the defendant committed the murder. But in instances when there is no clear cut evidence, circumstantial only, no witnesses, or other questions about the murder, I can see there being no death sentence.
So I guess the debate will continue in my mind.