Law enforcement officers call this "the CSI effect". There are now plenty of people who think evidence is instant, infallible, and achieved by hi-tech wizardry. It's becoming a noticeable problem in trials by jury, where jurors are horrified to find out that things presented as evidence can actually be questioned and that they might need to do a little thinking.<br />
As for the OP's question - execution has been the penalty for murder in virtually every human society since prehistoric times. For tens of thousands of years, it was pretty much automatic.This leads to two points - firstly, your notion that the death penalty has not had a chance to work is clearly stupid; and secondly, if the death penalty DID work to deter crime as you imagine, no-one would have been murdered for about 5000 years. This is not the case.
um u cant convict someone twice its called double jeopardy
as for other crimes you cannot convict someone for crimes they might have committed
otherwise the state can automatic convict who it wants on specious grounds of prima facie evidence without a fair trial
this has been done in other countries in show trials (including democratic russia as well as under communism)
theres also the fact that the right to a fair and speedy trial is in your constitution
its called the sixth amendment
SPARE THE CHILD, SPOIL THE ROD. Think about it.
OK, I thought about it. Still doesn't make sense.
Simple. People need to start cracking down on their kids, with some old fashion paddling. That will lower some crime in the future.
sometimes i think its better if they sit in jail and think about what they did the rest of their lives
after hispanics take over this country they will abolish the death penalty. They believe in life incarceration but not death. A mexican death sentance, is being murdered behind bars.
I think the death penalty should be the absolute last resort. Our systems are flawed and in need of repair, focusing on the death penalty is the same as ignoring all the problems that exist within our society that enables crime and doesn't properly punish criminals.
I'm... going to respond to the two coherent points I think I managed to winkle out of that screed.<br />
1. DNA evidence is not always present. It's a mistake to think that nowadays all crimes are 100% solvable with no subjective interpretation involved. There's a serious problem in the justice system of jurors who've watched too much TV expecting a much higher standard of proof than is realistically possible, because they expect the forensics wizards to wrap everything up neatly -- it's called the "CSI effect".<br />
2. Crimes do still happen in places with the death penalty. Of course they do, I can't imagine where you got the idea that they don't. If they didn't, if, say, Texas had completely ended all serious crime, the death penalty would be in force everywhere. It would be largely uncontroversial, because as a perfect deterrent it would never actually be used, much like nuclear weaponry.
sorry my considered response is; eh?<br />
the death penalty in my eyes is just wrong but who are the they you are disagreing with?<br />
also death penalty state enjoy higher murder rates than others
or we could just drink from the toilet
hmmm, you appear to be crazy, no offence