Yay for execution-style justice!
Somalia executes people for being homosexuals, Iran executes women for being victims of rape, North Korea executes people for trying to leave their country, and China executes people for cheating on their taxes.
So what does the United States have? Executions for "maybe" being guilty.
An argument repeatedly presented is that we should save money by preventing appeals for Death Row inmates, or that we should restrict how many appeals they can file. But, the mere fact appeals are filed indicates there's contention as to the guilt or innocence of those on Death Row, and such poses a dark cloud over the entire practice of executions.
So, some questions. Danny, if you were convicted of killing someone and sentenced to death, but you didn't do it, you were innocent of the crime, would you:
1. want to appeal?
2. refile for an appeal if your appeal was denied or you lost your appeal?
3. prefer to die instead of file appeals that may result in your being released?
4. accept the court's decision and willingly be put to death, knowing everyone will think you were a criminal?
5. accept the fact that all your belongings would not be given to your relatives and instead would be (posthumously) put up for government auction and the proceeds provided to pay for your incarceration and the procedure required to put you to death?
Being innocent doesn't equal being "found" innocent in a court of law. There is no guarantee, and thus one of the many reasons people prefer to take a plea bargain instead of risk full charges that would be imposed if they were to lose their case and be found guilty of crimes they were charged with
(and while I can give a rather stinky argument against plea bargains, thats for a different debate).
The death sentence is the easy way out and is far better than life imprisonement( and those are Tyrion's words)
If the accused is never proven innocent which may happen a lot then life imprisonement is worse for them
As it has already been stated, by Tyrion himself, you misquoted him. After reviewing your misquote, and Tyrion's actual words, it is obvious where the problem resides.
Tyrion used the word, "criminal," which indicates he was referring to the guilty. After all, an innocent person is not a criminal, he is merely falsely imprisoned. That is the core misconception you presented in your misquote, and subsequently in your associated argument.
So, for a "criminal," the death sentence is the easy way out. Instead of serving a deserved life sentence, which is no picnic in the park, a death sentence ends the punishment, releases him from penalties and possibly government-enforced restitution through labor.
However, for an "innocent," the death sentence robs the person of clearing his good name, and prevents him the chance to be found innocent through appeals. A life sentence imposed upon an innocent person is essentially unwarranted punishment. Thus, those persons later found to be innocent
(at least in the U.S.) are provided a modicum of financial restitution
(in addition to retraining and temporary medical coverage) when they are released. If, through a multitude of appeals, they are never found guilty, it still doesn't warrant the death penalty, precisely because that sort of rationalization would be prognosticative. Given a choice, an innocent person would invariably choose to live out his life in prison in the hopes he would eventually be proven innocent and, thus, subsequently released.
It is then unreasonable to deny the innocent a chance at being found innocent. Since the justice system is NOT infallible, it is logical to fall on the side of caution and impose life sentence over a death penalty. In fact, it is fundamentally humanistic.
. Probably shouldn't include too many emotes in this thread though