In the New Yorker article David Grann lays out a very persuasive case that claims that Cameron Todd Willingham was executed for a crime he claimed not to have committed and probably did not commit.
Because of Willingham's probable innocence, the question of whether to continue having a death penalty will be highlighted once again. Texas now offers juries an alternative if they find guilt in a capital case: life without possibility of parole.
It is important for all of us to weigh the issue of a death penalty and
reach our own personal conclusion.
The next election involving representatives to the Texas legislature will undoubtedly bring the death penalty into focus once again. There is no easy answer because pros and cons can be raised by both sides.
Do you favor abolishing the death penalty? Should we require multiple pieces of evidence before the threshhold allows a prosecutor to seek death and not life without parole? Should we limit death to a smaller number of cases? Is life without parole an acceptable alternative?
Posts
1 comment:
At the rate we are executing and finding out later that they were in deed innocence I think that maybe we need to do suspend the death penalty, I am for the death penalty if all the facts are in and the evidence is there and appeals have been exhausted, but most of these people that are being released after the innocence project has taken the cases are old case before forensics science is what it is today. The system needs a huge over haul and maybe life without parole maybe an acceptable alternative then killing a innocence man.
Post a Comment