This is certainly a tangent from this thread, but given the strongest arguments against the death penalty, the nature of the crime shouldn't matter. The best argument against the death penalty is that the chance of mistake in conviction and sentencing is nonzero (at best, and probably substantially higher than nonzero given the inherent problems with the criminal justice system). The death penalty is irreversible when a mistake has been made - that is the best reason to oppose it. You can't bring back a wrongfully executed person back to life. LWOP (Life without possibility of parole) can be reversed if evidence turns up that the convicted person is not innocent.
In my opinion, the more shocking the crime, the more likely it is that a jury gets it wrong. If a jury hears from a prosecutor that the accused allegedly did something truly horrific, they are much more likely to want to find them guilty. It is human nature to want to see a horrific act punished. I think this cuts against a jury dispassionately making factual findings.
In my opinion, the more shocking the crime, the more likely it is that a jury gets it wrong. If a jury hears from a prosecutor that the accused allegedly did something truly horrific, they are much more likely to want to find them guilty. It is human nature to want to see a horrific act punished. I think this cuts against a jury dispassionately making factual findings.
