> I'm thinking point is that with a death sentence, there is a possibility that something will exonerate the person before they die in prison.
Did you mean "life sentence"? If so, that's nice, but it doesn't happen.
> If the person is sentenced to immediate death, there are no do-overs.
There is no "sentenced to immediate death" in the US. The closest was Timothy McVeigh and his case was extremely special.
Texas, which is among the fastest, is currently executing folks convicted in the mid 90s. CA hasn't executed anyone since 2006.
> we find out that an innocent person was executed, who get the blame? No one.
Like I said, we kill innocents all the time. They die from "prison live", not being executed. They don't get any attention, which pretty much demonstrates that the death penalty is the issue, not innocents dying because of being wrongly convicted.
As I wrote, there's nothing wrong with being against the death penalty, but don't tell us you're against innocents dying because they were wrongly convicted.
Did you mean "life sentence"? If so, that's nice, but it doesn't happen.
> If the person is sentenced to immediate death, there are no do-overs.
There is no "sentenced to immediate death" in the US. The closest was Timothy McVeigh and his case was extremely special.
Texas, which is among the fastest, is currently executing folks convicted in the mid 90s. CA hasn't executed anyone since 2006.
> we find out that an innocent person was executed, who get the blame? No one.
Like I said, we kill innocents all the time. They die from "prison live", not being executed. They don't get any attention, which pretty much demonstrates that the death penalty is the issue, not innocents dying because of being wrongly convicted.
As I wrote, there's nothing wrong with being against the death penalty, but don't tell us you're against innocents dying because they were wrongly convicted.