Originally Posted by
downzero
I'm glad my opinion is shared. I see nothing wrong with the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime, but if it isn't cost effective, those resources would be better used locking these people up for life without the possibility of any kind of release and taking the additional, otherwise wasted resources, and spending that to reduce crime (whether that means more cops, longer sentences, better rehabilitation, etc., any of that is superior to wasting it on a broken death penalty system).
As to whether a Christian would be committing murder by voting to execute an innocent person, the answer is no. Mens rea, the concept of the guilty mind, is a cornerstone of the criminal justice system for a reason. That's why a manslaughter is punishable by 6 years in my state and a murder could be a life sentence. Making a mistake that costs someone else their life is not "murder." Murder is the unjust taking of human life by another human being with malice aforethought. Anything less than that is not murder.
If that was the case, there would be virtually no convictions for murder, ever. Most murder cases are one scumbag killing another one. Some are domestic violence. A tiny, tiny minority are the kind of truly innocent people like little girls who are kidnapped/raped etc.
There is no criminal case where you can be 100% positive that the person is guilty. Crimes happen in real life with real people who are flawed, and it is those people who give testimony in court. "Beyond a shadow of a doubt" or "beyond all possible doubt," is simply not realistically possible. So if you can't support a death sentence in the real world with a beyond a reasonable doubt standard, what you're really saying is that you aren't for the death penalty at all. Which is actually fine, everyone is entitled to decide these issues for themselves. But in a real courtroom, with real people, 100% positive does not exist. Cases are proven primarily through eyewitnesses, which are flawed human beings just like the accused.