I've been arguing against the death penalty since before I was old enough to drive. I did a formal debate on it once, had all the facts and figures and my arguments logically lined out. However, I've basically given up talking to most people who support the death penalty because many of them (not all but many) can't seem to get past their own emotional response to horrible crimes. There is a tendency to lash out and punish the most convenient person with the most extreme punishment as if this in some way will mitigate the heinousness of their alleged crime.

The death penalty should never be meted out when the determination of guilt is based on 'eye witnesses.' Human beings are fallible and the ability to observe and report are very unreliable. I would be more inclined to put credence on the eye witness account of a police officer who is trained to observe; however, even then I would not rely 100% on that. They can be prejudiced by a desire to close cases and by preconceptions.

There have undoubtedly been many, many cases of innocent people sent to their deaths by the 'state.' I would not want that on my conscience. Anyone who says he/she can be 100% sure so-and-so committed such-and-such crime, when evidence is circumstantial and/or reliance is on an eye-witness, is either lying or foolhardy. There is no doubt in my mind that Jack Ruby killed Lee Harvey Oswald since it was caught live and on tape and was witnessed by several law enforcement officers in addition to a TV audience. However, I can never be 100% sure that Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy. Likely?--Yes. Absolutely?--No.