Reply #157: No you dont see where I'm coming from.

[TexasMexican]

I dont assume just because someone was accused of a crime that they are guilty of that crime.

My line of thinking is that if someone has been convicted of murder and given the death penalty they probably deserve the death penalty even if they werent guilty of the murder.

IMO if someone has a long violent history and they have been convicted of murder then they deserve to die.

Even if they werent guilty of murder they wouldnt get the death penalty unless they had some history. You only need to convince 1 person on the jury that you dont deserve the death penalty and you wouldnt get it. If you cant convince one person that you dont deserve to die either you dont care enough about your own life or nothing you can say can overcome your bad history. Fuck even that kid Malvo was able to convince a jury that he didnt deserve to die after all the shit he did.

I personally wouldnt give someone the death penalty for just the murder of 1 person. If that was the only crime they ever commited I wouldnt put them to death for that. The way I figure it, even if its morally wrong, I figure there might be some good reason to murder 1 person.

I personally would give the death penalty to people who murder multiple people, people who were given a chance and murdered someone again, or to people who murder 1 person but also had a long violent criminal history.

I wouldnt really weep too much over a person with a violent history being killed, even if it were for a murder he didnt do. If he was a robber then it would have been justified if someone he tried to rob shot and killed him. If he beat women or something those women would have been justified in killing him. The fact that none of his victims ever killed him up to this point is what the real trajedy is.

Like I said earlier if someone wants me to or people like me to have a second thoughts about the death penalty then they will have to try harder to find some people with cleaner records for us to weep over.