Death Penalty Debate-John Rydell

Outlaw it or fry 1000 people. Stop pussyfooting around either way.

I want to know why the some people oppose the death penalty so vehemently even in cases where the person has been found guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. I understand why there should be no death penalty when there is any reasonable doubt whether a person actually committed a crime, however when there are witnesses, a conviction, and a confession, WHY would anyone object?
An answer would be appreciated.

I agree

works for me,and I see no need for them to sit on death row for 20 years before they die.

John Welch wrote:

I want to know why the some people oppose the death penalty so vehemently even in cases where the person has been found guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. I understand why there should be no death penalty when there is any reasonable doubt whether a person actually committed a crime, however when there are witnesses, a conviction, and a confession, WHY would anyone object?
An answer would be appreciated.

Witnesses, a conviction and a confession is no guarantee that someone is guilty. People have confessed to crimes that they didn't commit, people have been wrongfully convicted and witness accounts can be very unreliable. I don't believe that we can be sure enough in the vast majority of cases, even with DNA. All evidence etc is gathered, analyzed and interpreted by people. People make mistakes, they can be corrupted and so on. But to answer your question for the cases where we can be as sure as we can be that it is the right person - I simply think it's wrong to kill people. It is the most disgusting act there is and if I wouldn't be able to push that button myself what kind of hypocrite would I be to ask someone else to do it? Also I think we should be careful with what kind of power we give to our government - I don't trust in any government or any justice system enough to want them to have the power to kill it's own citizens.