Much debate has been made regarding the death sentence - whether to have it, how to apply it, why isn't there more/less of it. Some positions and arguments are better than others. I think one of the biggest issues - beyond whether it's right or wrong to us in the judicial system - is how do you implement/apply it and avoid punishing innocent people? And, quite frankly, if you can't be 100% right, 100% of the time ... it really should not be used at ALL because it's reallyreallyreally hard (read: impossible) to justify exactly what percentage of mistakes are "acceptable" to justify the correct applications of the death penalty.
Now some people will say there is a certain level of "mistakes" that are theoretically acceptable - and I truly believe that it's not out of their lust for death/killing which, it has the outward appearance of - but more out of their frustration with and need for "meaningful" justice. In increasingly violent times, people are frustrated and sick and tired of long drawn out judicial processes that take decades - at law-abiding taxpayer expense - for many violent criminals that project, not only an inability for rehabilitation but also project a desire and lust for mayhem and death. Who wants to feed and care for such criminals (I was going to say "animals - but that would be an insult to animals) for decades when all they want to do is harm law-abiding citizens AND are rock stars and professors in the prisons they're housed. I mean, these criminals literally "teach" potentially rehabilitatable prisoners how to be WORSE.
BUT ... there is a solution. But it requires us to approach this issue from a completely objective and dispassionate position. And that REALLY hard for a lot of people to do because of all the influences they've had throughout their lives. It will require them to shelve their faith and current morals (to an extent) and approach this without emotion.
The solution is two parts:
1. Change the standard for implementation of the death penalty to this: For the death penalty to apply, there MUST be positive evidence of guilt BEYOND ALL DOUBT. Currently we use the criteria of "beyond reasonable doubt",but I propose to change it to "there is NO doubt possible" as to the guilt of the accused ... now that could mean a detailed and accurate confession and/or DNA evidence along with video and other evidence that leaves no possibility for the crime to have been committed by any one OTHER than the accused.
If you have this, you can streamline the process and stop wasting money and time to reach a resolution to justice.
2. There MUST be a completely humane method that is universally acceptable to everyone. Far too often, what stands in the way of the death penalty is this idea that it must cause some "suffering" to make up for the pain and suffering to the victims - honestly, this is a revolting thought to me. If there must be a penalty of death then it should be as efficient as possible ... the "death" penalty is not the "pain, suffering and death" penalty ... we need to stop treating it as if it is.
There is a perfectly acceptable and painlessly quick/efficient way to kill criminals - hypoxia - the same thing that kills people in a depressurized plane at 25,000 feet of elevation - lack of oxygen. NOTE: this is NOT suffocation! Hypoxia - the lack of oxygen but NOT the overabundance of carbon dioxide, which is the gas that gives people the "panic/dread" feeling - lack of oxygen causes a brief euphoria and disorientation before the subject blacks out then ultimately dies. - no muss not fuss and no elaborate or ghastly equipment and procedures - just a room with low/reducible oxygen levels and a a way to disburse/dilute carbon dioxide and you're done.
As an aside - you could implement a program that would allow long serving of life time sentenced criminals to choose this method after x time served to further reduce the prison population of habitual, long term criminals.
Feel free to discuss the potential "downsides" please. I think this is a very pragmatic and efficient solution to a difficult problem that offers a type of middle ground between the pro and anti death penalty factions.
