Death Punishment Pros And Cons

Cameron Willingham was executed in 2004 in Texas despite of his consistent claim of innocence. Convicted of murdering his three children in a 1991 house fire. Arson investigators concluded that there were twenty indicators of arson that led to them to believe that an accelerant was used to set fire in three different locations. After Willingham execution arson expert, Gerald Hurst believed that there was nothing to suggest to an arson investigator that it was an arson fire. Louisiana State University fire instructor Kendell Ryland was disappointed to know that a guy was executed when investigators had no idea if the house fire was intentionally set. It’s unbelievable how people would base a man’s life on irrelevant information. Who are these …show more content…
Eighty seven people have been freed from death row because they were innocent. This demonstrates that there is an error rate of one innocent person for every seven people executed. How is it that many guilty people get set free than that one innocent man to be killed? Pause and make sure that an innocent life shouldn’t be executed and those who are guilty to be held accountable. On the contrary, pros on death penalty argue that the risk of making mistakes is very small, and that there is no credible evidence to proof that an innocent man was killed. Since 1976 when the death penalty was reactivated there has been no mistake. This claim is false since there are many exonerations after the death penalty had been carried out. For example, a 1995 execution of Griffin for the murdering Quenton Moss. He was later found innocent when an eyewitness who testified against him came upfront and admitted to the murder. But of course there hasn’t been cases opened to the public because now that the person is dead what could the lawyers do or even the judges? They can’t bring that man back to life. “Most death row inmates do not have resources or time necessary to determine their innocence before it is too late” (Garrett