The victim, Sam Nordquist, a 24-year-old transgender man originally from Minnesota, was reported missing on Feb. 9. Police said he arrived in New York in September and had lost contact with loved ones.
Major Kevin Sucher, commander of the state police troop that includes the Finger Lakes region, said the facts and circumstances of the case were “beyond depraved” and “by far the worst” homicide investigation the office has ever been part of.
“No human being should have to endure what Sam endured,” he said, during televised news conference. Police did not share many details of the case, noting it remained under active investigation.
The death penalty does not work. Not as a deterrent, not as closure for the families, not even to reduce costs. Even if you think there are acts so vile that someone forfeits their right to life, there are many reasons against the death penalty. For example, what does rock-solid evidence mean? There have been cases with good evidence, multiple witnessed and a full confession, that later turned out to be wrong convictions. What percentage of innocents among the convicted is acceptable?
Here’s a great video by Shaun that goes through the arguments better than I could: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L30_hfuZoQ8
I don’t want it as a deterrent and I’m very aware there have been cases where convictions have turned out to be false. Obviously, the standards for evidence need to be very high. But some people do not deserve to live. And I’m not so certain about it not bringing some degree of closure to families; it certainly isn’t an antidote to grief and loss, but knowing the person who tortured and killed your loved one gets to keep living out their own life, even if behind bars can certainly haunt you as an injustice.
I’m aware of all the arguments against it, and I’ve changed my mind about this issue a couple times. It’s not something I take lightly at all. Still, I think in exceptionally vile and clear cases, it should be allowed.
You neglected to answer what would be an acceptable number of innocent people to be put to death on bad evidence.
For me I would rather have guilty people walking free than innocent people in jail or on death row.
No number of innocent people incarcerated on bad evidence is acceptable, much less executed. That’s why I’m saying the standard of evidence would need to be extremely high. Your argument is that there would inevitably be people executed who were innocent, but I don’t believe that needs to be the case. Standards could be such that having the crime on video is required or direct witnessing from multiple unimpeachable sources.
Is the standard of evidence and possibility of false convictions really your main concern here or do you just not think the State should ever execute people on moral grounds? Because I believe I’ve provided an acceptable answer to the former argument; if your issue is actually the latter then I believe we simply have a difference in ethical beliefs.