Cogent and Fallacious reasoning #4

As I searched on google for a good article, I randomly clicked on a .org website and started scrolling. I hope no one thinks I am secretly a random killer with the two concealed weapons permit posts and now this one. I promise I will not go crazy and start making bad decisions with the right to bear arms and women who still wear make-up :) ( totally teasing I hope you caught that). It was just interesting okay....

Steven D. Stewart, Prosecuting Attorney at Clark County, Indiana posted this article about the Death Penalty. I have to start out saying agreeing with him and believe his reasoning is cogent. If someone is, lets say "bold enough" to take someones life, I don't see why the same shouldn't be taken from them. Now just to clarify, I am talking about murderers. I am not talking about persons who defend themselves in a robbery or other circumstances. I speak of those who murder innocent victims. In the article the article, Stewart stated that
"The inevitability of a mistake should not serve as grounds to eliminate the death penalty any more than the risk of having a fatal wreck should make automobiles illegal. At the same time, we should never ignore the risk of allowing the murderer to kill again." I believe there is a lot of sense in that statement. The "mistake" he mentions here is the possibility of sentencing someone with the death penalty who did not deserve it or who did not actually commit the crime. I still do not know 100% of what it takes for someone to qualify for the death penalty. I would have to say if there is not a 100% surety that the crime was committed by the one being convicted, they should get another penalty. 

While reading this Stewart mentioned the time it takes for one to go through the process and the money it takes to complete the death penalty from start to finish. It made me ask myself, why, if it takes so long and if it costs so much, don't we come up with something else that doesn't take up nearly as much time or cost nearly as much? Why even continue with something that is costing so much money? Or what can be done to bring the cost down and the time it takes? These are some questions I am going to look for answers to now that I have read this article. I believe Stewart's reasons are cogent. Just because there is a risk of making a "mistake" does not mean the death penalty needs to be done away with. Other measures need to be taken or other things need to change.