Isn't that the case with any issue? For example - do people really understand that extensive de-regulation in the coal industry could lead to higher serious health hazards like black lung disease (coal dust being one of the things they want to relax restrictions on) - instead they see it as jobs. It's a two way street. Would people be willing to pay more for clean water - to not go through what Flint, MI did? I bet they would all say yes. Pew is a reputable group and they are non-partisan. They are known for integrity.
And how many Flint's do we have in this country? Better question, how often?
Why do I take issue with this? Because it's the feds that laid down the law for our drinking water here in Cleveland. We were quite happy with our water, but because some bureaucrats in Washington weren't, we were forced to make improvements that nobody here wanted. It greatly increased the cost of our water and sewer bills.
When I have a choice between renting to a family of four, or renting to a single person or couple, guess who I'm going to choose for tenants? That's right, the couple mostly because of water and sewer costs. And let me tell you, around here, getting a nice rent is almost impossible these days. The new tenants I've rented to within the last year have told me this. So find those applicants I didn't choose and ask them if they want cleaner water.
You're couching the questions in emotional terms though aren't you? And when you do that you are more likely to get an emotional answer. You could equally ask:
What about execution of the 35 year old father of 3, wrongfully convicted of rape, and executed on death row - subsequently found innocent?
Or, the woman wrongfully incarcerated, who commits suicide?
Sure, you can couch questions in emotionally evocative terms and get MISLEADING answers because they are responding to that one particular situation - not the situation as a whole.
I don't know what the woman in jail has to do with the death penalty.
The methods we use to determine innocence (DNA) is what we currently use to convict people. Sure, there have been cases many years ago where a person was not guilty of anything. Again, years ago when we didn't have the technology. Today however, nobody is found guilty that didn't commit the crime. If it's not DNA, it's other forensic science. If it's not other forensic science, it's video which is all around us today. If it's not video, it's all three.
So again, it's a tilted question because you're making the case for crimes in the 70's and not today. Emotional? You bet, and it should be emotional because closing the door on the death penalty would prohibit the execution of that murderer and rapist of the 8 year old, and the murderer of that little old lady. You simply can't exclude crimes like that (or worse) from the question.
But you're NOT giving both sides of the story. You are choosing not to word it in a NEUTRAL manner, but in a way that emphasizes one side only. Right?
The conclusion, drawn by PEW:
A more detailed study last year of attitudes toward capital punishment found that 63% of the public thought the death penalty was morally justified, but majorities said there was some risk of an innocent person being put to death (71%) and that the death penalty does not deter serious crime (61%).
This seems a more thoughtful answer.
Of course it's not a deterrent. When somebody commits a horrible act of murder, and the death penalty is not carried out for 15-18 years, how could it be a deterrent? Nobody but the family even remembers the crime.
Is that a reason to get rid of the death penalty, or is it a reason to make it a deterrent--say have the punishment carried out with all appeals exhausted within five months of sentencing? If we did that, it would act as a deterrent. But again, nobody asks the question in that way. If somebody asked me whether it was a deterrent or not, I would have to answer "no" as well. It doesn't mean I think we should get rid of it. Again, slanted questions.