Just Another Political Post.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Right.  I believe Occhi's point, which I tend to agree with is justice - let the punishment fit the crime.
[right][snapback]89877[/snapback][/right]

That is barbaric, based on revenge, etc. If we're going to go that way, then logically we should revert to crucifixion, stoning, and burning at the stake. We are more enlightened in how we treat other dangers than in how we treat people. A dog that is a threat isn't beaten to death, it is put down 'humanely'. But you want a human that is a threat put down inhumanely?

If a person is wrongly executed it is not the Death Penalty that is at fault - it is the court system, the jury, the judge, our built in prejudices, what have you, that are at fault.  Remember "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" should be the way it works.  It's very sad and all to common for that not to be the case.

What is actually so sad is that Justice has fled our system, leaving hollow Legality behind to do a job beyond her power.

The conviction is where the "without a shadow of a doubt" comes in

No! That is a common misquote and leads to a lot of grief and ignorant argument. It is not 'beyond a shadow of a doubt" but "beyond a reasonable doubt". Your way of stating it goes back to demanding a zero error system. We might as well close shop on the courts right now, for perfection is not within our grasp. Only by accepting a 'reasonable' doubt can we do anything, for only a reasonable approach to perfection is within human ability.

If a guilty verdict is rendered by the jury they can recommend the death penalty in their statement, the prosecution can recommend the death penalty also.  It is the judge that sets the punishment, based on the evidence presented in the case, the defendent's demeanor, etc.

Not that simple. First, the death penalty is only possible for a limited number of crimes, even violent crimes. Second, for some crimes, it is mandated (which is why prosecuting attorneys don't like to prosecute for those crimes. One 'anti-death' juror is all it takes to hang the jury.) And, third, it is not always and everywhere that a jury is involved in any way in the sentencing process.

All of these considerations contribute to the ineffectiveness of capital punishment. Indeed, the one valid argument against capital punishment is that if we're not going to use it right (i.e., in a hell of a lot more cases than we do) and if we're going to make it so difficult to implement, then we are better off eliminating it. And, of course, it is precisely to set up these conditions that the bleeding hearts have lobbied for all the special treatment. First, they pass the laws making it inefficient, then they use that same inefficiency to get it eliminated.

--Pete