In theory at least I've got nothing against hanging somebody like Manson, Dennis Rader, Paul Bernardo, John Mohammed...
Here's the problem: I'd want several changes to the system before I could feel good about capital punishment anymore.
1. Guilt should be beyond any doubt whatsoever; the usual criteria of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't cut it for hanging somebody.
2. The person in question must represent a continuing threat to society should he ever escape or otherwise get loose. The "bird man" of Alcatraz would not qualify, John Mohammed clearly would.
3. I'd want all career/money incentives for convicting people of crimes gone which would mean scrapping the present "adversarial" system of justice in favor of something like the French "inquisitorial" system in which the common objective of all parties involved was a determination of facts.
4. I'd want there to be no societal benefit to keeping the person alive. Cases in which this criteria would prevent hanging somebody would include "Son of Sam" who we probably should want to study more than hang, or Timothy McVeigh who clearly knew more than the public ever was allowed to hear.
Given all of that I could feel very good about hanging Charles Manson, John Muhammed, or Paul Bernardo, but that's about what it would take.
In fact in a totally rational world the job of District Attorney as it is known in America would not exist. NOBODY should ever have any sort of a career or money incentive for sending people to prison, much less for executing people. The job of District Attorney in America seems to involve almost limitless power and very little resembling accountability and granted there is no shortage of good people who hold the job, the combination has to attract the wrong kinds of people as well.
They expected DNA testing to eliminate the prime suspect in felony cases in something like one or two percent of cases and many people were in states of shock when that number came back more like 33 or 35%. That translates into some fabulous number of people sitting around in prisons for stuff they don't know anything at all about since the prime suspect in a felony case usually goes to prison. Moreover, in a state like Texas which executes a hundred people a year or thereabouts, that has to translate into innocent people being executed here and there.
But the kicker is the adversarial system of justice. THAT we'd need to get rid of, with or without any consideration of death penalties. The price we're paying for it is too high.
That should read, “America's greatest mentally retarded president at the time, Jimmy Carter,”....
The author forgot we have a new one now, Odumbo.
Guilt should be beyond any doubt whatsoever is impossible. No one would ever be found guilty of anything. Only culpability/resposibility is needed.
must represent a continuing threat to society... No. Another basic feature of Gods law is the punishment must fit the crime. You shed blood deliberately, your blood is shed deliberately. The principle of prevention is also important. Both current and historic data shows that a properly implemented death penalty is a deterrent for other violent criminals as well. Even if liberals distort data otherwise. If the person has committed premeditated murdered they ARE a continuing threat. Also keeping people imprisoned and alive in general is itself a threat to society. It robs society of its produce to feed and care for the incarcerated
incentives for convicting people of crimes gone... Everyone in society has an incentive for violent criminals to be convicted.
no societal benefit to keeping the person alive..."Son of Sam" Really?! Serial killers don't need to be kept alive for study. They need to die! Rather than trying to invent your own killer condoning system for the study of serial killers, why not accept the Creator's system and reduce crime?
system is too broken ...The Camm/Boney case would never have existed if God's law had been followed with Boney in the first place. Further we have what is called jury. His two previous convictions have been overturned on appeal. We need to restore proper jury use. A jury's decision is final. Guilty or not, there is no appeal, no retrial under slightly modified charges. Death or freedom, jury is final. Read about jury nullification here and here
I would like to point out that that is the lawyers' job to do "everything possible to their client off." No, It is never anyone's job to pervert law, to enable an injustice on society. We need to let go of that idea.