Replies

The fact that I disagree with so many who were there doesn’t particularly bother me, although it is obviously a consideration. Here is my thought process:

1. The convicted man pleaded “no contest” - a plea bargain.
2. He was the driver (as reported here), not the trigger man.
3. The shooter received life in prison, even though he was the active agent.
4. The plea-bargaining driver was given the death penalty FOR HIS PLEA BARGAIN.
5. I cannot see a competent lawyer allowing a plea bargain to the death penalty.
6. Either American juris prudence requires a competent defense or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t - then we have only kangaroo courts.
7. Prosecutors and juries can and do make errors of passion. I do not know the entirety of the facts in this case, but I can easily see the possibility of outrage over the life imprisonment of the shooter translating to the death penalty for the driver - which is not a supportable standard of law, IMO.

I believe the death penalty, correctly administered, is an effective deterrent. In this case, given the modicum of knowledge I possess, I can see a reasonable doubt that the penalty was justly imposed.

I firmly believe that law and order is a balancing act. The side of law (prosecutors, law enforcement, juries) generally gets benefit of the doubt. But when a person is to be executed, their work deserves a second look, through glasses that magnify potential and probable errors in applying the law.

To do otherwise is to invite every ham sandwich that is indicted to be railroaded.

One last point. I also believe that the death row appeals process is far to geared toward the convicted. I am unconvinced that this gearing posed a problem in this specific instance, though.

Thank you for your civil discourse on a difficult and emotional subject.