Replies

“Florida on Wednesday executed a Tampa-area man who murdered his estranged wife and her young son in 1985, two years after he had been paroled for killing his previous spouse”

One of the arguments against the death penalty is that an innocent person may be executed. First, no “innocent” person has ever been executed for the simple reason in our justice system your guilt or innocent has nothing to do with it. If a jury finds you innocent you can walk away a free man even when the evidence is overwhelming of your guilt. So the reverse must be true, if a jury finds you guilty then by definition you are guilty. It may not be fair, or right, but that is our justice system. Truth is secondary to the process.

However, even if an “innocent” person has been executed, I believe that more innocent people have been murdered by those that have once been convicted of murder, but for some reason released/escaped from prison, than “innocent” people been executed. This man’s case is an example, one of many. Executing murderers is the only sure way they will not kill again.

Life in prison without parole (as if that really exist) is more cruel and unusual then the death penalty.

As a side note, kidnapping was once a major problem in this nation until the FBI got involved and kidnappers were executed. The man that kidnapped Lindbergh’s baby and killed him, was arrested, tried, found guilty, supreme court ruled on the appeal and was executed within two years.

Since the death penalty is allowed in our constitution, the Supreme Court can not simply rule it unconstitutional, but they can (and have) muddy the water so much every case must be examined and re-examined until it takes years to finally provide the victims justice.

What you are describing is casuistry, as opposed to rule of law. The founders were aware of the dangers of casuistry, which is why they tried to institute the rule of law. It really didn't take root, this rule of law thing, did it?