23 June 2005

"[W]hy stop at making life without parole just an optional alternative to execution? It is a fitting replacement, assuring severe punishment for the worst of crimes but with a safety valve to protect those falsely accused or wrongly sentenced."

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

"With little fanfare, a compromise has been gaining favor more than a decade, drawing support as DNA evidence has exonerated inmates on death row. Last week, it reached a milestone. Texas, site of one in three executions, gave juries the option to sentence defendants in capital cases to life without parole rather than death."

In a debate between "having a death penalty" and "abolishing it", how is "abolishing it" a compromise? Only in the mind of a liberal....

One of my main objections to the abolitionists is the bizarre notion that this fixes the problem of wrongful convictions. In my experience, all that would change when the death penalty was taken off the table is that people would stop looking at the cases. I don't feel particularly better about the State wrongfully sending someone to jail for life than I do about the State wrongfully executing them. To the extent that there are accuracy problems in the system, I wish reformers would focus on those across the board, rather than the politcally motivated quick-fix-that-isn't of abolition.