|
In the face of 100% certainty, Like Dahmer, I am all for it. Remove the human stain. It is the only fair price one can pay for taking a life -- nothing else will suffice. It isn't about revenge, it is about requiring the proper price for the decision to kill. No amount of money, time spent suffering, or isolation, can pay for the intentional killing.
My opposition to the death penalty is based on the error rate, sometimes up to 20%. I don't know what the acceptable error rate would be, but I know it's less than 1%.
Accordingly, I think if a prosecutor will "sign off" on seeking the death penalty, willing to forfeit their life as recompense if it is later determined to be erroneous, I would support it. Since nothing can pay for a life except a life, someone needs to pay the price for a wrongfully executed person. Currently, prosecutors always seek the D.P., or bargain it off the table in a plea. It's such a powerful hammer in their tool box, as well as a quick way to gain laurels for their crowns and lapels for their suitcoats. The system of prosecutorial advancement rewards seeking it and does not punish NOT seeking it.
So, make somebody, prosecutor or otherwise, provide independent D.P. audits, and sign a paper stating "I attest, upon penalty of death, that this person is fully and completely guilty" or disallow the state to seek the D.P.
Of course, everyone always takes a look at these little insights into the "world according to Timber" and does a jawdrop. One wonders why?
[img]graemlins/jawdrop.gif[/img]
__________________
 
|