|
The problem is responsibility. If you do a wrong to someone, you should pay the price. That is the justification for the death penalty altogether. 99% right is NOT ENOUGH to kill someone when you can jail all 100 for life and let the 1 innocent one out when you find out you are wrong. Maybe 99.99% is enough. Personally, I think 1 in 10,000 wrong is acceptable (just barely -- this is LIFE, after all) -- but that is only MY opinion.
But, to ensure prosecutors have REAL REASON when they go for the death penalty, I say we put them on the hook. If a prosecutor (or the boss ordering that the death penalty be sought), is willing to sign a "Life Waiver" then I would truly support the death penalty. That way, when we find out Joe Somebody was killed wrongly, we can go back to the "Life Waiver" and execute that person for the wrong done to Mr. Somebody.
This serves the dual purpose of (1) putting someone on the hook for the wrong and (2) making damn sure prosecutors don't get overzealous. BTW, just so you know, prosecutors are *supposed* to have a different set of elevated ethical rules, and "zealous representation" is specifically NOT their job. They ignore this by and large of course and these days they seek media cases and all sorts of other cases to put medals on their lapels.
So, if no one is willing to sing the "Life Waiver" then that means we shouldn't be seeking the death penalty in the first instance -- jail the guy for life instead. If you can't find a prosecutor willing to say "I'd stake my life on it" then you can't say "we should take a life for it."
Well, that's my "Solve the Problem" system. Radical, I know. [img]smile.gif[/img]
__________________
 
|