Beyond a Shadow of a Doubt

[ZURKE]

Do you believe in the death penalty?

I really do. In cases where the crime fits it. And where the defendant is no doubt guilty.

I have been seeing more people convicted on circumstantial evidence more lately and it disturbs me.
Whether they are guilty or not is irrelevant to me. If there is NO shadow of a doubt, then they should pay an equal price.

There maybe would be some killers out there but not one Innocent person in jail for LIFE or death.

Has the law changed?
Beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[Mark Miller]

People and the Law are not perfect. Mistakes are made both ways, the wrong people are executed, the wrong people go free.
I to favor the death penalty. That being said I know errors will still be made With some of the new scientific tests that are available, hopefully, less mistakes will be made.
Mark

[YODA74]

Whether they are guilty or not is irrelevant to me. If there is NO shadow of a doubt, then they should pay an equal price.

If I'm taking this out of contensed then I apologies that is not what I quit Intend But this statement disturbs me a great deal.Statistics have showen lately from DNA that most we have condemned and or have had in prison? from these Kinds of tests, they have showen some that have been Innocent of there crime.And I think that a change in the way the judicial system is run needs a change.

I think that all courts should have a media gage order put on them until after trial, because most people can't actually distinguish between fact and fiction. And can ultimately put an Innocent man behind bars just for media Hype.

I am as far radical as you can get But I still Believe that a Person should have a swift and fair trial Followed by a first class hanging.
But when it becomes a comic relief show for the media, Fair is no longer an option.

[ZURKE]

Yoda, what I meant was..... If there is NO shadow of a doubt.
NO shadow to me means a smoking gun at the seen of the crime, if I might put it that way.
If there is shadow then the procecution should have gone for second degree or a lessor charge.
I agree there are innocents and that is my point.

I believe the law was written in a way to avoid false imprisonment or death. The problem is procecutions are pushing the envelope and juries are buying it.

[BigBlue66]

I believe in the death penalty. I also believe that a person who has taken the life of another, and has been found guilty without a shadow of a doubt, should die the same way their victim(s) did.

[classicsoftware]

I am always wary of jumping into these threads, but here I go with both feet.

I have questions for you all. What is the purpose of the criminal justice system? Is it punishment or retribution? If a person who is drunk hits another person with a car, should we also have him/her hit by a car? An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth , pretty soon the whole world will be blind and toothless...

Is it ok for us as a society to say we'll accecpt the fact that innocent people will be put to death in error in order to make sure that all of the guilty also get the death penalty?

Is it ok for us a society to say, murder is wrong, so we as a society will murder you??

As an observant Jew, I must be against the death penalty. Though it is written in the Torah (a.k.a. Bible) there is only one person put to death in the Torah and it is not for commiting murder. The Rabbis of the Talmudic period, who created modern day Judaism, we opposed to the death penalty. The Talmud states a court the puts one person to death in 20 years is a bloody court. In addition they put legal hurdles in the way of the death penalty.

You may not testify against yourself. This does not come
from English common law and it was before Miranda V Arizona.

There must be two eye witnesses to the actural crime.
One eye witness is not enough to get the death Penalty.

From my own theological point of view, I believe God is the ultimate creator of human life. It is not in the province of man to commit
murder and take a human life. It appears I am in the minorty here. I hope I am not.

The Talmud states that to save one human life is as if you have saved all of humanity. Even though their writings are 2000 years old, the Rabbis had it just about right....

[Budfred]

I don't believe that the purpose of the criminal justice system is either punishment or retribution, I believe it is first to protect the majority from the antisocial minority and second to help those criminals that are able to become more fully functioning individuals.

From this perspective it doesn't make any sense to me for the state to murder/execute people. I have an atavistic urge to seek retribution, but I believe that part of what makes us worthy as human beings is being able to overcome that urge.

I think it would be economically expedient to kill criminals since incarceration is costly, but if we begin to justify killing for financial reasons it is frightening to think where that might end. Will we kill people for stealing cars or other property crimes?

Then there is the matter of justice. If a person kills an individual, they end one life and throw several more into disarray. If an Enron executive absconds with millions of dollars in pension funds for thousands of people they throw thousands of lives into disarray. Which is the greater injustice? If killing is the ultimate injustice, then are we guilty of incredible levels of injustice for the innocents who were "accidently" killed in Iraq or even of our own people in "friendly fire". If I steal from you and you commit suicide as a result of the resultant disruption to your life, have I murdered you?

Another question from the point of view of seeking retributive justice: even if you assume that killing a murderer is a valid way of seeking retribution, is it truly more punishing to kill him/her quickly and humanely or to let him/her languish in a jail for the rest of his/her life? And for the argument that we should kill them the way he/she killed his/her victim, what does it do to us to terrify and torture a person in the name of justice?

And yet another question: if the murderer has an IQ of 55 and really didn't understand what they were doing, is killing him/her a just act? If the murderer was delusional and thought that they were actually protecting others, is it just to kill him/her? And the person who has an alcohol problem and kills a family of four in an "accident", is that person a murderer deserving of death? He/she took a lethal weapon (a vehicle) and drove it when there was a good chance of such a thing happening. If this was the first time he/she got caught driving drunk is it different than if it is the tenth time and he/she doesn't even have a license any more due to chronic alcoholism?

I can't answer these questions and because I can't answer them, I can't support killing someone with the blessing of the state.

[Steve]

Book of Numbers, chapter 35:

16 " 'If a man strikes someone with an iron object so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death.

17 Or if anyone has a stone in his hand that could kill, and he strikes someone so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death.

18 Or if anyone has a wooden object in his hand that could kill, and he hits someone so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death.

The death penalty has been around for a very long time. I think it is right and just. But I think that our justice system is flawed. To many "convicted murderers" have been freed in the past few years, due to the advent of DNA evidence, for me to trust the courts to make this judgement. I would rather have 10 murderers go free than to have 1 innocent man be executed.

I think the death penalty should be suspended until the system goes through a major reformation.

[Whyzman]

Food for further thought....

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html

[classicsoftware]

Steve:

As I noted in my post, eventhough the Bible prescibes the death penalty for a number of crimes, only one person in the Bible was executed, and that was for desecrating the Sabbath. Also as I noted, the Rabbis of the Talmudic period, the foremost commentators on the Bible were Philosophically opposed to the death penalty.

The purpose of the justice system as envisioned by the Rabbis, Brittish Common Law and our own justice system is punishment and repayment for the harm done to a person or society. It is not retribution. The whole system of torts from the Talmudic time to our present day legal system is based on this premise....

[Steve]

classicsoftware,

My post wasn't meant as a rebuttal to yours. This is the kind of topic where each person believes as they do for their own reasons. I don't really know how many murderers were executed or by who.

I am a simple man. I have often been accused of taking things to literal. When I read those verses, I can't help but notice that it says "shall be put to death". Not can be. Or might be. Or even should be. So in my mind, that is how it must be. Whether or not the people in biblical times followed God's word is open to interpretation. I am certainly not the man to make that kind of assessment.

As you pointed out, there are conditions such as witnesses. I wonder how many have been convicted of murder without the testimony of witnesses or on the testimony of false witnesses. That's why I would like to see a suspension of that penalty until I feel more comfortable with the system that imposes it.

[BigBlue66]

Guess I need to clarify my statement. I'm not talking about involuntary manslaughter (drunk driver kills someone) but rather, cold blooded murder with intent.

[Budfred]

Religious arguments to support the death penalty have a basic flaw: not everyone believes the Bible, Koran, Torah or other religious texts are direct representations of a god's will. And, as has been noted many times before, the Bible will support just about any argument you want to make if you look hard enough. If we base the death penalty on an interpretation of the Bible and a murderer is Hindu, Shinto, Jewish or even atheist, is that person to be held accountable to a Biblical solution? If so, are you willing to be held accountable to a policy set by the worshippers of Kali if you happen to be accused of a crime in a city where they have drafted the laws? If the particular religion that created the law in a city believe that jaywalking should be punished by 20 lashes, is that fair from your perspective?

[classicsoftware]

I don't expect everyone to accept my religious beliefs. And yes people can look at individual lines and pull out a prrof text for anything. That is why I went to the Tallmud which is a running commentary and explanation of the laws laid out in the Bible from a Jewish point of view.

The relgious part is due to the fact that our laws and ideas are based on these relgious traditions. Our view of morality is based on these religious traditions. You can't just dismiss them out of hand becuas ethey are religious beliefs.

There may be societies that have different values than we have here in the USA. But the basic argument is:

Is it moral/just/acceptable for society to murder an individual in response to murder?

[Budfred]

I believe that many people make their moral decisions based on religious tenets and I don't oppose that. I do oppose people imposing their religious beliefs on me through law. I also believe that we can make moral decisions without recourse to anyone's scripture. It is wrong to kill people in my mind because it is destabilizing to culture, society and individuals. If we endorse killing as a way to solve problems, the only problem that it will ultimately solve is the one with overpopulation.

I absolutely believe that murder needs to be illegal and I don't need a religious belief to come to that conclusion. However, I also believe that killing the murderer is another form of murder and thus it also needs to be illegal. This is even assuming the convicted murderer is the actual criminal, many innocents have been killed in the name of justice for many many years.

If I am convinced that I am right and independently take your life in cold blooded fashion, how is that different than your equally strong conviction in your righteousness leading you to kill me in cold blooded fashion in the name of justice with the blessing of the court?

[ZURKE]

Steve, I couldn't agree with you more.
That is what I tried to display in my threads, I don't know that I got it across.

My point is nearly exact to yours.
The prosecution would not want me as a juror in a murder case. They would have to prove to me that the person was guilty, not the defendant trying to prove their innocents.

My Statement, that their guilt or innocent is irrelevant to me, means that to me, guilt or innocents has to be proven to a point that leaves not little doubt, but no doubt. If they are guilty and it is not proven to that point, then they would never be convicted in the court I sit on.

Budfred I agree that you have to know what you have done to pay a price for it. If they don't have an understanding of right and wrong then it could not have been avoided.

Classicsoftware, You are not alone in your point of view, I just don't have it. Killing someone for the crime of killing is just, in my point of view. Maybe punishment should be carried out by the victims family.
Maybe they should have a say in what happens to them.

[kenz]

Sorry, but I cannot agree with this.

Putting aside any religious or moral arguments, I simply do not have the faith in the justice systems in this world to ensure that the innocent do not get executed.

There are too many cases were guilty verdicts have been overturned. I do not mean for technical reasons, the guilty getting off because of a technicality is abhorrent. How often have we read of 'new evidence coming to light' and anyone who is found guilty as a result of an accomplice doing a 'plea bargain' is highly suspect. The 'guarantee' of DNA proving beyond doubt is also somewhat questionable, the scientists believe this to be the case today, but how often in the past has a scientific 'fact' been found to be less than certain later on.

What about political interference or inept or crooked police, as far as I am aware, the judiciary and the police force are made up of humans, and to my knowledge, a perfect specimen of that particular species is yet to be found. How many african americans feel comfortable with the death penalty in LA during the Rodney King era, or in some of the southern USA states in the past (or even present).

I realise that the cost of incarceration of even the most obvious murderer is expensive, but it is not for them that the death penalty is wrong, it is for those that appear obvious because of the evidence that is presented (or left out) at a trial.

What about the mentally deficient who 'confess' to a crime, what about the underage criminal, many countries now allow children to be charged with adult crimes if they are serious enough, including murder, when will the death penalty be extended to them??

What about the 90 year old husband who euthanises his terminally ill wife, his love is such that her pain is too much for them both to bear? shall society execute him ??

Before anyone answers the death penalty question, may I suggest they consider this :-

It is your son or daughter or spouse who have been found guilty of murder, despite them claiming innocence and you believe them. Would you feel happier knowing that they are going to be executed or knowing that you have time to help them prove their innocence.

[Eutychus]

kenz, let me put your question differently: Would you be in favor of executing a man who tortured your daughter for hours, raped her repeatedly, then mercilessly killed then mutilated her body to the point she could not be recognized and finally dumped her body in the forrest to rot and become food for animals & insects?

The death penalty is a complex issue. But if there is indisputable evidence then I am in favor of it. The Ted Bundys and Jeffrey Dalmers should be removed from the planet.

Under the current system, if a convicted murderer is executed in less than 15-20 from sentencing then they are not trying to stay alive.

classicsoftware, you left out one critical aspect of death penalty under the Law. The witnesses had to participate in the execution of the sentence. That puts an interesting twist on the process. Should two witnesses conspire to frame someone, they became murderers when the sentence was carried out.

Our system and the Biblical system bears little comparison except for some basic premises of acceptable behavior. Penalties for theft, for example, were not designed to lock someone away but at restitution with additional payment as punishment.

I haven't put a lot of study into this but other Biblical executions come to mind besides your example. Sorry that the name eludes me, but one man and his family were stoned to death for taking forbiden spoils during the taking of the land under Joshua (no witnesses; he confessed and revealed his plunder). I seem to remember that a son was stoned for rebellion & disrespect to his parents.

Modern Israel still carries out execution of Nazi war criminals. (Rightly so, IMHO.)

BTW, the eye for an eye was not intended to exact justice but to prevent excessive retribution for crimes.

Budfred, if I am in Turkey, no matter how I feel about their laws or what they are based on, I would be wise to understand what their laws are before I decide to break them. All laws are based on some consensus of morals, whether or not they are based on religious views.

While I believe in capital punishment, I agree that media coverage before a trial can condemn a person before a trial. I believe the figures that suggest minorities are more likely to get the death penalty than whites and find that very disturbing. There are some aspects that need serious review. But the ultimate penalty should still be an option.

Finally, I offer this advice: If anyone should decide to murder anyone, they should under no circumstances do it in Texas.

[kayofcircles]

My views on the death penalty have changed over the last few years. Even before the new DNA stuff, there was a very valid argument, I think, that it has been administered unfairly. If you're rich and can afford a good lawyer, then you can get caught with a body in your trunk and get off on "illegal search" or something similar. There are many examples of that sort of thing..when pretty much everyone knows, without a doubt, that the person is guilty but they still get away. Whereas if you're poor, and get a court appointed lawyer who is in a hurry and not really very concerned, you end up on death row, guilty or not.

However, it was on the BBC news the other night that we in the States have a larger prison population than anywhere else in the world. We need to understand that supporting that many prisoners involves prisons, guards, etc and etc and need to realize that it will cost us. I have seen local jails having to release the "least" offenders to make room for more dangerous ones, and one of the people they put on work release a few years to ease overcrowding killed a number of people.

And I think it's normal for a country's laws to be based, at least in part, on their moral beliefs and most of those beliefs come from religions. If you travel to another country, then you ought to check out the local laws and conform to them..that's just common sense, and respect for their country and their laws.

[Steve]

I think there is some misunderstanding here of what murder is. Websters Dictionary defines murder as "unlawfully killing a person esp. with malice aforethought." I looked up murder in several places and all specify the "UNLAWFULL" killing of a person.

When a society sets execution as the lawful penalty for a crime, it is by definition not murder. There are cases where killing is legal. Abortion, self-defense, war and execution are all legal. They are therefore, by definition, not murder.

Budfred. You are subject to other views of justice, everywhere you go, as Eutychus pointed out. A few years ago there was a young American who was arrested in Hong Kong (I think that was the city) for vandelizing some cars. Despite many complaints from Americans he was caned and sent home. They just have a different view of vandelism than we do. In our country he probably would have got a year probation.

As far as executing the mentally ill or the retarded, I don't think we do either in this contry. If we do, the law should be changed. And no, we don't execute people for property crimes. And yes, murder is worse than corporate stealing. That is why we execute murderers and not thieves.

ZURKE, your original post was a little confusing but I understood your point. And agree...;)

[ZURKE]

Steve, that was singapore, where the kid was caned.
As a side note, I found it awfully curious how shortly(maybe year) after the incident, the country started to experience turmoil, and to this day are far from the stability they were before it happened. It is probably coincidence but I did notice at the time.

[Budfred]

We have executed (killed) an number of mentally retarded and mentally ill people in this country for a long time. One of the last people that George Bush sent to death before he took over as president was a man with an IQ measured in the 60s or 70s. There was international protest over that one, but Bush insisted on killing him anyway.

[Steve]

I do remember a recent case where the murderer had a low IQ and was concidered "BORDERLINE" retarded. I objected to that decision, also. There is always going to be gray areas. In my mind, when in doubt, give the benefit of the doubt. I didn't realize that was a Texas case. I thought that was on the east coast.

The case above is the only one I remember where mental retardation was a factor. We do have a provision for mental illness built into the law. We don't convict the insane. I'd like to hear of the cases where the executed were retarded or insane. This is one aspect where most of us (if not all) are in agreement.

Singapore! Thanks. My memory isn't what it used to be. :rolleyes:

[Budfred]

The definition of insane is a tricky one under the law. Insanity is not even used as a descriptive term in psychology and psychiatry, but it is still used by the courts. If you can establish "insanity" then indeed that person is protected from the death penalty. However, this is a very difficult standard to meet and it is often one opinion against another. The truth is that courts rarely accept this plea.

However, what I said was the mentally ill are often sent to death row. Most psychological professionals agree that the people on death row are often mentally ill, but that doesn't mean they meet the legal definition of insanity. For example: a man who is depressed and views his life as hopeless decides to suicide and to take his wife and children with him. He kills his family and then is stopped or stops himself from killing himself. He is arrested and found guilty of murder and sent to death row. Almost everyone would agree that he is mentally ill, he has major depression. He is not insane because he knew what he was doing at the time and he understood the difference between right and wrong. While on death row he is treated with antidepressant medication and psychotherapy. He recovers from his depression, but is now appalled at what he has done. He realizes how truly awful his actions were and they are certainly not what he would have done were he not depressed at the time, but it is too late. What he did was bad, but his actions were performed under the distorted logic of depression. Quite honestly, a life time in jail would probably be much more punishing for him than execution, since he would have to face the horror of what he did on a daily basis, but I still have trouble seeing how the state killing him in our name is going to help anyone anywhere in any way.

As for the question of mental retardation and the death penalty, look here:

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/ustat/ustat0301-07.htm#P639_123209

[ZURKE]

Budfred, from what you said in your last thread, I guess I should be able go out and rob a store when I am down on cash and really need the money, to feed a family. If I had tried to get the money from the state and a job just was not enough to bring home what I needed, then, by what you say I should be able to rob a store or bank and not be held accountable, I am now justified.

Also on the link, I can see some of them understand the value of money but not a life.

I do respect your view, but dont understand it.

[Eutychus]

I agree with Budfred that seriously retarded have been executed in the US. I saw a documentary run just before Clinton was elected as president the first time when he got off the campaign trail to return to Arkansas until after a man with the IQ of less than a 10 year old was executed.

A most poignant moment came while the man ate his last meal. He put his pecan pie aside and, when asked why he did not eat it, he replied that he was saving until after he came back from getting lethal injection. He thought was no more than getting a vaccination and had no understanding that death was permanent.

Clinton let the execution go on because it was more politically expedient to prove that he was tough on crime. Besides, the whole story was soon forgotten.

[Steve]

Thanks for the link Budfred. It is a case by case example of the gray area. Many of the stories confirm that the system does work but I bet everyone would feel uncomfortable about at least one of those stories.

It seems that the standard in a lot of places is whether the perpetrator knew what they were doing was wrong. A lot of people with an IQ in the sixties know the difference between right and wrong but some don't. We are in this gray area where I think it is best to lean in the direction of caution.

As far as the case you sited of depression, as soon as the majority of people think depression is a good enough reason to find someone not guilty of murder, it will become so. As it stands, most people don't think that is a good excuse for murder. Majority rules in things such as this. Some people would try to tell you that anyone who commits murder must be at least temporarily insane so no one should get the death penalty. Most people just don't agree with that.

[Budfred]

Zurke and Steve,

I am not sure what I said that led you to conclude that the person who killed his family while he was depressed should not be held accountable for the crime. I stated quite clearly that I thought the greater punishment for that individual would be to WAKE UP IN JAIL every day to comptemplate the horror of what he had done. In none of my posts have I advocated letting anyone get away with any crime, I simply don't see that killing them is either effective, reasonable or moral.

As for people with IQs in the 60s understanding that it is wrong to kill: if a young child kills a dog and tries to hide it because the child knows that it wasn't right to kill a dog, is that the same has having a understanding of what death means and the moral implications of murder. Many mentally retarded people are able to memorize the rules, but that isn't the same as understanding the rules. If I killed someone, I would have full awareness that I was ending that person's life, that I was effecting the lives of others involved in that person's life and that I was violating that person's rights at the most basic level. I have yet to meet someone with an IQ in the 60s who even came close to that level of understanding (and yes I have met a large number of people with IQs in that range).

[Steve]

Budfred, sorry, I didn't misunderstand your point. I just didn't express myself well. It seems we both agree he is guilty of murder. We even agree that the death penalty is inappropriate in this case. I was just pointing out that in some states today, the majority might think the death penalty is warranted.

It is partially due to examples like this that I think there should be a moritorium on executions until issues like this and others can be discussed.

[ZURKE]

Budfred,
If there was a shred of doubt in in any of those cases I agree with you 100% that was my point from the beginning. I could not convict anyone with a bit of doubt.

But everyone of those cases involved rape, robbery or both during the crime. If the victim was someone I cared for and there was no doubt about who had done it, I would have no problem giving the murderer a dirt nap myself.

[Budfred]

Zurke,

Let me see if I have this straight. Hypothetically: your 8 year old son gets mad at your 12 year old daughter and decides he wants revenge. He takes a handgun that you have hidden in the house, but that he has found and he uses it to shoot your daughter. He then hides the handgun because he knows he isn't supposed to play with it. You can tell from the evidence that he is definitely the one who killed her and it is clear that it was premeditated cold blooded murder. You would advocate the death penalty for him?

[ZURKE]

First of all when your eight years old you are not thinking about robbing and raping yours neighbors or your sister and then killing them.

That scenario Budfred is flawed, if you are trying to make a comparison.
The boy was angry, he did not know how to deal with his anger. That is something different which I did not see in those cases.

If he was 15 years old and went to the neighbors found the daughter alone and commenced to raping her and then slitting her throat, then GOD help him.(and of course it has to be proven beyond any doubt)

[Budfred]

ZURKE,

This scenario has actually happened a number of times in the past and will probably happen again in the future. My point is that someone who is mentally retarded may well have the judgement and emotional capacity of an 8 year old, so the situation in analogous. I don't know the right way to deal with it whether it is an 8 year old child or a 40 year man with an IQ of 55, but I cannot see that killing either of them is an appropriate response. A man with an IQ of 55 isn't thinking about much of anything most of the time, he lacks the mental capacity. He is acting and reacting in most cases.

Once any of us make a decision that we have the wisdom, knowledge and right to decide the life or death of another, the questions get very difficult. I see you saying that it is ok to kill a man with an IQ of 55 for murder while it apparently is not to do the same with an 8 year old and I don't see the difference. I don't want either of them killed and I think both need help.

[ZURKE]

Budfred
I am saying that raping and robbing during the act of murder makes the individual doing it, in my mind, knowledgeable enough.
Those cases on your link all contained that material.

I do understand what you are saying, but I just disagree.

We cannot seek justice ourselves the law forbids it, so the law does it for us. Try asking the families of the victims how they feel. If they had been in court pleading on the defendants behalf, I am sure things would be much different.

As for you saying I am not for equal treatment, well I have a better comparison for you.
Remember a few years back, two 10 year olds I believe, stole a baby from a shopping mall then brought it to a set of railraod tracks and beat it with sticks. Thru rocks at it untill it was dead.

I have no sympathy for those two little ^%^&%&**&%.

[Eutychus]

I'm not going to get into executing retarded people or children killers, I cannot see the justice in either case even under our current system.

Serial killers and psychopaths - people without a conscience who get their kicks killing - they are a completely different group. I watched another documentary recently on either A&E or Discovery about a killer where a man once sentenced to death for the murder of two teen boys and a girl (dubbed the "broomstick murderer) but had his sentence commuted to life in the 70's. While trying to reduce overcrowding in prisons, the state released him. He went on to kill more people until caught again. Had he been executed, his victims would still be alive. There are other such stories including the escape of 9 (?) in Texas in recent years who went on a killing and robbery spree. Again, their victims would still be alive had the state executed them.

I doubt that the death penalty would be a deterrent to most killers. Even if revenge is removed from the picture, I submit that there is no guarantee that a state can keep these psychopaths from killing again. On that basis alone I support the death penalty.

[kenz]

Eutychus, "Would you be in favor of executing a man who tortured your daughter for hours..."

As a parent, yes I would, but only if I and the 'system' were 100% certain that he was the guilty one, but unless I knew the person and was there when it happened, perhaps I was mistaken. I feel there are too many questions in most cases to be certain and whilst the jury is required to determine guilt beyond questionable doubt, their findings are based on the evidence before them and that is up to the prosecution.

Whilst I do not agree with capital punishment under today's systems and capabilities, I do feel that life imprisonment should be a very very long time, if not for the rest of the criminal's life.

I could pose your question the other way, 'What if your son was accused of the crime and you were certain, but could not prove, that he was innocent ??

I would point out that one of the most public murders of all time was that of JFK. Thousands saw it in Dallas, millions have seen it on film, experts have spent countless hours investigating, and yet the questions have still not been answered 'beyond reasonable doubt'

We know that police departments all over the world are stretched to solve crimes, when that is the case, corners are cut - in these circumstances I would not wish the penalty to be terminal, no matter how horrific the crime, and how guilty I felt the defendent was.

Surely the OJ Simpson case indicates that the justice system is not quite right.

As an aside, and I make this observation as a question, not an accusation, how is it that the USA, one of the few civilised countries to continue with the death penalty, and accepts that 'occasionally' an innocent is executed, is so demanding of a medical profession, in which doctors who make genuine mistakes are sued so frequently and for such high amounts ??