As I suspected, the Court really did not absolutely clear up anything and more challenges are expected.
Interestingly, Justice John Paul Stevens raised the question that HE THINKS that a Constitutional challenge to the "death penalty" itself will and should be raised EVEN THOUGH he voted, this time, with the majority on this "narrow" issue about the death penalty.
I have never argued with the validity of the death penalty applied to cases and people that indicated justification for such an extreme penalty BUT...
I am now totally disenchanted with our justice system especially the office of the prosecutor. I am totally convinced by past and present examples, that many prosecutors are devoid of the notion of justice and fairness and only want to win and close cases in a bid for higher office.
Just the vast amount of inmates that have been released after many years in jail on DNA evidence proving that they did not commit the crime they were accused, tried and sentenced to jail for, proves our system is far from perfect and we cannot risk executing an innocent person until the system IS perfect!
Does that mean we should stop all executions? No but I would demand "absolute" proof of guilt including DNA evidence; I would never agree to the death penalty in cases where the evidence was only "circumstantial". Even "eye witnesses have been proven unreliable.
As far as the death penalty itself being unconstitutional because it is "cruel and unusual" punishment; that argument fails because in our history it was the "usual" and not "unusual" punishment for certain crimes and as far as "cruelty" is concerned; that has been defined differently throughout our history as to method of execution culminating today in the most genteel of executions.
If your argument is that causing "death" is "cruel" then I would agree and that is why the person that caused innocent death is suffering the same cruelty he or she caused.
No comments:
Post a Comment