That is why we keep putting stone killers back on the street to kill again if all the i's are not dotted and the t's crossed. No human endeavor is without flaws. Should there be a higher standard for the death penalty? Certainly! But, expecting perfection in anything we do is unreasonable. That includes the death penalty. The standard is "Beyond a reasonable doubt" not "Absolute Certainty beyond even the most outrageous claim of a nutcase activist." Funny how we can accept the death of young soldiers, traffic deaths due to stupidity, medical errors and "choice," but the execution of very bad people who ruthlessly murder others in cold blood can only be allowed if there is 100% certainty beyond even the most fanciful doubt.
That is where we differ I guess; I DO expect the state to get it right regardless of the challenges when you start talking about killing its own citizenry. And I don't make light of the armed forces paying the ultimate sacrifice in our nation's wars as I wear the uniform and have had my boots in the shiite box more than once. I do not argue that the penal system is without it's problems; life without parole should be just that. But giving the state a certain allowance to say that if it meets a certain percent of who is guilty and who is not when we talk executions is something I will never subscribed to. Giving the state that much power is entirely too much. They want to execute one of its citizens then they have an obligation to ensure that the person is guilty. Is that going to cost money? Damn right it is. It might change the scenario that it becomes cheaper to keep them locked up forever. But the deciding factor in this once again is that a state that executes its citizens regardless of guilt changes to murder.
