Bob Keeter (
4 Sep 1996 03:27:10 GMT

Susan <> wrote:
>IMO, it always comes down to this: is it better to execute some innocent
>people in order to kill most of the guilty ones, or the let some guilty
>ones live in order to avoid killing the occasional innocent person.
>Because that's what history suggests are the alternatives.

To an extent I have to agree with you on the alternatives. The only
"perfect" method to insure that an innocent man is never executed is
to abolish executions (not that I'm advocating that approach!). There are
risks here though. First, the risk of freeing a person who has already
proven a level of disregard for human life. Second, the problems with
"absolute" sentences, i.e. Murder = execution. Are there any cases where
murder would still be a crime but would not deserve execution? Is it right
to saddle society with paying (heavily I might add) for the care and
feeding of a person that the society has already determined can not EVER
walk around free again?

As for what history suggests, I would offer one (somewhat sarcastic, but
thats the way I am!) example; How many convicted murderers/rapists/etc have
been released from prison on parole only to committ the same crime again?
How many executed murderers/rapists/etc have failed to be rehabilitated?


>"Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps."
>-- Emo Phillips