This is my perspective on the death penalty through logic, math and the Bible.
But first, let’s look at death penalty opponents that are also pro-choice.
They say that murderers should not be executed via a trial of peers, but they also say that unborn babies can be killed by the decision of one.
And they say that I can’t claim to be pro-life and be for the death penalty for murderers.
Babies are innocent, murderers are not. And baby-killers are murderers, so I suspect they speak from a guilty conscience
Now, let’s turn our attention to an English proverb:
“Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer,”
is usually attributed to the English Jurist William Blackstone (1723-1780).
Let’s do the math, considering the average offender’s habit to re-offend.
Let’s project, for the sake of argument, that each guilty person will recommit three of the same crimes that first put them on the radar.
This is not an unreasonble suspicion; look at New York City’s no-bail release program.
Each killer, kills three more people.
Every meth-cooker, cooks three more batches of meth for several users.
Every robber, robs three more victims, each robbery having one or more victims.
Every rapist, rapes three more victims.
Every child sex trafficker will traffick three more children.
Just from those four wrongdoers, 12 more sets of innocent people are victimized.
The numbers don’t play out.
With that system, law-abiding citizens are always behind the power curve.
Mathematically, it is prudent to have even an imperfect judicial system.
So how do we minimize the possibility of wrongful convictions?
I think through:
1) proper convictions
2) by minimizing false confessions
The Old Testament of the Bible has judicial codes, given to Moses by God, which included a death penalty.
And Moses once killed a man in Egypt. Here is part of that legal code.
“15 One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.
16 If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse someone of a crime, 17 the two people involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the Lord before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. 18 The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against a fellow Israelite, 19 then do to the false witness as that witness intended to do to the other party. You must purge the evil from among you. 20 The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you. 21 Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”
End of Quote.
Notice that 2 or 3 must testify, and false witnesses must suffer the fate of the crime they accuse others of. (I wish Congress administered such punishments to the witnesses they solicit.)
These are two essentials that the American judicial system lacks. Too many people have been convicted on the testimony of one.
Even when the accusations are true, two witnesses should be required, and false witnesses should be punished.
That being said, forensic evidence, such a DNA analysis and phone records count as witnesses.
And I am always thrilled when DNA clears someone of a crime, partly for the sake of the falsely suspected, and partly for the sake of the next victim of the perpetrator that has gone under the radar.
Also, there is not proper punishment for malicious witnesses.
I watched one crime show where a mother blamed one daughter for the murder of her sister, when it was the mother who killed her own daughter. UGH.
Law Enforcement falsehoods and False Confessions.
Additionally, the police should not be legally able to lie to suspects to draw evidence out of them.
This can create false confessions, which help the truly guilty go free.
It also creates a huge trust problem between a government agency and the citizens they govern.
I can no longer trust an LEO if I am being questioned for a crime I may have shared an orbit with.
Look at the Comey Crew and what they have done to pervert justice in America.
Because of this law, I know that I cannot completely trust the police if they were to question me about any crime that I may have shared an orbit with.
What is the difference between the police lying to an interrogant, and planting evidence against him? Aren't those basically the same thing?
This is especially critical when dealing with minors. An agency that can’t be trusted with the legal safety of its minors needs overhauled exist.
No matter how much information police have received through dishonesty, we can never condone this.
Now, some would say that I am in fact advocating release of the guilty. Point taken, but yet different circumstances. "Presumed innocent until proven guilty".
Minors and obvious mentally ill without a guardians’ permissions and an appointed lawyer, or at least the pre-lawyer confession testimony should not be admissible in court. Now, the evidence gathered in questioning can be used to pursue the case, and the results may be admissible in court, but not pre-lawyer confessions by minors and the mentally ill.
I also need to inject here that there is a difference between evil, mental illness or mental deficiency. And while a person may be both evil and mentally ill, a personn who is both should not be exempted from consequences for acts of evil, evil if they re also mentally ill or mentally deficient. One must be evil to commit acts of evil.
Now, the death penalty.
Some say it shouldn’t be used at all, even for murder.
Here are cases of non-murder that I think warrants a review of the death penalty.
A male nurse is accused of 200 incidents of sexually-abusing patients in hospital ER rooms.
I also believe that sex trafficking and sexual abuse when the child is young should bring the death penalty.
And innocent deaths due to 3rd DUI should be a death penalty
And when a body is missing, the convicted killer goes into solitary confinement until the offender tells where the body is located. And 90 days beyond, if the offender was not a part of the discovery.
This article has no graceful ending, nor any resounding conclusion.