[Trebor the Mad Overlord]

I have given this issue a great deal of thought over the years, and have come to the opinion that the death penalty cannot be supported, for the following reasons:

1) We can never be 100% sure that the defendant is guilty. Eyewitnesses make mistakes (much more often than you'd think), policemen, forensics investigators and prosecutors who are convinced that the defendant is guilty can withhold or distort evidence (sometimes without even being aware that they are doing it), and so on. And then there's out-and-out perjury (on behalf of both sides), which is so common that lawyers have a word for it - "testilying". Human beings are fallible creatures.

2) The death penalty is not reversible. Once you've killed someone, you can't bring them back if you later discover they didn't do the deed. If the poor sap's been rotting in jail for 20 years, at least you can make partial amends.

3) It precludes the possibility of redemption. Yes, he might be a depraved killer, but he might still have the possibility of making a positive contribution to society. A possible example: Stanley "Tookie" Williams (though his actions may have been an attempt to avoid execution).

4) The inadequacy of punishment. My personal belief is that for the truly guilty and beyond redemption, being stuck in a jail cell for 50 years is worse than being executed. My personal nightmare is that for the truly innocent, it may also be worse than being executed.

If it were up to me, I would make the maximum penalty life without parole, or perhaps a long period before parole could even be considered. I would also insist that the evidence collected in such cases be preserved so that it can be reviewed as new technology is developed.

On a personal level, I think the procedural roadblocks that the Supreme Court has in recent years placed in the way of people on Death Row getting their cases reviewed when new evidence or scientific techniques come to light that cast doubt upon their convictions to be deeply shameful.