I'm a big fan of the death penalty, when it's done right. I know that some number of innocents will be executed as well and fully agree that we need to do whatever we can to limit that number - however, any system that works on humans making a decision will fail.

Alternatively, I'd even support banishment. Take everyone on death row and send them to North Korea (Best Korea, duh). Tell them that if they come back to America they're shot on sight.

I'm still not sure that this guy was innocent, though. This particular ruling just pulls out one bit of circumstantial evidence.

I think our system is good at sussing out bad people. I think there's no system in the world good enough to be C-E-R-T-A-I-N someone killed someone else. That is one of, but not the only or even main, reason I'm against the death penalty but for really rotten prison conditions.

"I think there's no system in the world good enough to be C-E-R-T-A-I-N someone killed"

Until we have the power to read minds and determine whether the guy confessing to murder is actually guilty of the crime, or just framed himself to draw attention to the fact that no system can be perfect (don't laugh, people have committed suicide by cop for less attention-whoring reasons), there will be no system that is perfect.

I would, however, prefer a system that doesn't come down more heavily on people that maintain their innocence right up to the death chamber, than it does on people who cop a plea bargain. The left argues that fewer people will confess to crimes if we don't let people off the hook, but they ignore the fact that more people may confess to crimes they didn't commit if it does let them off the hook... and that means the guilty parties get off scott free to kill again (and often with police support... they don't want to make it look like they put the wrong man in jail, even if the guy did plead guilty).

Scott - I see what you're saying about certainty, but since that's an impossible goal I think there's more throwing the baby out with the bathwater there. I think we should hold the death penalty to a higher standard of evidence - absolutely. But if we use the best available and proven techniques to demonstrate the guilt of an individual and the jury finds that to be proof, then that's all there is to it.

I certainly understand corrupt prosecutors, police, judges, as well as incompetent public defenders, etc., but to me that doesn't stop the process. Focus of fixing the system, not eliminating the penalties because the system is broken.

I also understand it's actually (currently, I predict this will change) cheaper for LWOP than it is for the DP. A good portion of this appears to be related to all the appeals and other legal motions, though. I also think it'll swing the other way due to increasing medical costs (srsly - if someone has LWOP why are we treating them for cancer?).

The principle of justice here is that there are certain crimes that one can commit that should remove that person from society forever. To me I can't see why a society would say that we should remove that person from our society forever, but we'll still pay for them (to include cable TV, semi-quality meals, medical care, etc). That just doesn't make sense. That's why I'm all about banishment or capital punishment.

I am against a death penalty that is only truly used up to 20 years after the crime. Just life without parole I think is sufficient.