death penalty just underlines

supreme court justice john paul stevens has been talkin' th' smack about th' death penalty.

he brings up a couple of very good points (and by that i mean two very horrible things to point out, but clever and insightfully highlighted)--there have been people innocently (as later proven by dna evidence) executed, mistakes which (much like prison time served undeservedly) are not mistakes which can be remedied, but (unlike prison) is permanently so.

and, two, he brings up the point that the jury selection process (specifically the ability of the prosecution to dismiss prospective jurors who have reservations about the death penalty) can unfairly tip the tables out the 'jury of your peers' territory.

also, he talks about the strain on the court system these cases place, but the other side of the coin is the strain lifers (and, indeed the recitivism rate) actually place on the country.

neither solution seems very palatable, and yet clearly something needs to be done. the _execution_ of an innocent person should chill us to the bone, i think, but in this age of terrorism (should we start calling 'em terries?) there seems to be more and more of the apathetic uncaring-ness spreading itself around.

i guess (like most anything) a strong case can be made for more than one side....

--cidViscous

0wn yourself