So, it's ok to kill under the heading 'death penalty' but it's not ok to kill under the heading 'abortion.'   A sanctity of human life double standard??

Between 1977, when the state reestablished the death penalty, and 2000,  Illinois has released more prisoners from death row after proof of their innocence, than it has put to death? 13 overturned convictions and 12 executions.

That may be an aberation, but wouldn't a true Christian and Conservative go "whoa, let's review this."

I have nothing against execution per se, except for the fact that the overwhelming majority of retrials result in lesser sentences, and about 7% of death penalty convictions are completely exonerated by new evidence such as DNA testing. Even a less than competent Public Defender can get you fried. Besides, it probably still costs a lot more to get around to putting someone to death than simply confining them.

I just don't seem to remember any Jesus quotations that said...."Kill 'em all, and let my Dad sort 'em out."

I'd say the majority of those on death row deserve what they get, but too many don't. Where's your line of acceptable mistakes?

It would probably help the clarity of this article if you removed the part about "gang members and rapists" and the whole bit about Pacheco since being a rapist or a gang member aren't executable offenses.  There's still plenty of other inflammatory rhetoric you can use.

Also, I'd be interested in hearing a study that shows the death penalty actually does have a deterrent effect.  I know a few came out recently that were debunked, so I'm assuming you're not using any of those as the basis of the statement.

 I just read John Grisham's recent book An Innocent Man. It is not fiction. It confirms my only criticism of our justice system: It doesn't work. Other than that, we're doing everything right. If I'm on a jury, I want to know the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Oftentimes the jury is not given all the facts to make that determination. 

Recent news stories tell of an innocent man convicted for murder while a lawyer had first-hand knowledge of the inmate's innocence and said nothing. Another case tells of a woman convicted for a murder that never happened. The mistakes of an imperfect justice system were rectified. Had they been executed, how would the mistake have been acknowledged or rectified?

The courts have defined imprisonment as a "civil death," meaning the convicted inmate is segregated and not allowed to be a part of society. It is not unheard of for death row inmates to refuse appeals and accept execution rather than years of imprisonment. Is Charles Manson paying less of a debt to society by life in prison than execution?

As to the long slow process between sentencing and execution, so what? The guy's not going anywhere; he's behind bars in a state of "civil death."  

I don't know what "recent studies" you are referring to. I have not heard of executions being a deterrent to crime. Our overcrowded prisons seem to contradict the argument that the death penalty is a deterrence.  

 Since so few death penalties are ever carried out, of course it isn't much of a deterrent.

On the other hand we have the woman who was just released from prison because the murder of her husband that she was accused and convicted of, never actually happened.

 One of the flaws of our system is a lack of truth in sentencing. If a criminal is sentenced to 20 years his incarveration should reflect that time; it shouldn't mean he'll get out in seven or 10 years.

"The killers and their supporters" writes our fearless columnist. I do not see the connection between advocating an end to the unfair application of the death penalty as being tantamount to supporting killers. No one arguing for and end to the death penalty  thinks that severe penalties should not be enforced against the convicted. However, to equate support of ending the death penaltyas supporting killers is the worst sort of straw man argument that makes a mockery of critical thinking and argument.

"Their victims' families have waited long enough." For what? Their "pound of flesh" being exacted? Their loved ones are not coming back, and killing the convicted never brings them back. If we could be sure the convicted is always the one who committed the crime it might be one thing, but in far too many instances this has not been the case. This doesn't seem to matter for too many people in this country. 

Do you put on a clown costume when you sit down in front of your keyboard to write? I ask because your columns are almost always exercises of sheer buffoonery. Thank you for my Sunday morning chuckle.

If the fiend(s) who stabbed my friend,at all the major arteries , left her to bleed to death and for her young children to find..is ever caught,I think the families feelings should be taken into account. For my part,I'd love to think of that person(s) in a small cell isolated with her picture to look at,for the rest of their miserable life. I'd like to go visit,and remind him/her yearly of how much I miss my friend. How his/her family must miss him/her...slow painful revenge,even mentally cruel.But that is what he sentenced me to,no quick lethal injection so I can forget,or her family can forget. Truely an eye for an eye.

By sponsoring capital punishment, the government are the "killers."  And I'm not one of their supporters. 

The most powerful, richest nation in the history of the world, and we kill people like some 3rd world back water nation.

It's embarrassing.

 The studies I referred to, and highlighted in a column last year, were published by Emory University and by a well-known liberal law professor, University of Chicago's Cass Sunstein. 

Sunstein's fascinating paper, "Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? The Relevance of Life-Life Tradeoffs," may be downloaded in its entirety from the Social Science Research Network at http://ssrn.com/abstract=69.... Sunstein's work is especially interesting in that he was known for his opposition to the death penalty.

4046.