Well Alex I am going to answer you. I believe in the death penalty also. There are some crimes that are so heinous that I do not care what happens to these animals. I share your concern about mistakes. No excuse for it. I do recommend a cure for this and I do believe it should be looked at. A law should be instituted or passed. If there is an execution that is in error, then the prosecutor faces the death penalty also. They have committed murder. A jury can decide what degree to take this. This might cure this problem if their own lives were on the line. Thanks for your articles. Love them.
I, too, believe in the death penalty. Years ago comedian Ron White, from Texas, said that in his state they were streamlining the death penalty. If someone killed another person and three independent people witnessed it, the perpetrator was to be put to death within a year. There would be no twenty years of appeals filed. That is fair.
But I have seen first-hand lying police officers and cheating prosecutors. I don't know what the answer is.
The Law is clear: Genesis 9:6: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image." The implementation of that Law by fallible men is never without possibility of fatal error. Thus, life imprisonment without parole for premeditated murder is certainly not an inappropriate substitute for execution. As with everything else, there are degrees of certainty in conviction; where a defendant's guilt is beyond doubt, not merely beyond a reasonable doubt, such as in a case of confessed guilt coupled with undeniable evidence of premeditation, capital punishment carried out swiftly should be possible. Even without confession, when the evidence leads only to one conclusion, such as where a premeditated murder is undeniably witnessed by multiple, reliable and unbiased witnesses, capital punishment should remain a possibility.
I’ll take my chances with an American system of justice over Sharia Law or an International Court. A Christian-based system vs secular law is the way our system was originally conceived.
So you want Sharia Law - The Quran endorses the principle of proportional justice (qiṣāṣ); "O you who believe, prescribed for you is retaliation (qiṣāṣ) in cases of murder..." (Quran 2:178)
You just want yours Christian-flavored - Unlike every country in Earth, except Vatican City. Because even countries with official state-established Christianity (e g., Malta, Greece, England) operate under secular legal systems.
I want precisely the oposite of sharia. You must have not read beyond the verse I quoted, because I never once suggested that criminal defendants be denied their rights under the Constitution nor that the rules of criminal procedure be abrogated in state or federal courts. It is undeniable that our western jurisprudence, American and European is, in fact, based on principles enunciated originally in the Bible, and specifically, the Decalogue. But upon what, exactly, do you base your law? Personal preference? Feelings? Ouija board pronouncements? Some readings in the literary canon of Western Civilization and a bit of famiiarity with the writings of The Founders would do wonders for your commentary.
Alexander, you are not alone in your attitude towards government and the death penalty. I fully agree that the death penalty is a very necessary punishment against those who commit the most depraved and heinous crimes. But is can be difficult to support it knowing government actors sometimes act dishonestly or incompetently. Even apart from murder trials, as we have seen in the past 10 years just how often the justice system can be, and has been, perverted to satisfy personal/political animus. If the governmental criminals are not punished, how are we able to trust any one of them? There needs to be severe consequences for those to break the law while pretending to uphold it. Then we may be able to start believing in then system again.
Errors and Omissions. I agree with everything you said but I think omitted something, an old problem that's gotten worse. Apparently there are some prosecutors and judges who are "soft on crime" to the point where they're aiding and abetting ... releasing perps without bail, giving light or no-jail sentences for serious crimes. I assume (at risk of the Ass u and me retort) that these bad actors provide some of the motivation to investigators and prosecutors to err on the side of enforcement and punishment. If we're thinking of fixing the justice system (aka the "just us" system), please surface some proposed reforms in this area.
If there's no way to enact the death penalty, then there isn't one. It is interesting that many Brits are starting to rethink the death penalty, in light of the murders taking place on their streets.
It is totally reasonable to distrust government which is a system devised by humans that are flawed. The criminals who usually end up on death row are not those who commit only one crime. The Tyler Robinson case is an outlier, and the defense played some games early on with presenting evidence. The prosecution responded inappropriately and rightly got penalized because of it. The judge has proven himself in how he handled it. This case will prove that the death penalty can be carried out in a just and certain way. The way the Derek Chauvin case was handled, is one that makes me think the system is not just politicalized, but corrupt. In both of these cases public opinion was being manipulated. The judge is key to the outcome. https://nypost.com/2026/06/26/us-news/tyler-robinson-still-faces-death-penalty-as-judge-issues-scathing-ruling-against-prosecutors/
I am an anarcho-capitalist, politically. I believe that once we grow up and no longer have monopoly governments, our systems of governance will be much more aligned with human nature. In such systems, violent predators may well be killed, but it won't be by people for whom all the incentives are aligned towards false-positive convictions/killings.
At some point, people are so depraved that they must be excluded from all private property and possibly from the planet. At a certain point, we're just fighting.
Prosecutors should be held to the highest standard. They wield enormous power. If any corruption is found they should serve time in penitentiary for a minimum of 5 years and lose their license to practice law.
Excellent writing. I am exactly the same as you, in all details. I was fortunate to meet and read Jim Bovard, author of "Lost Rights," in the 1990s. Bovard wrote extensively about Waco, Ruby Ridge, and 9-11. He's factually skeptical of government competence on many topics, especially law enforcement.
My late Dad (1931-2012) was a Catholic attorney, Georgetown Law graduate, in the tradition of Scalia and others of that era. Dad didn't see it exactly the same as you and I, but he would be glad that we are still discussing the issue to this day.
That was an eye-opening read, Amuse. I have heard of several cases where the prisoner was freed, due to undisclosed or ??? details, but didn't think it through to the extent you just laid out.
It would be a step forward, I believe, if there was a way to take bias and corruption on the part of the prosecutor/judicial system out of the picture AND suitably punish an offender, especially of a heinous crime like child abuse, that would allow society to feel that justice has been served.
I have long thought that in order for a defendant to be eligible for the death penalty, there must, at a minimum, be multiple eye witnesses whose testimony is sufficiently in alignment that there is no doubt as to who the guilty party is. Furthermore, spending the rest of one’s life in a maximum security prison, without opportunity for parole, his almost worse than a death sentence. And, it gives the guilty party ample time to grow old while reflecting on what they did and potentially become remorseful for their actions.
Well if you're going to fund lifetime in prison, we should be talking away healthcare and creature comforts to make that lifetime as short and miserable as possible...
I do like what the OP said though... hold the prosecution responsible for murder if they screw up and get the conviction wrong. It's only fair.
Not just the prosecutor, but everyone involved in assisting the prosecutor get the wrongful conviction. I mean, if they are found to have done anything wrongful to assist. And I’m certainly in favor of prisoners working off their cost to society. No free room and board.
Alex: I certainly won’t condemn your view on this troubling topic. One of your commenters suggested that one remedy is to subject corrupt cops and prosecutors who knowingly procure the execution of “innocent” defendants to the death penalty. Why not? Remember Weeks v. U.S. (1914)? SCOTUS gave us the Exclusionary Rule, which renders evidence obtained unlawfully inadmissible against a perpetrator of a crime. This was justified, at the time, as a means of discouraging LAW ENFORCEMENT from acting outside the law. This assumes that beat cops actually give a shit about what happens after the collar while they are trying to survive making it. Laughable, right? Think about how many criminals have skated because clear and convincing evidence of guilt was never presented to a jury because some cop looked somewhere he wasn’t supposed to without the right paperwork. In reality and in fact, this rule has grown like topsy, is applied in criminal courts across the country every day but apparently has had negligible impact on clumsy, incompetent, sloppy police work and continues to punish the tax paying public by releasing guilty criminals into its midst. What a completely stupid idea. BUT it’s still going strong! There is merit in Blackstone’s Ratio (“better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent suffer”), which is at the heart of your argument. But Blackstone’s point was not made in opposition to death sentences but in aid of creating a legal system based on what we now refer to generally as Due Process. If civilization is to continue it has to rid itself permanently of certain dangerous criminals and deter others from following in their footsteps. Your statistics are horrifying, but I suggest that hanging a few prosecutors who deliberately withhold absolutely exculpatory evidence and a few cops who procure false testimony to convict and execute an innocent defendant would go a long way toward solving your problem.
The problem is two fold. If an innocent person is convicted though false evident or lying then yes they was murdered by the state and the people who lied or gave false evidence should also be charged with murder. But if it was an "honest" error? Than what. The person is still dead. Oops sorry about that really doesn't quite cover it.
That was sobering to read.
Well Alex I am going to answer you. I believe in the death penalty also. There are some crimes that are so heinous that I do not care what happens to these animals. I share your concern about mistakes. No excuse for it. I do recommend a cure for this and I do believe it should be looked at. A law should be instituted or passed. If there is an execution that is in error, then the prosecutor faces the death penalty also. They have committed murder. A jury can decide what degree to take this. This might cure this problem if their own lives were on the line. Thanks for your articles. Love them.
I, too, believe in the death penalty. Years ago comedian Ron White, from Texas, said that in his state they were streamlining the death penalty. If someone killed another person and three independent people witnessed it, the perpetrator was to be put to death within a year. There would be no twenty years of appeals filed. That is fair.
But I have seen first-hand lying police officers and cheating prosecutors. I don't know what the answer is.
The Law is clear: Genesis 9:6: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image." The implementation of that Law by fallible men is never without possibility of fatal error. Thus, life imprisonment without parole for premeditated murder is certainly not an inappropriate substitute for execution. As with everything else, there are degrees of certainty in conviction; where a defendant's guilt is beyond doubt, not merely beyond a reasonable doubt, such as in a case of confessed guilt coupled with undeniable evidence of premeditation, capital punishment carried out swiftly should be possible. Even without confession, when the evidence leads only to one conclusion, such as where a premeditated murder is undeniably witnessed by multiple, reliable and unbiased witnesses, capital punishment should remain a possibility.
I’ll take my chances with an American system of justice over Sharia Law or an International Court. A Christian-based system vs secular law is the way our system was originally conceived.
"The Law is clear; Genesis 9:6"
So you want Sharia Law - The Quran endorses the principle of proportional justice (qiṣāṣ); "O you who believe, prescribed for you is retaliation (qiṣāṣ) in cases of murder..." (Quran 2:178)
You just want yours Christian-flavored - Unlike every country in Earth, except Vatican City. Because even countries with official state-established Christianity (e g., Malta, Greece, England) operate under secular legal systems.
I want precisely the oposite of sharia. You must have not read beyond the verse I quoted, because I never once suggested that criminal defendants be denied their rights under the Constitution nor that the rules of criminal procedure be abrogated in state or federal courts. It is undeniable that our western jurisprudence, American and European is, in fact, based on principles enunciated originally in the Bible, and specifically, the Decalogue. But upon what, exactly, do you base your law? Personal preference? Feelings? Ouija board pronouncements? Some readings in the literary canon of Western Civilization and a bit of famiiarity with the writings of The Founders would do wonders for your commentary.
Alexander, you are not alone in your attitude towards government and the death penalty. I fully agree that the death penalty is a very necessary punishment against those who commit the most depraved and heinous crimes. But is can be difficult to support it knowing government actors sometimes act dishonestly or incompetently. Even apart from murder trials, as we have seen in the past 10 years just how often the justice system can be, and has been, perverted to satisfy personal/political animus. If the governmental criminals are not punished, how are we able to trust any one of them? There needs to be severe consequences for those to break the law while pretending to uphold it. Then we may be able to start believing in then system again.
Errors and Omissions. I agree with everything you said but I think omitted something, an old problem that's gotten worse. Apparently there are some prosecutors and judges who are "soft on crime" to the point where they're aiding and abetting ... releasing perps without bail, giving light or no-jail sentences for serious crimes. I assume (at risk of the Ass u and me retort) that these bad actors provide some of the motivation to investigators and prosecutors to err on the side of enforcement and punishment. If we're thinking of fixing the justice system (aka the "just us" system), please surface some proposed reforms in this area.
If there's no way to enact the death penalty, then there isn't one. It is interesting that many Brits are starting to rethink the death penalty, in light of the murders taking place on their streets.
It is totally reasonable to distrust government which is a system devised by humans that are flawed. The criminals who usually end up on death row are not those who commit only one crime. The Tyler Robinson case is an outlier, and the defense played some games early on with presenting evidence. The prosecution responded inappropriately and rightly got penalized because of it. The judge has proven himself in how he handled it. This case will prove that the death penalty can be carried out in a just and certain way. The way the Derek Chauvin case was handled, is one that makes me think the system is not just politicalized, but corrupt. In both of these cases public opinion was being manipulated. The judge is key to the outcome. https://nypost.com/2026/06/26/us-news/tyler-robinson-still-faces-death-penalty-as-judge-issues-scathing-ruling-against-prosecutors/
Good answer -- because it mirrors my own!
I am an anarcho-capitalist, politically. I believe that once we grow up and no longer have monopoly governments, our systems of governance will be much more aligned with human nature. In such systems, violent predators may well be killed, but it won't be by people for whom all the incentives are aligned towards false-positive convictions/killings.
At some point, people are so depraved that they must be excluded from all private property and possibly from the planet. At a certain point, we're just fighting.
Prosecutors should be held to the highest standard. They wield enormous power. If any corruption is found they should serve time in penitentiary for a minimum of 5 years and lose their license to practice law.
Excellent writing. I am exactly the same as you, in all details. I was fortunate to meet and read Jim Bovard, author of "Lost Rights," in the 1990s. Bovard wrote extensively about Waco, Ruby Ridge, and 9-11. He's factually skeptical of government competence on many topics, especially law enforcement.
My late Dad (1931-2012) was a Catholic attorney, Georgetown Law graduate, in the tradition of Scalia and others of that era. Dad didn't see it exactly the same as you and I, but he would be glad that we are still discussing the issue to this day.
That was an eye-opening read, Amuse. I have heard of several cases where the prisoner was freed, due to undisclosed or ??? details, but didn't think it through to the extent you just laid out.
It would be a step forward, I believe, if there was a way to take bias and corruption on the part of the prosecutor/judicial system out of the picture AND suitably punish an offender, especially of a heinous crime like child abuse, that would allow society to feel that justice has been served.
I have long thought that in order for a defendant to be eligible for the death penalty, there must, at a minimum, be multiple eye witnesses whose testimony is sufficiently in alignment that there is no doubt as to who the guilty party is. Furthermore, spending the rest of one’s life in a maximum security prison, without opportunity for parole, his almost worse than a death sentence. And, it gives the guilty party ample time to grow old while reflecting on what they did and potentially become remorseful for their actions.
Well if you're going to fund lifetime in prison, we should be talking away healthcare and creature comforts to make that lifetime as short and miserable as possible...
I do like what the OP said though... hold the prosecution responsible for murder if they screw up and get the conviction wrong. It's only fair.
Not just the prosecutor, but everyone involved in assisting the prosecutor get the wrongful conviction. I mean, if they are found to have done anything wrongful to assist. And I’m certainly in favor of prisoners working off their cost to society. No free room and board.
None of your essays have resonated with me as much as this one. I agree with you.
Alex: I certainly won’t condemn your view on this troubling topic. One of your commenters suggested that one remedy is to subject corrupt cops and prosecutors who knowingly procure the execution of “innocent” defendants to the death penalty. Why not? Remember Weeks v. U.S. (1914)? SCOTUS gave us the Exclusionary Rule, which renders evidence obtained unlawfully inadmissible against a perpetrator of a crime. This was justified, at the time, as a means of discouraging LAW ENFORCEMENT from acting outside the law. This assumes that beat cops actually give a shit about what happens after the collar while they are trying to survive making it. Laughable, right? Think about how many criminals have skated because clear and convincing evidence of guilt was never presented to a jury because some cop looked somewhere he wasn’t supposed to without the right paperwork. In reality and in fact, this rule has grown like topsy, is applied in criminal courts across the country every day but apparently has had negligible impact on clumsy, incompetent, sloppy police work and continues to punish the tax paying public by releasing guilty criminals into its midst. What a completely stupid idea. BUT it’s still going strong! There is merit in Blackstone’s Ratio (“better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent suffer”), which is at the heart of your argument. But Blackstone’s point was not made in opposition to death sentences but in aid of creating a legal system based on what we now refer to generally as Due Process. If civilization is to continue it has to rid itself permanently of certain dangerous criminals and deter others from following in their footsteps. Your statistics are horrifying, but I suggest that hanging a few prosecutors who deliberately withhold absolutely exculpatory evidence and a few cops who procure false testimony to convict and execute an innocent defendant would go a long way toward solving your problem.
The problem is two fold. If an innocent person is convicted though false evident or lying then yes they was murdered by the state and the people who lied or gave false evidence should also be charged with murder. But if it was an "honest" error? Than what. The person is still dead. Oops sorry about that really doesn't quite cover it.