I was listening to the radio the other day and the news flash told how our new Governor wants to reform the death penalty in Maryland. Since he cannot abolish it (many attempts have failed) he wants to reform it to say that the death penalty should only be used in cases when the deceased is a police or corrections officer.
I read this article the other day "O'Malley Seeks End To Md. Executions" Snippets of the article highlight O'malley's points. False convictions have been overturned, freeing the wrongly accused b/c of DNA evidence. BUT.. my point, those free'd were from the 70's and 80's. DNA had not been perfected. But now, another point of the article, you have DNA evidence, forensics, 3 separate juries that convict you and find you guilty beyond a resonable doubt for the murder of two innocent people. Where is the confusion there O'Malley? And if you say that you are scared of wrongful convictions, then why is it okay to convict if the victim is law enforcement? Could you still have the wrong guy?
In the New York Post this week was an article about a major drug lord caught and convicted on a murder charge in New York. He pleaded saying he would confess to other crimes if the death penalty were taken off the table.... could the police have ever guessed he would then confess to more than 30 murders? And he gets to live the rest of his life, yes behind bars, but he still lives.
What about those that rape, mutilate and murder children? They do not deserve the death penalty. I shiver at the thought.