With the execution of Stanley 'Tookie' Williams pending there's been a lot of talk about the death penalty in modern America.

From what I can see, there are three distinct opinions regarding the execution of criminals.

First, you have what I like to call the 'kill 'em all and let god sort them out' camp.  People who think that if a person has been through the judicial system and had been found guilty, that's a good enough indicator of guilt and the execution should go ahead. 

Secondly, there are the folks who are anti-death penalty at all costs.  Nobody, regardless of admissions of guilt, confessions, or hard evidence should be executed.  'execution isn't going to bring anyone back' is their war cry.

Lastly, you have people like me.  People who believe that there are people in this country who are so devoid of compassion for their fellow man or morality in general that they will do some horrible, horrible things to other people.  People who believe that IF there is a confession, an admission of guilt, or hard (ie DNA) evidence, then an execution should certainly take place.  If however, the conviction is based on circumstantial or eyewitness evidence alone.....well, there aren't any 'do-over's' with death.  There is no pardon, no commutation of that sentence.  It's final.  And we are, as yet, fallible.  We make mistakes.  We get things wrong, we screw stuff up.  We lie and we fabricate...and until we can be  INfallible, there are some cases where we SHOULDN'T sentence people to death.

I've spent enough time working in and being exposed to various branches of the judicial system to know that if you believed the words of criminals and convicts American jails are FULL of innocent people. However, I take most of those words with a grain of salt.  I KNOW this not to be true, because I've played small roles in convicting some people.  I've sat with a case file fresh in my mind, with photographic and DNA evidence swimming around in my frontal lobe, and I've witnessed a man try and persuade a judge that it really WASN'T him who raped that girl, that it was his buddy and that he just happened to be there - an innocent bystander, in the wrong place at the wrong time.

So, I've seen the way criminals will try and manipulate the system.  I've seen them deny, deny, deny.  Deny it all and make society PROVE what you did - and then STILL deny it, regardless of all the evidence.

However, I also know that there ARE innocent people.  People whose only crime was having a visage that reminded a witness of what they'd seen go down, who couldn't produce a solid alibi for their whereabouts at the time of the crime, and whose blood type or hair just happened to be 'microscopically similar' to that of the true offender.  I know that there are 'expert' witnesses who have been discredited after the trial, who have taken bribes and who have lied on the stand.  I know too that there are cops who are so set on convicting one person that they will bribe witnesses and lead them to believe they saw something slightly different than what they actually recall.  $50 is a big deal when you're broke and have kids to feed, y'all.  It only takes one name-drop from a cop...and the witness picks up on that and starts calling the person they saw by that name, and before you know it you've got yourself a written statement and a warrant for some poor sap's arrest.

As I say, though, there are time when the death penalty is entirely appropriate.  Like in this case:Link

Willie J. 'Flip' Williams shot four people in the head in cold blood.  Why?  Because he wanted control of the drug trade in his neighborhood.  He'd already served time for possesion with intent and distribution, and when he got out of jail, he wanted control back.  He even had the balls to go to the local PD and ask them who the major players were in the drug scene in his 'hood.  Yep, fresh out of jail this fucking thug brazenly goes and asks the cops who all his soon-to-be rivals are, so's he knows who he needs to eliminate to regain control.  And when he finds them, he recruits juveniles to help him round them up, and he calmly shoots each one of his percieved 'enemies' in the head.

He even broke out of prison to try and execute his juvenile accomplices after he head they were co-operating with with police.

He never once said he was sorry for what he did.  Even as he was on the gurney in the death chamber, he never expressed any remorse or asked for forgiveness.  He said "I'm not going to waste no time talking about my lifestyle, my case, my punishment. Y'all stick together. Don't worry about me. I'm OK".....and then the State of Ohio stopped his blackened heart with a lethal combination of sodim pentothal,  pancuromium bromide and potassium chloride. 

THAT'S the kind of person who completely deserved to get the death penalty. 

Until we are infallible, unless we are certain of a person's guilt.......we shouldn't execute anyone.  We shouldn't do anything that we can't take back, if you will, if we are proven to be wrong at a later date.

Just my 2 cent's worth.