Stephen Pollard has a thoughtful column in which he discusses how he has come to terms with becoming pro-death penalty.
I have never bought into the argument that it is better for ten guilty men to go free than for one innoncent man to die. It’s a nice cliche, but it’s wrong. So, we should let Charles Manson, Saddam Hussein, Timothy McVeigh, et al go free before we put to death a mysterious Mr. X, who may be innocent, though was found guilty by a jury of peers and went through twenty years of appeals.
That’s may be nice to believe, but it’s still crap. I hate to agree with a ChiCom on anything, but read the final paragraph of Mr. Pollard’s piece, reprinted below:
The imprisonment of Saddam has made me realise that, far from opposing the death penalty, I can see no moral alternative to it. As for the idea that it is better that 99 guilty men go free than one innocent man is hanged, the response of one visiting member of the Chinese judiciary to that statement is perhaps the most pertinent observation: “Better for whom?”