We go through a long and sometimes agonizing process to convict a criminal. For those crimes that are serious enough to consider the death penalty as punishment, it is even more stringent. Certain conditions must be met to even consider it and only then is it a possibility. Even with all these proper safeguards there are probably people who have been executed who were innocent of the crime they were accused of. For this reason, many oppose the death penalty, some oppose it for other reasons.
  The fact that we will go through this process says a lot about our society. It says that we want justice but that justice must be as fair as possible. That we would rather a few guilty go free than one innocent be killed. There are many societies in the world that will try, condemn, and execute people in a single day with little or no proof. A nations laws and how those laws are carried out says as much about that nation as anything else it does.
  But there is something that puzzles me. If we will not execute a mass murder unless there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If that crime must have met certain conditions to even consider the death penalty. If we must make sure that the person is of sound mind and was at the time of the crime, and if he/she wasn't of sound mind we will show compassion and put them in a mental hospital till they are better. WHY will we execute the unborn for no more reason than that they are unwanted? If we have no DEFINITE proof of the moment a developing human becomes human, whether it is at conception or at birth, or somewhere in-between, how can we declare that it is lawful to kill this most innocent citizen. If we began executing criminals with the same lack of proof, the outcry would be deafening.
God Bless and God Help the USA
gary
<><
10/9/01
PROOF
FELLOWSHIP HALL
ARCHIVES