Jim Hlavac
Domestic Affairs
Domestic Affairs
The Dealth Penalty should be given only with irrefutable proof.  Mere "eyewitness"
accounts after the fact are not good enough.  You have to catch the guy as he's
doing it to be sure.  Circumstantial evidence is insufficient.  Every effort should be
made to compare things like DNA and other physical evidence.  

     It should be reserved only for the most craven examples of murder.  A man who
kills a slew of people is necessarily crazy -- but he should receive the death penalty.
 It matters not if it serves as a deterent -- and it probably doesn't.  But it does
remove an inccorrigible offender for whom, regardless of their rehabilitation, there
can never be a right to live again.  It is simply unfair to those who were killed.

     Crimes of passion, say a wife or husband killing the other, should never result in
a death penalty, but an lengthy prison sentence should be imposed.

     Killing an official of the state should not result in the death penalty.  Too many
federal offenses against the government are receiving the death penalty.  It
somehow implies that people who work for the government in whatever capacity are
special, different and deserving of something more.  They should be treated equally
with the rest of the people, because they are us.

     Everyone on death row today should have their cases examined, because far
too many cases of wrongful imprisonment are surfacing.  Indeed, there are whole
classes of people who should have their cases reexamined.  There are too many
people wrongfully convicted on circumstantial evidence.  There have been too
many mistakes made.  A new tougher standard of evidence needs to be thought out.

     Convictions on eyewitness testimony alone should be pretty much disallowed.  If
they are backed up with cameras or video -- that's one thing -- but it is known now
that eyewitness accounts are nearly always wrong.

     Prosecutorial zeal must be curtailed.  That will come about as we begin to
rethink what we believe to be criminal.  The grandstanding of prosecutors and the
need for them to get reelected leads them to grab a likely suspect and then set up
a case against the unfortunate person.  There are far too many examples of this
sort of frame up by the government in an effort to get someone -- to show the public
that they are doing something.  This is an educational effort, a need to bring
understanding to a group of people.

     However, the law and order crowd, who do insist that "society" wants some
action outlawed, are too intent on criminalizing all sorts of behavior that they
personally find wrong.  But we can not have laws based on what one segment of
society wants to do to another segment of society.  Drug laws are only the most
obvious example. But there are plenty of others too.

     Laws about sex, though mostly overturned by now.  Laws concerning certain
business practices -- particulary the insanely complex criminal racketeering
charges, and SEC rules and other financial and tax laws.  If the tax system was
simpler there would simply be less need for laws relating to all the financial
maneuvers which people go through to avoid the taxes.  And first the Congress sets
up a ridiculously complex system as a whole body, then each individual member
tries to get some loophole for his particular favorite project -- and that just leads to
people using loopholes, and stretching the law's limits.  Which leads to "criminal"
action.