No more executing minors... or those who killed as minors

Ah, the death penalty. Either you're executing killers or your accused of coddling them by the right.

What does the latest ruling by the Supreme Court really mean? Well, for starters, we weren't really executing kids. We were executing those who killed while they were kids. Bit of a difference.

Think back - how mature were you when you were 15 or 16? Be realistic. If you're over 30, you're prob ably cringing at some of the stuff you did and got away with. Did you really understand the concept of consequences then the way you do now?

Irregardless of at what age someone is accused of killing, I'm opposed to the death penalty. I used to be for it - seemed like a sure cure for the problem of what to do with all those killers.

But, later, after DNA testing had freed many people falsely convicted on Death Row, I thought about it... here was one technology that PROVED innocent people could - and were - being convicted. These weren't people freed on a technicality - they didn't do it!

So, it comes down to this - if we have a death penalty, we will execute innocent people. It's unavoidable, given an imperfect justice system. The real question is this:

If we are to have a death penalty, what is the acceptable number or percentage of innocent people executed?

If the number is zero, we must abolish the death penalty. And, if that number is anything other than zero, how do you justify it? If 1% is OK, why not 10%, or 50% Why not execute 200 innocents to get one killer?

Not having a death penalty doesn't mean letting killers go free. But it does mean that if someone is truly innocent, future technology might one day prove it and set them free. Hard to free a dead man, isn't it?