Maybe it's the fact that I'm an engineer... but I just can't wrap my brain around the Journal's math on the death penalty. The Journal, in it's infinite editorial wisdom, is claiming that because the proposed death penalty resolution would only put one out of two murderers to death in it's hypothetical situation, that we should keep the current law which would put neither to death.
Isn't one better than none? Via From Where I Sit.
Until the first time that someone harvests someone else's DNA for the sole purpose of leaving it at a crime scene (first thing that comes to mind is Presumed Innocent).
ReplyDelete