Of course our criminal justice system "picks and chooses" all the time, particularly since it lacks the will to seek justice. First offence? We'll drop the charges and write a municipal ticket, pay at the window, please. Second offense? Well since we dropped the charges the first time it's not really a second offence so we'll reduce the charges to a misdemeanor and reduce the sentence to time already served but don't do it again (as a finger is vigorously shaken in the offender's face). And on it goes for most criminals until they do something that simply cannot be ignored and even then, unless the crime is infamous, plea bargains are offered.
As I’ve illustrated, miscarriages of justice in this country are almost exclusively in the favor of the accused. But to avoid a miscarriage of justice in capital cases I advocate stronger rules of evidence that those that apply normally such as 2 corroborated eyewitnesses at a minimum. Those combined with the built in biases in favor of the accused that already exist as well as the multiple layers of available appeals courts and the power of the governor and president to commute and pardon should satisfy all but the most unreasonable opponent whose objection is base on the “possibility of innocence” claim.

You may have perceived it as such, but I am of a different opinion.

And I believe you've had this conversation once before. (To which you acquiesced)
.
deja vu all over again.

And as evidenced by most of your posts, "unreasonableness" is in the eye of the beholder.

Like I said Bill, under our system you can't "pick and choose" who to drop in the fryer.
.
And in case you didn't know, "eye witness" evidence is among the most unreliable evidence there is. That's a proven fact.

Your argument illustrates your unreasonableness. So even if the judge and jury had witnessed the murder you still think an error could be made. I think I'm on to something here.

Purrmaid....you might be on to something there.

Some people want to "pick and choose" which cases they feel would pass all scrutiny of error, but such is not the way our system operates.
.
Unless you can HONESTLY say that you would willingly sacrifice the life one of your loved ones in the interest of error...capital punishment should not even be an issue.
.
And you can reject all the arguments you want Bill, but unless you would willingly put your head on the chopping block for an error to be corrected after the fact...you also have no room to talk.

By the time they exhaust their rights to numerous appeals after a death sentence, it loses its severity as a punishment. I doubt the victims' families find any relief in enduring the rehashing of the crime's horrific details during each new appeal. The only good seems to be in the form of financial gain for lawyers.
Personally, I think he should get life in prison and be required to view videos submitted by all his ex-girlfriends of them enjoying life without him...since that seems to be what REALLY bugs the crap out of him. ;p

It's an honorable position to oppose capital punishment on moral grounds. Those who hold it make solid arguments based on sincerely held beliefs which I respect. I too have sincerely held beliefs in favor of capital punishment based on moral grounds in that injustice is a great immorality. When a man such as Witzel kills another in a cold and calculating way as described above and faces at worst life in prison is to me a monumental injustice. Differences in opinions such as these should be subjects of reasonable debate among honorable people.
However, I reject the arguments of those who attack capital punishment as too expensive or that we never know for sure that the condemned is not innocent as these arguments are unreasonable and even deceptive when used in place of their real objection which they have difficulty defending.
What price are we willing to place on justice? Shall we assign a value to the prosecution of each crime and if that value is likely to be exceeded do we drop the charges? Our government hands out money like Santa Claus hands out presents on Christmas morning to loads of people on a daily basis who would not suffer without it wasting billions upon billions. We can find the money to finance justice, all we lack is the will to do so.
For some who claim we dare not execute for we do not know with absolute certainty that the condemned are innocent are quite unreasonable in their argument. In the above story a victim was left for dead, survived and is now identifying his attacker who also murdered another. This evidence exceeds any reasonable standard of proof of guilt. But still some will argue “he may be innocent”. For such as these the only way a person could be said to be guilty without any possibility of innocence is if the judge and jury had actually witnessed the crime themselves, but of course, witnesses are not allowed on juries, nor can they be the presiding judge.

I don't believe in " eye for an eye" either....I would want both eyes! Our family has gone through this. Infact the jerk that killed my aunt and my uncle in Georgia was the last one to be executed in the US (fried in the electric chair)before Timothy McVae (sp). He was convicted in 1985 and seen the electric chair in 1997. 12 yrs he sat because the allowed him to have 12 appeals. I guess one a year, and his brother that was also involved will sit for 3 life sentance. Which the people also pay for. I think when someone hurts another human being or even an animal they should have the same damn thing happen to them as long as we have the evidence it should be cut and dry.
My heart goes out to all the victims and their families and friends. It will be a long journey.

spunkmeyer, I don't believe in an eye for an eye either, we know we are to "turn the other cheek", sometimes it is a very hard concept to grasp. So, you have found someone who "sides" with you :)

Bluebirds66 - Maybe that's already happened to me. You have no idea. You know why? Because you don't know me.
Spark - I said it was MY opinion, and I stand by it. You don't have to agree. And, honestly, I don't expect most people on this blog to agree. Such is life.

kidding me...sorry.

spunkmeyer-you have to be getting me. That is a pathetic comparison.

I think that the death penalty seems very cut and dry to everyone, but it's not. In the states where the death penalty is permitted, how many people are actually executed? The ratio is very small. The constant appeals, etc. makes the death penalty very expensive. Besides, having the death penalty as an option also means that there is the possibility of killing someone who wasn't guilty to begin with. It is rare, but it does happen.
+
I suggest that everyone watch "Boondock Saints" or "A Time To Kill" and carry out their own justice. It would save society a lot of time and money.
+
P.S. I am definitely kidding about carrying out your own justice.

Obviously Spunkmeyer believes that Wisconsin should house any murderer for their life, no matter how bad or how many they kill. Hope that one day one of these guys don't get out and kill someone in your family. Then it will be a different world for the do gooders.

It always amazes me when people cry death penalty and use "eye for an eye" as the excuse. In my opinion, unless you are doing so to protect yourself or someone else from harm, killing a murderer makes you a murderer too.

That is one scary looking guy. I would have been afraid of him from day one. Should be an easy trial; 2 witnesses, text messages, guns...Prayers are with the families of those he murdered.

Did anyone see this guy on the news? He looks like he just crawled outta the woods after ten years! I believe in the eye for an eye also.

an eye for an eye, shoot him twice in the back and once in the head so he lives, let him go through the pain of recovery like the person he shot, then shoot him in the aorta and end it.

"Never to see the light of day again". Put him in an under ground cellar, feed bread, water, drag out when dead. No luxuries, no contact with the outside world!

Oh no doc, don't bring up the death penalty again. We just went through this with another story and all the people that feel sorry for the criminals and think it's wrong to take someone's life even though they killed innocent people. I agree with you. FRY!

Yes, but Doc, what if he's innocent??? (that's sarcasm for anyone who can't tell by the inflection in my voice)

It's A shame we don't have the death penanty here in Wis, This guy should FRY!!!!