The right thing?

So, the jury is in on the Scott Peterson case, and they've recommended death. Now, in general I've got mixed feelings on State Sanctioned Executions (yeah, I've also got issues with terms like "Death Penalty" or "Capital Punishment"--a penalty is designed to teach a lesson, and someone can't learn from a punishment that kills them). On the one hand, there are some people who commit crimes so heinous that it demonstrates an inability to function in a civilized society. These people need to be permanently removed from the population for the good of society. And the only way to fully ensure that they will never again be re-entered into the populace, nor influence others into immitating their behavior, is to execute them. People like Charles Manson and Jeffrey Dahmer are shining examples of this. And, IMO, anyone capable of murdering an 8-month pregnant woman and dumping her body in the ocean is a fairly decent example of this as well . . . especially if that person was the woman's husband.

On the other hand, the best argument against execution as far as I'm concerned is "what if we're wrong?" There have been several instances in the past where people previously condemned to death were later proven to be innocent of the crime. While there is no way we (as society) would be able to give them back 10, 20 or more years of their life, it would at least allow them the opportunity to pick up the pieces and continue on with their life, should a mistake have been made. Execution does not allow for that possibility.

Now, deep down, I do believe that Scott Peterson is the perpetrator of this heinous crime. But that's just what my gut and heart says, based entirely on circumstantial evidence. I am unable to shrug off the posibility that the wrong man has been condemned. If there had been hard evidence that he was guilty, then I'd absolutely agree with the jury's recommendation. But no hard evidence exists (at least, none that we the public have been made aware of). And while I firmly believe he's guilty, that's all it is: belief, not irrefutable fact. In this particular situation, I can't help but feel that justice would be better served sentencing him to life in prison without posibility of parole.

I know that may sound contradictory--that I'm convinced he's guilty, but don't want him executed because he might be innocent. But our legal system (supposedly) is based on laws, fact, proof. While my doubt would not be sufficient to meet the "reasonable doubt" test which would have me vote not guilty were I on the jury, I believe there is enough question about his guilt to warrant forgoing an execution. All I can say is that I'm very glad this decision is not on my shoulders. And whatever decision is made, I sincerely hope that this tragedy is not compounded by a mistake.