Furthermore, why should he be punished for a misjustice that was created by the court itself when it appointed the incapable lawyer. Even if a defendant has proper legal counsel, there is still the matter of impartiality of judges. The Supreme Court has steadily reduced the availability of habeas corpus review of capital convictions, placing its confidence in the notion that state judges, who take the same oath of office as federal judges to uphold the Constitution, can be trusted to enforce it. This makes for the biased trying of a defendant s appeals, given the overwhelming pressure on elected state judges to heed, and perhaps even lead to, the popular cries for the death of criminal defendants. Thirty two of the states that impose the death penalty also employ the popular election of judges, and several of these even have judges run with party affiliations.
Revenge is an unworthy motive for our society to pursue.
This creates a dilemma of morality. If anything, by forcing families to seek the death penalty, their own consciences will be burdened by the death of the killer. At some point, man must stop the violence. Seeking temporary gratification is not a logical basis for whether the death penalty should be imposed. Government has the right and duty to protect the greater good against people who jeopardize the welfare of society, but a killer can be sentenced to life without chance of parole, and society will be just as safe as if he had been executed.