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.(Bright 768) This makes for the biased trying of a defendants 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.(Bright 769) 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. This creates a deeply political justice system -- the words alone are a paradox. Can society simply brush off mistaken execution as an incidental cost in the greater scheme of putting a criminal to death? Revenge is an unworthy motive for our society to pursue.(Whittier 1) In our society, there is a great expectation placed on the family of a victimto pursue vengeance to the highest degree -- the death penalty. Pat Bane, executive director of the Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation (MVFR), stated, One parent told me that people made her feel like she was betraying her son because she did not want to kill the person who murdered him.(Frame 50) 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. Furthermore, [k]illing him will not bring back your son[s].(Grisham 402). At some point, man must stop the violence. Seeking temporary gratification is not a logical basis for whether the death penaltyshould be imposed. Granted, revenge is easily confused with retribution, and most would agree that the punishment should fit the crime, but can society really justify murdering someone else simply on the basis that they deserved it? Government has the right and duty to protect the greate...
