Okay, that resonse was cute. I agree with you on ALL of those points.

He DOES make an interesting point.

I think that the effect that such a system would be similar to the effect of the rise of the HMO's on the medical field.

The state I live in "MIchigan" has had only one execution and that occurred in 1938. Capital Punishment is now illegal in our state so I'm not overly concerned with any change locally at this time.I could support a brief "National" moratorium on the DP,I don't care how much the study would cost.I think some of these issues need to be addresed.However,I believe there is little to no chance of a national moratorium.People who believe in state's rights will fight it with passion.Early next year,the SC will be reviewing lethal injections,perhaps a moratorium would be possible during that review.

__________________
"Destiny must be shaped and not left to mere chance."..Spencer Collins

If that were the case, then OJ Simpson never would have been defended by Cochran, F. Lee Bailey, Barry Schek, and Howard Shapiro, not to mention a couple of other defense attorneys.

I agree. Those types of legal teams would no longer exist. Of course, pro-bono cases probably wouldn't either.

Thinking more on this... The problem is that what specialists and corroberating experts a person could get would STILL be based on what the client would be able to pay. The lawyers that are actually assigned to the case would be done by lottery, but a rich person could still hire a 'dream team' as consultants. Justice would still not be meted out equally.

__________________
Right now America spends $700 billion every year on foreign oil. That's our money going overseas when it could be staying here. We have to stop this.
That's why I support the Pickens Plan. Check out the website at www.pickensplan.com. If you like what you see, please join me as a Pickens Plan supporter.

If a certain course of action makes the mouth-breathers furious, then that’s a good policy. – The Practical Environmentalist

An interesting point as well, but would it actually improve them as lawyers or would it just improve them for that one client? In the latter case, we are right back to the 'more money more justice' problem.

(of course it will never happen. It's just an interesting theoretical.)

The answer to that issue is to limit what the prosecution and the defence can spend per case.Without such limits,justice is not equal nor balanced,the one with the greater financial resource has the advantage and that is not justice.We can only fool ourselves into thinking it is. Would setting limits be feasible? Perhaps but sadly... not likely...

__________________
"Destiny must be shaped and not left to mere chance."..Spencer Collins

I don't see the government (many of whom are lawyers) putting in a law like that.

Even if one put in a max that could be spent per defense, there will be those that can afford to meet that maximum and those that cannot. It would be MORE fair, but but still imperfect.

I say "Just make the standards higher for qualifying for the death penalty"...

DNA evidence MUST be supplied before any convictions...Three collaborating witness...Automatic 10 year/no parole jailtime for false testimony...15 years for witnesses in law enforcement ...

Narrowing down the field will increase the odds to infallibility and against human error(whether intentional or not)...

I'd rather see 50 guilty people go than 101 when 1 was innocent...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

You make some very interesting points.

When you say three collaborating witnesses I am assuming you mean in regard to convictions with a death penalty. Am I assuming correctly?

Also an interesting point about false testimony. I assume you mean willful false testimony (as in perjury), and stiffer penalties might make a lot more people think twice before lying in court. Could be a tough one to prove, but I actually think you have a point.

I very much agree that the standards for handing out the death penalty have got to become a LOT higher if we are going to continue to do it. As should our standards for convictions period, and that doesn't mean turning a blind eye and letting the guilty go free (I'm not directing this comment to you--but to those who will jump on this and scream "soft on crime!"). It means WAY upping the standards for criminal investigations and the preservation of evidence. Most people in prison and on death row no doubt deserve to be there, but there should not be one single innocent person among their ranks. The fact that there are so many means that there is a deep-seeded problem that goes against the ideals of this nation.