[Zipperfish]

Psudo wrote:

Secondly, I like the poetic justice to your idea, but it doesn't really fit the definition of the first degree murder. Various juries convict and sentence, not the judge. Also, as much as I would like there to be one, there isn't a governmental process to review execution cases that have already concluded. There's no official way to determine that a wrongful execution has occurred. And finally, proof of premeditation requires a proof of malice. Obedience to standard process is not malice. It would be 2nd degree murder at worst, and more likely voluntary manslaughter (the same as if you killed someone because someone else forced you to).

I'm not up on the finer pints of the criminal code myself, I just thin it would offer a nice check on the system. But I'd settle for a lengthy jail term for any judge that sends what turns out to be an innocent man to his death. Power should be commensurate with accountability. As I said, if I were a judge, I would have sentenced Paul Barnardo to death.

I think in some cases there was malice--perhaps not by the judge, but by prosecutors who put their own ambitions ahead of the legal process. Remember, it is not the prosecutors job to get a conviction, it his his or her job to get justice. That's often forgotten I think.

[Psudo]

Zipperfish wrote:

The jury convicts--I don't think it sentences though.

Generally, you're right. Capital cases, though, are usually split into two separate jury trials, one to consider conviction and (if convicted) one to consider the sentence; life in prison or death by execution. If acceptably impartial juries can't be found a judge will sometimes fill the role, but jury sentencing is typical in US capital cases.

Zipperfish wrote:

Power should be commensurate with accountability.

Amen.