In response to my article 26 Years For Something She Did Not Do From the Evil of Armando Saldate, Jr., reader Quercitin asked: "What is your stance on the death penalty in situations where there is no doubt who the perpetrator was?"
Before we get to the phrase "no Doubt who the perpetrator was," let me answer the question as if it is a valid question. I have written in previous articles regarding the death penalty: for child-rapists - I would stuff razorblades up his pee-hole; false accusers in capital cases should be mercilessly beaten to death with socks filled with razor blades and spiked-ball-bearings; murderers in general deserve not only to be executed but should be brutally tortured as well; and in my heart I want murderers to be skinned alive, salted, basted with oil, and then slowly roasted over a roaring fire.
I admit that's what I truly feel. However I also believe that such vengeful, savage, barbaric emotions must be restrained if there is any reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.
If we want to live in a civilized and rational society then execution or any of the punishments I mentioned above should only be meted out if there is absolutely no doubt of the guilt of the accused.
However, it would be uncivilized and quite Islamic to execute someone if there is a reasonable doubt, even 1%, of someone's guilt. After having read over literally thousands and thousands of cases (and by the way, I once even filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court), I have never read of a case where there is 'no doubt who the perpetrator was.' Never, not once.
No Doubt of Government Wrong-Doing
There is no doubt that we put tens of thousands of innocent people in jail. That's the case of "no doubt."