Although Jameson Joyce makes a valid observation in his column “US Justice System Not Broken” (SN 9/29) about the overall nature of our justice system, his larger conclusion — that its benefits somehow justify the murdering of innocent human beings — completely misses the point of what “liberal live and let live,” “racism”-lambasting liberals “rail” against in their critique of capital punishment largely endorsed by our country’s legal system. In particular, when distinguishing the United States justice system in practical terms as a form of legal procedures apart from its philosophical intent, he points to the inherently subjective quality of justice by writing “one person may say justice for a murderer is death — an eye for an eye — where another person might say that a murderer deserves life in prison to sit with their guilt.”

Joyce’s defense of institutionalized manslaughter falls flat, as the premises upon which his argument relies imply and necessitate the guilt of the person in question. Unfortunately, that’s not what many are arguing against in their opposition to the death penalty. Instead they are arguing that in several recent cases, DNA technology has exonerated many who have been killed by this policy ex post facto, disproving a fundamental fact upon which their punishment was based. This development is aside from lingering, persistent questions about equality of court proceedings, especially in historically racially divided regions such as the south, which have seriously called into question the guilt of many more who have been executed in several instances. Both scenarios reveal the consequences that such a barbaric policy can have in terms of innocent human life.