Note: In Atlanta Brian Nichols is the guy who murdered several people, including a judge, in a courtroom escape

Because Nichols may continue to be dangerous, even behind bars, he fits what I think should be the primary criteria for the death penalty. Not to take a life, but to protect life.

That said, I don't get the notion that the death penalty equals justice. I don't understand the revenge mentality.

We are all born. We all die. So exactly how is death punishment.

I believe the only time the death penalty should be considered is if it protects life. Otherwise, the death penalty is twisted logic. And such as in the Timothy McVeigh case it may actually be a way for a corrupt government to murder a witness in what should be an on going investigation.

___

Should law makers consider having a judge give the death penalty when a jury wouldn't. I think the courts have already pretty much ruled that unconstitutional.

Article:

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/18278984/detail.html?rss=atl&psp=news

____

Even though I do agree his case fit the criteria for a death penalty case, it was way too costly to go after the death penalty in this case.

Rather than changing the death penalty law, law makers should be considering a law to punish prosecutors who throw away millions of dollars attempting to make a name for themselves in notorious cases. This case could have been settled just as the jury ruled without the millions of dollars thrown away and the lives of jurors turned upside down for too long of a period of time. This same outcome could have been reached by a plea bargain, but instead the proscutors and politicans went after the death penalty for political gain.