In his years as an investigative journalist for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Moushey has routinely uncovered examples of corruption in law enforcement and the judicial system. Witnesses lie, evidence is ignored, deals are cut and innocent people are put behind bars and could, conceivably, be put to death for crimes they did not commit.

Of course, I knew all of this was happening already. But the timing of the presentation was key in helping me resolve some internal conflicts that have been growing inside me in recent months.

Moushey’s session forced me to revisit some thoughts I’d had upon watching the beheading videos of U.S. contractors Nick Berg, Paul Johnson and others. The men who kidnapped and beheaded Johnson and Berg did so despite the fact that Berg and Johnson were guilty of no crime. They were killed to make a statement, to quench a thirst for blood in the name of a corrupt system. That system being terrorism.

In our system, defendants are supposed to be tried fairly, and the punishment is supposed to fit the crime. But the parallels between a murderous terrorist regime and a U.S. court system that often fails to protect and practice fairness are eerily, and unfortunately, similar. Because some prosecutors, law enforcement officials and even judges have been known to put fear, vengeance, laziness or bias above truth, it can be safely said that our system, as great as it still is, is faulty.

Now, I wouldn’t expect such introspection to be exercised by a murderous thug regime. I would, however, expect it to be exercised by a democratic nation, a representative republic such as ours that is supposed to exist in the name of freedom and fairness, and to make sure that that freedom and fairness extends to all men—even those facing execution.

Back in 2003, in response to then-Illinois Governor George Ryan’s decision to overturn all of the state’s 157 death sentences, I wrote a scathing piece stating my unapologetic support of the death penalty. In many ways, I still stand by what I wrote. I believe that, under proper circumstances, the punishment more than fits the crime and that, as I wrote in 2003, the death penalty “reinforces respect” for—as our Declaration of Independence states—the basic human right to life. I argued that convicted murderers had forfeited their rights and that “those guilty of murder are no less guilty because the system bringing them to justice is flawed.”

But therein lies the problem. Regardless of the fact that the vast majority (if not all) of the convicted murderers on death row are, indeed, killers, the system is flawed and has, at least for now, forfeited its right to decide who lives and dies.

In fairness, I should point out that even the most ardent anti-death penalty advocates have never, ever uncovered one single instance of an innocent person being put to death. But at the rate our justice system is going, it’ll only be a matter of time before we actually do execute an innocent person. And though our justice system, with all its wrinkles, is still the greatest in the world, it could be made even greater if we exercised the stringent and increased self-examination necessary to repair it.

Bill, while I'd agree that we do need to exercise the utmost due diligence before executing anyone, I think you'd agree with me that equating the murderers of Nick Berg with American "prosecutors, law enforcement officials, and judges" is a conflation of highly dubious moral status.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the legal system isn't actually trying to determine whether or not someone actually did or did not commit a crime. When a "guilty" or "not-guilty" verdict is handed down, what is being decided is not whether or not the defendant did what he has been accused of, but whether or not the state can make a case for the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

We don't generally have access to the ultimate truth about what happened in a given situation where none of the jurors, attorneys, or judges was present. Heck, we rarely have that kind of access to situations where we are present. What the justice system is doing is looking at the evidence presented and using an established decision making mechanism (the jury of one's "peers"), to decide whether the evidence merits a conviction. That's why obviously guilty criminals go free - not because they didn't do it, but because it can't be proven in court. That's also why people can wind up on death row for crimes they didn't commit: if the evidence is sufficient to convict, the verdict is clear, and it's really hard to get sufficient evidence to convict someone unless they did what they've been accused of. It's possible, but it's unlikely enough that I will argue that we're still justified in executing the sentence determined by the courts.

It's not a perfect system. But it's the best we've got. If only those who have not sinned are allowed to enforce the law, then there will be no law, for there will be none to enforce it.

Bill -- one of the few times you've written something I agree with. I'm not sure how I feel about the death penalty, am very glad to see you looking beyond the 'Ultimate Truth' facade of Justice.

The question now is what's to be done about reforming the legal system? Ryan makes a good point -- if we start with flawed people (cops, lawyers, judges, et cetera), how can we expect to get a fair outcome?

A.