Comment upon the interview with Ed bronson: Distinguish between his generally meant statements and the ones referring to California. Pick out the items you find most striking and comment upon them. Try to find examples for your opinion.
Ed Bronson is a leading specialist on death penalty in the USA. He is a Political Science professor, now emeritus, and founder of the Community Legal Information Centre.
In the interview with Robert Speer for "News and Review", Ed offers some challenging comments concerning death penalty laws. Especially in California, executions have always been a controversial topic. Since the beginning of 20th century, the death penalty bills have been changed, reintroduced and passed a number of times.
Ed Bronson's answers are a little contradictory from my point of view, even though he is basically right. His response to the first question, "Why were executions stopped in the late 1960's, only to return the last few years?" and his comment upon the case of Aaron Mitchell were very convincing, but I think Ed missed one important point.
From my point of view: "...people who were put to death erroneously from the legal point of view...", only if you support the concept of one person being allowed to kill another person. There is no such thing like the "right" to kill someone by law, so you can not regard it as a mistake, if people are executed because of legal errors.
Executions are not a way to fight crime. But death penalty sadly has begun to find more support due to a couple of factors. It has become a political instrument of solving difficult problems by simple solutions, and nothing else. But taking the easy way out implies avoiding having to deal with real problems. An important factor is racial discrimination, but also poverty...