Execution question last night

This is a typical liberal response to the question put forth to Perry about executions.  Let's worry about the possibility of an innocent person on death row.  But what about the victims of crime?  If you look at the following statistic,  shouldn't we be worrying more about killers on the streets?

Despite dramatic improvements in DNA analysis and forensic science, police fail to make an arrest in more than one-third of all homicides

It is the government's job to make us safe, not to make convicted felons feel safer.  The government bends over backwards to ensure that the rights of the accused are being upheld.  It is hard to get a conviction, due to all the constraints put upon the criminal justice system.  Now, if the liberals got their way, nobody would ever be executed, no matter how heinous the crime, due to the fear that a mistake might be made.

Why should Gov Perry worry about it? It is not his job.  That's what's wrong with the way liberals think.  They think he should be worrying about that so much that he shouldn't be able to sleep.  If he is going to lose any sleep over anything, it should be the 1/3 of all homicides that don't get solved.  That's what everybody should be worried about.  Not that somebody innocent might get executed because the government might have made a mistake.

Update:

James Taranto in the Wall Street Journal discusses why they cheered.  He cites a few comments from the lefties which I want to expand upon

1. "Any crowd that instantly cheers the execution of 234 individuals is a crowd I want to flee, not join," wrote the excitable Andrew Sullivan. "This is the crowd that believes in torture and executions."  [Comment:  Sullivan is talking about "torture" with respect to the waterboarding of a few of the top Al Qaeda arch terrorists.  I think given the circumstances of who they were and what the information sought for could accomplish, and may well have accomplished, that the waterboarding was not uncalled for, but to the contrary.  Rights are not absolute.  You don't have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater.  Rights have to be balanced against other rights.  The use of the word "torture" by Sullivan here, is meant for its affect, not for its true meaning.  The true meaning of torture is wanton cruelty, which in this case, does not accurately describe the situation.  The affect sought for by Sullivan is one of moral superiority.  Liberals really want you to believe that they are morally superior.  They want others to join them in their affectation.]
2.  a-Nahisi Coates similarly conflates the orderly administration of justice with wanton violence: "Apparently people were shocked by the applause here. The only thing that shocked me was that they didn't form a rumba line. . . . This is still the country where we took kids to see men lynched, and then posed for photos." [Comment:  Ah, we are supposed to feel guilty about what some people did decades ago.  The effort here should be clear, as I pointed out.  Perry should feel guilty.  But guilty about what?  The orderly administration of justice?  No, about something that happened decades ago which has nothing to do with the situation described.  The question that was asked was an attempt to elicit guilt.  It was manipulative.  It needs a vigorous response.  Not the one the liberals are asking for, but one in which exposes their phony "concern", and their self righteous moral affectations.]