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.