An eye for an eye

In the film "The American Tragedy" George Eastman is put to death for the murder of Alice based purely on circumstantial evidence. First off, George Eastman did not "murder" Alice. For it to be murder it has to be wished upon. You can not accidentally perform a murder, we have another word for that, manslaughter. The argument in court changed from you planned it, to you hit her on the head with an oar, to you didn't even try to save her. A textbook example of guilty until proven innocent. Since he could not be "proven" innocent (and I have a firm stance on requiring evidence) the initial judgement of guilty made by the police was the final verdict.
Let's say, for arguments sake, he did hit her on the head with an oar, and drowned her with his own hands. Does this justify killing him in an expedited fashion? This puts his punishment at par with those who rape and murder entire families. This creates a viscous cycle of an eye for an eye. How is the attorny fighting for his death any different from the murder he thought he was fighting against? The attorney literally wished death upon the man, and put much more effort into ensuring his death then George did with Alice. Who is going to take responsibility for killing George, or are they just going to pass the blame around, pointing fingers? He didn't kill himself, it was not suicide.
The attorney should have fought to at the most imprison him with rehabilitation, but that would require such an attorney to be a clear-headed reasonable man, which he clearly was not (ie, breaking an oar in court).
Circumstatial evidence to condemn is a pretty scary thing, it leaves doubt. It is a way of convicting the leading suspect, key word: suspect. Regardless of if you believe in circumstantial evidence, the punishment of death in the case of George Eastman is severely over the top, especially when no can can say, without a doubt, what happened.