Innocent people have been executed--does this change your stance?

[jsgoddess]

In various threads that I'm too lazy to link to, some pro-death penalty dopers have argued that no one who has ever been executed has been later proved innocent. I didn't know of any cases and, frankly, thought the argument was pretty silly to begin with (since there wouldn't be many followup investigations). But I've seen the argument and now I want to discuss it.

The first is a slam-dunk.

William Jackson Marion (https://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/exonerations/neMarionSummary.html):

Marion was promptly retried, convicted, and sentenced to death, this time by a jury — a result that the state high court affirmed. Marion v. Nebraska, 20 Neb. 233 (1886). He went to the gallows on March 25, 1887, proclaiming — as he had from the beginning — that he was innocent.

Four years later, Cameron turned up alive. He explained that he had absconded to Mexico in 1872 to avoid a shotgun wedding in Kansas. On the centennial of Marion’s execution — March 25, 1987 — Nebraska Governor Bob Kerrey granted William Jackson Marion, posthumously, a full pardon based on innocence.


Then the case of Lena Baker. She was convicted of murder, executed, then pardoned. Lena Baker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lena_Baker):

In 2001, members of Baker's family petitioned to have a pardon granted by the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles, seeing the original verdict as racist.[1] This was granted in 2005, with the Parole Board, granting her a full and unconditional pardon,[10] suggesting a verdict of manslaughter, which would have carried a 15 year sentence,[1] would have been more appropriate.



Thomas and Meeks Griffin (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/15/south.carolina.pardon/)


Nearly 100 years had passed since his great-uncles, Thomas Griffin and Meeks Griffin, were wrongfully executed in South Carolina. On Wednesday, a board voted 7-0 to pardon both men, clearing their names in the 1913 killing of a veteran of the Confederate Army.

It marks the first time in history that South Carolina has issued a posthumous pardon in a capital murder case.



Okay, so one slam-dunk, two pardons, and a whole lot of other cases like Cameron Willingham that should at least make people a bit worried.

Innocent people have been executed for murders they did not commit. That defense of the death penalty is gone. Does it change anything?



ETA: Forgot one!

[Peremensoe]

Here's a link for those not familiar with the story of Cameron Todd Willingham. (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?currentPage=all)

[R. P. McMurphy]

This doesn't change my stance, it enhances my stance against the death penalty.

A good friend of mine who is a lawyer said, "I know the system and how it works. I can guarantee you that about 20% of the people that are on death row are innocent."

Now this is anecdotal but I can't argue with it. The death penalty is final. It solves nothing. It's more expensive to execute a prisoner than to sustain them until their natural death. By far, most convicts are guilty of the crime for which they were accused but that doesn't give the state the right to be wrong. If time has the possibility of vindicating someone they should at least be allowed that time.

When Timothy McVeigh was executed I thought that this was the worst thing that could happen in really solving the case. All it did was permanently shut up the guy that could have provided some information on what really happened that day. Yea, the retribution may feel good but it was not good in the total scheme of things.

The death penalty is "feel good" thing, it's not justice.

[Damuri Ajashi]

The death penalty has always been and will always be plagued with the death of innocents (well innocent of what they are being executed of anyways). The only civilized basis for executions when you know some of them will be innocent deaths is that there is deterrence that prevents a LOT more innocent deaths.

If you know for a FACT that you are going to kill innocent people, then you better know for a FACT that you are going to deter the murder of innocent people.

When you know for a FACT that the people who have been wrongfully executed are disproportionately black or poor or more likely black AND poor, then I think you better be REALLY fucking sure that you are going to save a WHOLE FUCKLOAD of innocent lives because you are institutionalizing a pretty grave injustice in the name of justice.

[mascaroni]

...It's more expensive to execute a prisoner than to sustain them until their natural death...

That depends on the legal system in any given country.

IMHO it is a 'Cruel and unusual punishment' to sentence a teenage kid to death and then execute the same middle aged man twenty five or so years later.

Probably the most famous British case of an innocent man being executed was that of Timothy Evans, who was found guilty of murder partly due to the evidence of John Christie, who was later hanged for several other murders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Reginald_Christie

Watching Fourteen Days In May (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Days_in_May) over twenty years ago cemented my opposition to the death penalty.

[Guinastasia]

The death penalty has always been and will always be plagued with the death of innocents (well innocent of what they are being executed of anyways). The only civilized basis for executions when you know some of them will be innocent deaths is that there is deterrence that prevents a LOT more innocent deaths.

If you know for a FACT that you are going to kill innocent people, then you better know for a FACT that you are going to deter the murder of innocent people.

When you know for a FACT that the people who have been wrongfully executed are disproportionately black or poor or more likely black AND poor, then I think you better be REALLY fucking sure that you are going to save a WHOLE FUCKLOAD of innocent lives because you are institutionalizing a pretty grave injustice in the name of justice.


But it has not been proven that the death penalty IS a deterant, now is it?


I have always believed in the maxim, "Better to let ten guilty men go free, than to execute one innocent man." For those who say well, that's the price we pay, there will always be innocents, blah blah blah -- I ask you: Would YOU be willing to be that person?

[SteveG1]

Does it change anything?
Not for me, I was already against it, and a lot of the reason WAS the fear of killing the wrong person. You can turn a prisoner loose. You can reverse a prison sentence. You can NOT "un-kill" someone.

[Grumman]

My stance has always been that the US does the death penalty stupid. If an appeal catches anyone on Death row that was wrongly convicted, you obviously didn't do a good enough job the first time around and need to fix the system.

Being found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" by twelve random morons just doesn't cut it.

[Damuri Ajashi]

The death penalty has always been and will always be plagued with the death of innocents (well innocent of what they are being executed of anyways). The only civilized basis for executions when you know some of them will be innocent deaths is that there is deterrence that prevents a LOT more innocent deaths.

If you know for a FACT that you are going to kill innocent people, then you better know for a FACT that you are going to deter the murder of innocent people.

When you know for a FACT that the people who have been wrongfully executed are disproportionately black or poor or more likely black AND poor, then I think you better be REALLY fucking sure that you are going to save a WHOLE FUCKLOAD of innocent lives because you are institutionalizing a pretty grave injustice in the name of justice.


But it has not been proven that the death penalty IS a deterant, now is it?

Yeah that was kinda my point. You can make an argument that the death penalty MIGHT be a deterrent but when you KNOW that innocents are being executed, I don't think arguments are enough.

Would YOU be willing to be that person?

Not an issue, I'm not poor or black, its very unlikely to be me.

[Hamlet]

Were I pro death penalty, I would find your questions much more compelling if you used examples of actual innocence after the death penalty was re-found to be constitutional in 1976. A vast majority of pro death penalty people I've talked with have all accepted the fact that, before then, there were undoubtedly cases of people being wrongfully executed. Just sayin'.

[mascaroni]

Were I pro death penalty, I would find your questions much more compelling if you used examples of actual innocence after the death penalty was re-found to be constitutional in 1976. A vast majority of pro death penalty people I've talked with have all accepted the fact that, before then, there were undoubtedly cases of people being wrongfully executed. Just sayin'.
Watch 'Fourteen Days in May'' it's available free online.

[Sage Rat]

But it has not been proven that the death penalty IS a deterant, now is it?
It's unlikely that it would act as a deterrent in modern day. For a punishment, or the threat of punishment to work it has to be applied consistently and in a fairly timely manner. Which cases get marked to try for a death penalty verdict is relatively capricious, and nothing about the system is timely.

If you made the penalty for all cases of murder, execution, you might see a result but I doubt that even Texas would be able to successfully make that policy. But offering up a lamb to the blood-seeking populace once a year is just a feel-good measure and isn't going to produce a noticeable effect.

[elfkin477]

No, not really. I would have been terribly shocked if there never had been an innocent person executed, particularly before the Jim Crow laws were gotten rid of. If you can find some evidence of someone being wrongly executed since the advent of DNA evidence, maybe then you might sway me some.

[Snarky_Kong]

Were I pro death penalty, I would find your questions much more compelling if you used examples of actual innocence after the death penalty was re-found to be constitutional in 1976. A vast majority of pro death penalty people I've talked with have all accepted the fact that, before then, there were undoubtedly cases of people being wrongfully executed. Just sayin'.
Watch 'Fourteen Days in May'' it's available free online.

Watch the entire filmography of Spencer Gordon Bennet!


Or, how about you, at the very least, summarize in lieu of an actual discussion?

[Antinor01]

In various threads that I'm too lazy to link to, some pro-death penalty dopers have argued that no one who has ever been executed has been later proved innocent. I didn't know of any cases and, frankly, thought the argument was pretty silly to begin with (since there wouldn't be many followup investigations). But I've seen the argument and now I want to discuss it.

The first is a slam-dunk.

William Jackson Marion (https://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/exonerations/neMarionSummary.html):

Marion was promptly retried, convicted, and sentenced to death, this time by a jury — a result that the state high court affirmed. Marion v. Nebraska, 20 Neb. 233 (1886). He went to the gallows on March 25, 1887, proclaiming — as he had from the beginning — that he was innocent.

Four years later, Cameron turned up alive. He explained that he had absconded to Mexico in 1872 to avoid a shotgun wedding in Kansas. On the centennial of Marion’s execution — March 25, 1987 — Nebraska Governor Bob Kerrey granted William Jackson Marion, posthumously, a full pardon based on innocence.


Then the case of Lena Baker. She was convicted of murder, executed, then pardoned. Lena Baker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lena_Baker):





Thomas and Meeks Griffin (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/15/south.carolina.pardon/)


Nearly 100 years had passed since his great-uncles, Thomas Griffin and Meeks Griffin, were wrongfully executed in South Carolina. On Wednesday, a board voted 7-0 to pardon both men, clearing their names in the 1913 killing of a veteran of the Confederate Army.

It marks the first time in history that South Carolina has issued a posthumous pardon in a capital murder case.



Okay, so one slam-dunk, two pardons, and a whole lot of other cases like Cameron Willingham that should at least make people a bit worried.

Innocent people have been executed for murders they did not commit. That defense of the death penalty is gone. Does it change anything?



ETA: Forgot one!

I don't find any of those compelling to my position on the death penalty, considering they are 65 to 125 years old stories. I may not agree with the current way the death penalty is handled in the US, but I agree with it as a general principle.

[mascaroni]

Watch 'Fourteen Days in May'' it's available free online.

Watch the entire filmography of Spencer Gordon Bennet!


Or, how about you, at the very least, summarize in lieu of an actual discussion?
'Fourteen days In May' was a BBC documentary about the last two weeks in the life of Edward Earl Johnson, who was executed based largely on a confession that was obtained allegedly at gunpoint in the back of a police car in Mississippi. IIRC, the BBC had been looking to make a documentary about the last days of a condemned prisoners life and, after gaining permission, this was the case they covered - it was not a cause celebre before the film, they just happened upon it...

a subsequent BBC programme by the (admittedly Lefty/Liberal) British lawyer Clive Stafford Smith, who had represented him on his final appeals, provided further doubt about his guilt.


When I saw the news footage of Blacks in the U.S. celebrating the acquittal of O. J. Simpson I thought of him.

Although at least Edward Earl Johnson didn't have to suffer the ignominy of being thrown out of his Golf Club.

[Olentzero]

Death Row in Illinois was emptied in 2001, and a moratorium placed on executions, by order of the governor (Blagoevich, I think) based on research by the Medill Innocence Project that conclusively proved there were inmates innocent of the charges that had put them there.

While it would be tremendous if some person or group were able to muster the resources and time to investigate the guilt or innocence of an executed prisoner, we already have what I consider sufficient evidence that the death penalty catches the innocent in its nets. They don't need to be executed to prove anything; just the fact that they're on Death Row in the first place is a damning indictment.

[DrDeth]

I
The first is a slam-dunk.

[(1886). He went to the gallows on March 25, 1887,

....
Then the case of Lena Baker. She was convicted of murder, executed, then pardoned.


On Wednesday, a board voted 7-0 to pardon both men, clearing their names in the 1913 killing of a veteran of the Confederate Army.

1. 1887.

2. 1945, and no one thinks she didn't kill him. "with the Parole Board, granting her a full and unconditional pardon, suggesting a verdict of manslaughter, which would have carried a 15 year sentence, would have been more appropriate."

3. 1913. Nor does that 100 year later pardon mean they were innocent. Pardons do not = innocent.

Come up with one in the last 20 years or so. In 1887, things were a lot different.

Now here's one:
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_15695090?nclick_check=1
SAN FRANCISCO—A parolee who savagely stabbed a teenage girl and a 60-year-old man who tried to help her is heading to prison for 26 years to life.
A San Francisco Superior Court judge sentenced Scott Thomas on Thursday for the attacks on Loren Schaller and Kermit Kubitz at a Twin Peaks bakery in May 2007.
The stabbing happened one day after Thomas was paroled from San Quentin State Prison. Officials later found that he was improperly released without supervision.


True, he never quite killed anyone, just almost- 4 times. He should never have been released in the first place, but was= "improperly". No one had any doubt of his guilt.

You can find more cases of murderers killing again after escaping, being improperly released, ordering a killing from prison or killing someone while in prison. In all those case, being executed would have prevented further innocents from being killed.

Now, I agree some states like Texas seem to be rather itchy on the trigger finger, as they say. Some of the convictions there seem to be somewhat doubtful.

But once we have a confirmed sociopathic killer, one whose lawyer even admits his guilt, one who brags about the killings- and who will kill again, given any opportunity- do we not owe it to his future victim to prevent him from killing again in the only way possible? What would you propose to stop him from killing again? "Life without parole" simply does not do that.

I don't like the Death Penalty, but we need to protect the innocents more than a killer.

[mascaroni]

...Now, I agree some states like Texas seem to be rather itchy on the trigger finger, as they say. Some of the convictions there seem to be somewhat doubtful...

...I don't like the Death Penalty, but we need to protect the innocents more than a killer.


Does your definition of "the innocents" extend to those people with "somewhat doubtful" convictions?

[Captain Midnight]

Here's a link for those not familiar with the story of Cameron Todd Willingham. (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?currentPage=all)

Yeah, that guy was innocent. Even after evidence shown that this man did not do this, the state balked and would not


They did an epsisode of Law and Order SVU last season on that case.

If I was a juror in a murder trial, I must, must have concrete proof that someone committed a crime. DNA, blood, fingerprints, a video of the person doing the deed. Circumstantial evidence doesn't cut it. The West Memphis Three is a good example. There was no direct evidence, no circumstantial evidence, not shit except the confession of one, a mentally retarded school drop out. One of the men is on Death Row for this crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Memphis_3

Some criminals deserve the death penalty. For example, men who abduct women, rape them and murders them. Or someone who murders someone in the commission of a felony. What some people do to other people is downright scary to say the least.

The problem with the death penalty, (and this is why I want to abolish it) is that it costs too much money and is not fair. There are people who have been on death row for multiples of years, tying up state and federal courts with appeals, lawsuits, etc. It is also a form of state supported suicide because the inmate can drop his appeals, in essence, kill themselves by government execution.

I think Life without Parole is a suitable punishment. My state of Tennessee has the death penalty, but most killers get life with parole after 51 years. Yes 51. As in, your parole officer isn't born yet. Prison is an awful environment of tedium, boredom, violence, noise, awful food, the smell of feces and urine. Personally, I would rather be executed.

[Shodan]

Innocent people have been executed for murders they did not commit. That defense of the death penalty is gone. Does it change anything?Would you agree that it would acceptable to execute people who are guilty?

Consider the case of Roger (http://www.truthinjustice.org/grundy.htm) Coleman (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/12/AR2006011201210.html). If anything is certain in life, it is that he was guilty. That argument against the death penalty is gone.

Does that change anything, at least in his case?

Regards,
Shodan

[FriarTed]

Pro-death penalty here. The possibility of executing innocents slows down my desire for 'swift justice' but it doesn't eliminate my conviction that some people just need to be put down like mad dogs. Demand exacting levels of proof, keep the appeals process going as long as necessary, restrain & punish prosecutorial excesses- but do not take the ultimate penalty off the table.

[Ludovic]

The few that claim that, yeah, the system used to be broken but now is acceptable, are usually talking out of both sides of their mouth. I mean, wasn't the system even BETTER in the old days when we could administer frontier justice without all this namby pamby liberal bedwetting about minutiae such as innocence. Amirite?

[ElvisL1ves]

The Illinois study a few years ago convinced me that the judicial system is so rife with error, even when all the apparently-proper procedures are followed, that it is essentially impossible for there not to be executions of innocents under it. So, while I still think there's a place in morality for the death penalty, the significant chance of error makes me oppose it on practical terms anyway. Additional anecdotal evidence only confirms it, even (or especially) when someone like the governor of Texas tries to suppress official conclusions about a particular example.

That also means there's a broader issue with the, well, accuracy of the judicial system itself, and by inference in every criminal case, not just capital ones. Standards of procedure and evidence just can't be followed in a non-murder case as completely as they are when death is on the line. The Illinois study looked only at capital-punishment cases, but they're only a small minority of overall convictions. How many more people are imprisoned for other crimes they did not commit, but did not get any sort of independent review because they aren't on death row? Let's fix that. We need to.

[Hamlet]

'Fourteen days In May' was a BBC documentary about the last two weeks in the life of Edward Earl Johnson, who was executed based largely on a confession that was obtained allegedly at gunpoint in the back of a police car in Mississippi. IIRC, the BBC had been looking to make a documentary about the last days of a condemned prisoners life and, after gaining permission, this was the case they covered - it was not a cause celebre before the film, they just happened upon it...

a subsequent BBC programme by the (admittedly Lefty/Liberal) British lawyer Clive Stafford Smith, who had represented him on his final appeals, provided further doubt about his guilt.I won't be watching 14 days in May, but I did chase down some of the appellate court cases that reviewed the case. As with a vast majority of these kinds of things, it isn't nearly as cut and dried as it has been presented here.

For example, his confession was actually tape recorded and played for the jury. There was also another verbal confession given to a fellow inmate. I could find no evidence that he had claimed at trial or even the first round of appeals that the confession was compelled, not even on the tape recording.

A woman identified him at trial as the person who attempted to steal and rape from her before he fled and shot the police officer. While she failed to identify him immediately after the fact (Saturday), she did so the very next day. "Perhaps the most compelling reason for the admission of the testimony concerning the crime committed upon Miss Franklin was that the appellant attacked her credibility because she failed to positively identify him on Saturday afternoon, after the attack upon her at 2:17 that morning, stating that she needed more time because she was in a state of shock and was confused due to the viciousness of the beating on her head and body as well as the attempt upon her life and safety. Appellant contended that it was inconsistent for Miss Franklin to fail to positively identify him on Saturday afternoon and then positively identify him the next day, Sunday. It is noted that appellant attacked the credibility of the identification made by Miss Franklin and elicited a great many of the details concerning the crimes committed upon her in explanation of why she was in a state of shock, being a woman over seventy years of age, requiring medical treatment on Saturday, which explained her failure to positively identify appellant the day of the homicide as opposed to her positive identification the following day."

Finally, the investigating police officers actually found the murdered police officer's weapon because of Johnson told them where it was. "Appellant was placed under arrest and returned to the Leake County Sheriff's Office where he was again advised of his rights and a statement taken from him. This statement, in which appellant admitted killing Officer Trest after the break-in at Miss Franklin's home, was admitted into evidence and also led to the recovery of Officer Trest's pistol. "

The case is Johnson v. State, 416 So. 2d 383.

Now, I have no interest whatsoever in debating the merits of this case, whether jailhouse confessions are worthless, eyewitness identification problems, or any of the myriad of things that can be used to attack a conviction. I am simply pointing out that the conclusion that Mr. Johnson is innocent is by no means an open and shut case.

[SteveG1]

Were I pro death penalty, I would find your questions much more compelling if you used examples of actual innocence after the death penalty was re-found to be constitutional in 1976. A vast majority of pro death penalty people I've talked with have all accepted the fact that, before then, there were undoubtedly cases of people being wrongfully executed. Just sayin'.
So they are willing to accept and continue causing the deaths of innocent people?

Where is the justice in that? That's just crazy.

For that matter, where is the vengeance? To me, vengeance is against the Person Who Did It, not some poor bastard who happened to get grabbed. Even when I was pro death (long long ago), I still had serious "problems" with the idea of the wrong guy getting it. What is the matter with people, who are literally willing to kill the innocent?

[mascaroni]

[QUOTE=mascaroni;12775132]...I am simply pointing out that the conclusion that Mr. Johnson is innocent is by no means an open and shut case.
Do defendants have to prove their innocence in the U.S.? Over here it's up to the prosecution to prove them guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

There have been quite a few cases over here of people (who would likely have been executed if capital punishment had not been abolished) being exonerated, often after many years.

[Hamlet]

Do defendants have to prove their innocence in the U.S.? Over here it's up to the prosecution to prove them guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt'.Nice trick. When faced with facts that may not fit your earlier assertions, simply dodge the issue with a irrelevant reference to a truth. Interesting technique. Not exactly convincing in the least, but heck, it's worth a shot.

[Peremensoe]

mascaroni's point is valid and relevant: if a case is "by no means open and shut," we can't possibly countenance an execution.

[mascaroni]

Do defendants have to prove their innocence in the U.S.? Over here it's up to the prosecution to prove them guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt'.Nice trick. When faced with facts that may not fit your earlier assertions, simply dodge the issue with a irrelevant reference to a truth. Interesting technique. Not exactly convincing in the least, but heck, it's worth a shot. I can't recall asserting his innocence, you don't seem to be asserting his conviction was safe.

My answer was sarcastic. I'm english. It's what we do...

Take a UK case...
The 'Birmingham Six' were convicted of setting the bombs which resulted in the deaths of 21 people in 1974. The convictions were largely as a result of flawed "expert evidence". I can't find a cite, but IIRC the presiding Judge said at sentencing words to the effect of: "If ever there was a case for capital punishment, this was it."

Birmingham Six (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Six)

Lord Denning, then Master Of The Rolls later said that if the Birmingham Six had been hanged “we shouldn’t have had all these campaigns to get them released”.

[Guinastasia]

But it has not been proven that the death penalty IS a deterant, now is it?

Yeah that was kinda my point. You can make an argument that the death penalty MIGHT be a deterrent but when you KNOW that innocents are being executed, I don't think arguments are enough.



:smack: I'm sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying.

The ONLY time I would support the death penalty is if we actually found Bin Laden, or someone of his calibur. (Like in the Nuremberg trials, when people like Goering were sentenced to be hanged). And even then you BETTER have evidence. (Well, if we could have gotten Hitler, obviously he should have gotten the noose)

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Death Row in Illinois was emptied in 2001, and a moratorium placed on executions, by order of the governor (Blagoevich, I think) based on research by the Medill Innocence Project that conclusively proved there were inmates innocent of the charges that had put them there.I just wanted to correct this, because Blagoevich is such a tool I'd hate to see him get credit for such a great act. It was George Ryan, a Republican, who commuted the death sentences and put a moratorium on the death penalty in Illinois.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Ryan

For me, long before even these high profile cases of people on death row having been wrongfully convicted, perhaps the primary reason for my opposition to the death penalty is the idea of getting it so horribly wrong. I can't actually say that I'm morally opposed to the death penalty on principle; there are some, many cases, in fact of people clearly committing horrific behavior that revokes their Earth privileges. However, they are not a worthwhile trade to me to see someone put to death by the state who was innocent, and letting the other assholes rot forever is pretty much suitable punishment anyway.

[gonzomax]

Ryan was shocked to see how many innocent and mentally incompetent people were being executed. Bush simply said, Texas has never executed an innocent man.

[chappachula]

Instead of changing the death penalty, why not change the level of proof required? (yeah, I know...the legal system doesnt work that way...but theoretically, it could . )

The law recognizes many different levels of proof as acceptable, for different types of cases. (especially in civil law). For example. suing someone for slander---the requirements for proof-of-damages against a public figure is different than for a private citizen.
And , (I think)in criminal law, there are times when circumstantial evidence is admissable, and times when it is not.

So why not define a new level of proof for the death penalty? Instead of "Beyond a reasonable doubt" level of proof, how about an "absolutely NO reason to doubt that the bastard did it" level of proof.?
In this type of case, a guilty verdict would have be based on hard, phyiscally exisiting proof only.....No verbal evidence, no eye witnesses , no confessions extracted in tiny windowless rooms, etc would be considered sufficient for a guilty verdict. Only video cameras of people caught in the act, DNA evidence, fingerprints, etc....And it would even be possible to create a government "Death Panel"* of 12 judges,experts in death penalty law, who would be required to review every case . Only if all 12 agree with the 12 jurors would the death penalty be carried out, otherwise it automatically reverts to life imprisonment.


Also, I would love to see a study comparing the numbers:
of innocent convicts killed by execution, versus the number of innocent people killed by parolled convicts for whom execution had been considered, but not imposed.


*(hey, this is one death panel that Sarah Palin would love :) )

[Hamlet]

Ryan was shocked to see how many innocent and mentally incompetent people were being executed.To be more realistic, Ryan was looking for some badly needed positive press while battling the corruption charges that have him currently in prison.

[Olentzero]

Hentor, thanks for the correction. Hamlet, does that fact alter in any way that there were people on death row that should not have been there? Does that fact have any relevance whatsoever to the injustice of the death penalty in the United States?

[marshmallow]

Simultaneously believing the government is woefully incompetent and that innocent people are never executed could lead to cognitive dissonance. But probably not.

[InterestedObserver]

Simultaneously believing the government is woefully incompetent and that innocent people are never executed could lead to cognitive dissonance. But probably not.

Yes, I love how so many who strongly support the death penalty simultaneously hold the view that government, in general, is grossly incompetent, evil and should butt the fuck out of our lives. :confused:

Oh, ok, so we can't trust them to build roads or make laws or oversee corporations but we CAN trust them to KILL US. :dubious:

No, my stance is not changed, since I oppose the death penalty already. One of the main reasons IS the fact that innocent people have been erroneously executed (and many more freed from death row through DNA evidence who would have been put to death otherwise).

But even if it is absolutely certain that someone committed the crime, I STILL don't consider it ethically or logically right.

There is no solid evidence that is acts as a deterrent.

By killing, even the worst "monsters" among ourselves, we are stooping to the level we claim to deplore.

The act of intentionally killing fellow human beings in cold blood (as opposed to say, self defense) devalues human life and desensitizes us to killing. It appeals to our lower natures, our desire for revenge, our voyeristic tendencies.

And yes, it deprives us of the chance to study some of the most baffling and interesting individuals and grow in our understanding of human psychology, the roots of aberrant behavior and how to prevent and/or treat such conditions.

[Duckster]

Seventeen people have been proven innocent and exonerated by DNA testing in the United States after serving time on death row. They were convicted in 11 states and served a combined 209 years in prison – including 187 years on death row – for crimes they didn’t commit. http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/1857.php

In January 2000, Governor George Ryan of Illinois imposed a moratorium on the imposition of the death penalty in Illinois. In reviewing death penalty cases since 1977, he determined that 13 death row inmates in the state had been cleared of murder charges, compared to 12 who had been put to death. Some of the 13 inmates were taken off death row after DNA evidence exonerated them; the cases of others collapsed after new trials were ordered by appellate courts. "There is a flaw in the system, without question, and it needs to be studied", Ryan said. Ironically, the Republican Governor had campaigned in support of the death penalty. Ultimately in January 2003, Governor Ryan commuted all death sentences to prison terms of life or less. http://www.newsbatch.com/deathpenalty.htm

Since 1973, over 130 people have been released from death rows throughout the country due to evidence of their wrongful convictions. In 2003 alone, 10 wrongfully convicted defendants were released from death row. http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-and-innocence/page.do?id=1101086



States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates)

[InterestedObserver]

Regarding people killed by parolees/those not executed and using that as an argument in favor of the DP, if we had actual "life" sentences, this would not happen.

And if our prisons were not overpopulated with people there for other offenses (non-violent DRUG USE/SALE/POSSESSION, say) we'd have more than enough room to incarcerate murderers, rapists, pedophiles, and other violent offenders and NOT have to release them due to overcrowding. :mad:

There is simply no getting around the fact that drug laws in this country are at the root of this particular issue, particularly the imposition of mandatory minimum sentencing for drug related offenses which removed the leeway of judges and juries to apply judgement in sentencing.

But just the fact that so many inmates are incarcerated for drug crimes that it often comes down to releasing those at high risk of violence instead.

Polly Klass's killer, a violent offender, was released due to prison overcrowding.

As was a guy Texas Monthly reported on quite a few yrs back (cover story entitled "Monster"...sorry, tried to locate a link but couldn't) who kidnapped, tortured and killed several teens. Shortly after his release, he kidnappped, raped, tortured and murdered a female college student from a car wash about 2 blocks from our house in Austin at the time. (1990-1?)

Given the mandatory minimums being imposed on non-violent drug offenders, when the courts ruled Texas (and California, in the former case) ruled that prison overcrowding had to be remedied, there was no one else they COULD release to meet the required numbers (so many were there on MM drug charges).

I don't accept that this situation is inevitable ("might as well execute them, since the system will let them go eventually to kill again"). We have the power to change the system (legalize/decriminalize drugs, shift to treatment and house arrest models for most drug offenses, impose actual life sentences for the most heinous crimes, etc..)

[pravnik]

As was a guy Texas Monthly reported on quite a few yrs back (cover story entitled "Monster"...sorry, tried to locate a link but couldn't) who kidnapped, tortured and killed several teens. Shortly after his release, he kidnappped, raped, tortured and murdered a female college student from a car wash about 2 blocks from our house in Austin at the time. (1990-1?)

Kenneth McDuff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_McDuff), one of the worst serial killers in Texas history. McDuff's release was massive, catastrophic screwup that led to a overhaul of the Texas parole system.

Texas Monthly story: Free to Kill (http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/1992-08-01/feature)

[Bricker]

Do defendants have to prove their innocence in the U.S.? Over here it's up to the prosecution to prove them guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt'.


And the prosecution in that case did prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Hamlet pointed out that the BBC documentary may have shaded their recitation by not revealing the true strength of the prosecution's case. His post outlined some of the actual evidence adduced at trial which was used to show the accused was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[amarone]

Ryan was shocked to see how many innocent and mentally incompetent people were being executed.To be more realistic, Ryan was looking for some badly needed positive press while battling the corruption charges that have him currently in prison.
In the US doing anything that can be labeled "soft on crime" does not create positive press. Ryan simply did the right thing - being a crook doesn't mean that everything he did was corrupt.

[InterestedObserver]

As was a guy Texas Monthly reported on quite a few yrs back (cover story entitled "Monster"...sorry, tried to locate a link but couldn't) who kidnapped, tortured and killed several teens. Shortly after his release, he kidnappped, raped, tortured and murdered a female college student from a car wash about 2 blocks from our house in Austin at the time. (1990-1?)

Kenneth McDuff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_McDuff), one of the worst serial killers in Texas history. McDuff's release was massive, catastrophic screwup that led to a overhaul of the Texas parole system.

Texas Monthly story: Free to Kill (http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/1992-08-01/feature)

Thanks for the link.

From the article:

"So why did a 1989 parole board—fully aware of McDuff’s criminal history and cognizant that the jury that found him guilty of murder also found that he was likely to kill again—decide to put him back among us? The quick answer is that by 1989 Kenneth McDuff was no longer a name or even a case history; he was just a number. Two years before, Bill Clements, the parole board, and the prison system had decided that to prevent Texas prisons from becoming overcrowded in violation of court-imposed ceilings, 750 inmates a week had to be paroled. That meant the fifteen members of the parole board (the number was elevated to eighteen in 1989) had to interview and study the files of at least 1,000 inmates every five working days. Old-timers like McDuff, convicts whose names came up year after year, weren’t even interviewed anymore but were lumped with similar inmates in special review groups. Their files—if board members bothered to study them at all—contained only the most basic and banal information, hardly anything to suggest the true nature of an inmate. By the time McDuff was paroled, eight of every ten parole applications were being approved, and the system was still falling behind. All the good risks for parole had been exhausted; the parole board was getting down to the bottom of the barrel. And then the bottom was lowered: Time was awarded so liberally that an inmate could get credit for serving one full year in just 22 days. In a prison system with a capacity of 60,000 inmates, more than 36,000 received paroles in 1989, the year Kenneth McDuff went free. The goal of the state became not to keep the streets safe but to keep the tap flowing and the federal courts at bay."

So while this article makes no specific mention of mandatory minimums for non-violent offenders, the reason I likely recalled it as have done so was that this was, according to other local coverage at the time, one of the primary reasons behind the prison overcrowding situation and the axe the state was under re' releasing prisoners.

And this is the woman I referred to (I feel it warrants an acknowledgment...scared the crap out of us and saddened us deeply at the time, the idea that this could happen a few blocks away from our home. Never SHOULD have :( from the same article)

"Four days after Christmas, he rode with McDuff to Austin to look for drugs. They cruised the university area and scouted the bars on Sixth Street; then they crossed Lamar and turned south on a side street to double back in the direction they had come. That’s when McDuff spotted Colleen Reed, washing her black Mazda in one of the bays at the car wash on Fifth. She was a random choice, just as Edna Sullivan had been in 1966. McDuff parked his Thunderbird in the adjacent bay and disappeared for a moment. When he returned, he had Colleen Reed by the throat, holding her up so that just her toes touched the cement floor. “Please, not me,” she cried. “Not me.” McDuff threw her in the back seat and put Worley back there to control her.
A few miles out of Austin, McDuff pulled over and changed places with Worley. While Worley drove along I-35, McDuff stripped Colleen Reed naked, stubbed out a cigarette between her legs, and began raping her. When Worley stopped again to change places, he noticed that her hands were tied behind her back. While McDuff drove, Worley took off his own clothes and forced her to perform oral sex. Then he raped her. North of Belton, McDuff turned off the interstate onto Texas Highway 317, close to the house where his parents lived. He stopped on a narrow dirt road and raped Colleen Reed again.
When she was able to stumble to her feet, the young woman put her head on Worley’s shoulder and said in a quivering voice, “Please don’t let him hurt me anymore.” McDuff grabbed her by the back of the neck, shoved her into the trunk of the Thunderbird, and slammed it shut. When McDuff dropped Worley off that night, Worley asked what he intended to do with the woman. “I’m gonna use her up,” McDuff grinned. That was one of McDuff’s pet phrases: It meant that he intended to kill her. Police believe that McDuff buried Colleen Reed in a field a few hundred yards from the frame house where J. A. and Addie McDuff live, but her body hasn’t been found."

[Jew_know_it]

Yes, I love how so many who strongly support the death penalty simultaneously hold the view that government, in general, is grossly incompetent, evil and should butt the fuck out of our lives. :confused:

I do not think the government is grossly incompetent but I am Pro-DP. It might be sub-consciously a sick voyeurism that makes me wish to see those with no value for lives of their fellow human, let alone their fellow citizen, subjected to a taste of what they put others through but I chalk it up to something called justice.

Gandhi said: "Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" but put him or any of us in a room with Charlie Manson and I'm sure any of us would change our tune.

And yes, it deprives us of the chance to study some of the most baffling and interesting individuals and grow in our understanding of human psychology, the roots of aberrant behavior and how to prevent and/or treat such conditions.

Because all homicides are caused by psychological problems? You can't be serious. Maybe some of the worst serial killers could provide an inkling of understanding but for the most part I think anything you would glean from them would probably be so specific to that person that it would only be worth an interesting note in the annals of history.

Noting that there are innocents executed, being a huge fan of the 5th Amendment and saddened by how little it is used, I've always guessed this does happen and my stance hasn't changed. I'm against the DP being tossed around and imposed frequently but sometimes in the interest of justice, when a person is found to be undoubtedly and fully guilty of the most heinous crimes sometimes even the DP only provides a little justice but in these cases life without parole in my opinion tells the victim(s) and their family/families that they and their pain means nothing to state.

[Laudenum]

Tbh, the fact that those cases are the best you can do would move me towards supporting the death penalty rather than against it.

[Ludovic]

Tbh, the fact that those cases are the best you can do would move me towards supporting the death penalty rather than against it.But teh crack smokers should still be put in for 10+ years, right? We still need to be tough on crime, and if a few mass-murderers get out cause we're being tough on druggies, so be it!

[The Second Stone]

I think that Americans love the death penalty because it makes us seem so bad ass: "we know X did it, we don't need to hear the excuses, let's fry him. You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs."

Americans don't really give a shit if their justice system is just, only that it vindicate the first words out of their mouths.

[XT]

Innocent people have been executed--does this change your stance?

Not particularly. I'm pretty much anti-capital punishment, but not because innocent people may (almost certainly have been) executed. To me that's like saying 'innocent people may have been unjustly sentenced to prison terms...does this change your stance on whether or not anyone should be incarcerated?'. That way lies madness. Innocent people are killed every day by decisions made by government, after all. For instance, the fact that the speed limit is set to 65 instead of 55 means that some non-zero number of citizens will die who might not have died otherwise is pretty much a fact.

No, I'm against capital punishment because, to me, it's not a cost effective (or any sort of effective) tool in preventing crime. The process is so long and drawn out in most cases, and costs so much, that it's not worth it. And I'm unconvinced about the deterrent value in any case. Besides, I think that a worse punishment for criminals who would be executed is to have them lived caged like animals for the rest of their lives (it's cheaper as well, in most cases). Also, if the person turns out to be innocent, it's a lot easier to rectify the situation if the person in question is still alive, instead of pushing up daisies.

-XT

[DrDeth]

Seventeen people have been proven innocent and exonerated by DNA testing in the United States after serving time on death row. They were convicted in 11 states and served a combined 209 years in prison – including 187 years on death row – for crimes they didn’t commit. http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/1857.php

http://www.newsbatch.com/deathpenalty.htm

Since 1973, over 130 people have been released from death rows throughout the country due to evidence of their wrongful convictions. In 2003 alone, 10 wrongfully convicted defendants were released from death row. http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-and-innocence/page.do?id=1101086



States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates)

Note that DP advocates would say that people convicted but that conviction was later overturned, shows that the system works.

[DrDeth]

Regarding people killed by parolees/those not executed and using that as an argument in favor of the DP, if we had actual "life" sentences, this would not happen. )

Not true. They could still escape, be accidentally released, kill a fellow inmate or a guard, or orchastrate a killing from prison.

[amarone]

Innocent people have been executed--does this change your stance?

Not particularly. I'm pretty much anti-capital punishment, but not because innocent people may (almost certainly have been) executed. To me that's like saying 'innocent people may have been unjustly sentenced to prison terms...does this change your stance on whether or not anyone should be incarcerated?'.
I think there is a substantial difference. To me, whatever the punishment is, you hove to be accept it being meted out to innocent people. As has already been pointed out in this thread, you cannot un-kill someone. However, you can set an innocent person free.

[Siam Sam]

Pro-death penalty, and the fact that innocent people have been executed points, to me, the need to tighten the guidelines. I could live with sending the more mundane murderers up for life while using the death penalty for the spectacular cases like, say, John Wayne Gacy and Charles Manson, the ones no one in their right mind could question their innocence in all seriousness.

[DrDeth]

I think there is a substantial difference. To me, whatever the punishment is, you hove to be accept it being meted out to innocent people. As has already been pointed out in this thread, you cannot un-kill someone. However, you can set an innocent person free.
You cannot "un-kill" the innocent victim of a repeat killer, either.

[Damuri Ajashi]

But once we have a confirmed sociopathic killer, one whose lawyer even admits his guilt, one who brags about the killings- and who will kill again, given any opportunity- do we not owe it to his future victim to prevent him from killing again in the only way possible? What would you propose to stop him from killing again? "Life without parole" simply does not do that.

If you are limiting the death penalty to those cases then I have no problem (as long as the convict is mentally competent). Societal bloodlust is simply not enough of a reason to risk executing innocent people but if there isn't a shadow of a doubt of the guilt then...

Innocent people have been executed for murders they did not commit. That defense of the death penalty is gone. Does it change anything?Would you agree that it would acceptable to execute people who are guilty?

Yeah, if the guy is sitting in the electric chair admitting he committed the crime and would do it again, then yeah, go ahead.

Pro-death penalty here. The possibility of executing innocents slows down my desire for 'swift justice' but it doesn't eliminate my conviction that some people just need to be put down like mad dogs. Demand exacting levels of proof, keep the appeals process going as long as necessary, restrain & punish prosecutorial excesses- but do not take the ultimate penalty off the table.

But would you be willing to kill even one innocent man to put a hundred mad dogs to death (rather than keep them in prison for life)?

[DrDeth]

But once we have a confirmed sociopathic killer, one whose lawyer even admits his guilt, one who brags about the killings- and who will kill again, given any opportunity- do we not owe it to his future victim to prevent him from killing again in the only way possible? What would you propose to stop him from killing again? "Life without parole" simply does not do that.

If you are limiting the death penalty to those cases then I have no problem (as long as the convict is mentally competent). Societal bloodlust is simply not enough of a reason to risk executing innocent people but if there isn't a shadow of a doubt of the guilt then...

More or less. That is what CA does, only the worst of the worst of the worst. Texas, on the other hand....

[mascaroni]

Do defendants have to prove their innocence in the U.S.? Over here it's up to the prosecution to prove them guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt'.


And the prosecution in that case did prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Hamlet pointed out that the BBC documentary may have shaded their recitation by not revealing the true strength of the prosecution's case. His post outlined some of the actual evidence adduced at trial which was used to show the accused was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The evidence presented at the trial of the 'Birmingham Six' proved their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

[Olentzero]

Note that DP advocates would say that people convicted but that conviction was later overturned, shows that the system works.To that I would respond that if the system actually worked, they wouldn't have been convicted in the first place.

[Laudenum]

Tbh, the fact that those cases are the best you can do would move me towards supporting the death penalty rather than against it.But teh crack smokers should still be put in for 10+ years, right? We still need to be tough on crime, and if a few mass-murderers get out cause we're being tough on druggies, so be it!

?
I'm afraid that I don't understand what you are trying to say.

[Laudenum]

Note that DP advocates would say that people convicted but that conviction was later overturned, shows that the system works.To that I would respond that if the system actually worked, they wouldn't have been convicted in the first place.

To determine whether or not a system works, you have to look at the system as a whole - not just a single part.

If an innocent person is convicted, and then their conviction is overturned , then the system as a whole has worked.

[Peremensoe]

If an innocent person is convicted, and then their conviction is overturned , then the system as a whole has worked.

Well, except for the years spent in prison, perhaps in solitary confinement on death row. Oops! Sorry! :rolleyes:

[Hamlet]

Well, except for the years spent in prison, perhaps in solitary confinement on death row. Oops! Sorry! :rolleyes:What other option do you recommend? Never incarcerate anyone because they might be guilty? Having a "it is impossible for this person NOT to have committed this crime" standard instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Never allow convictions without DNA evidence?

It's simply reality that innocent people are going to convicted of crimes. It's inevitable in this imperfect world. The criminal justice system should work to try and keep those to an absolute minimum, but it's not going to be perfect. You're arguing against reality.

[Peremensoe]

It's simply reality that innocent people are going to convicted of crimes. It's inevitable in this imperfect world. The criminal justice system should work to try and keep those to an absolute minimum, but it's not going to be perfect. You're arguing against reality.

That's my point. Tell it to the people who are saying the system works "as a whole."

The release of an innocent person some time after a conviction does not represent a return to even. The stolen years cannot be given back. Granted, executing the innocent person is worse still, but contrary to Laudenum's rationale, any wrongful conviction is still a system failure.

[Hamlet]

That's my point. Tell it to the people who are saying the system works "as a whole."When Laudenum said: "an innocent person is convicted, and then their conviction is overturned , then the system as a whole has worked", I did not take it as "there are no possible negative consequences to the system." I took "works" not as "works perfectly". The release of an innocent person some time after a conviction does not represent a return to even. The stolen years cannot be given back. Granted, executing the innocent person is worse still, but contrary to Laudenum's rationale, any wrongful conviction is still a system failure.And I pointed out that I don't believe lacking perfection is a "system failure". We're probably just batting around semantics and rhetoric, but it seems to me that insisting on perfection from any human system and describing anything less than perfection as "system failure" is unrealistic.

[ElvisL1ves]

... which means that the consequences of inevitable failures of the system have to be considered very, very carefully against any possible benefits of the times when the system does not fail. It shouldn't be as easy as it seems for some to accept any instances of We-The-People-sponsored murder.

[XT]

I think there is a substantial difference. To me, whatever the punishment is, you hove to be accept it being meted out to innocent people. As has already been pointed out in this thread, you cannot un-kill someone. However, you can set an innocent person free.

You can set free an innocent person, but you can't give them back the 5, 10, 15, 20 or whatever years of their life that were taken from them. And you can't simply wave away the psychological damage that transpired.

To me, it's merely a matter of degree. In our justice system, as in life, we KNOW that innocents are going to be ground under the wheels of the system. So, you have to make the call...do the benefits outweigh the risks and damage? It's like releasing a powerful new drug on the market...does the benefit of saving 10's of thousands or millions outweigh the harm done to a handful that will invariably die, through no fault of their own, because they have a bad reaction?

To me, the benefits to society of capital punishment don't outweigh the costs, risks OR potential harm. If they did, then I'd have no problem with some percentage of people falling through the cracks and being wrongfully killed (though I would do everything to try and ensure that such failures of the system were rare, and when they DID happen, that lessons were learned and that whatever the failure was it wasn't repeated in the future...and if someone deliberately misused the system to cause the fault that those involved paid the full penalty of the law as well).

-XT

[John Mace]

[To me, the benefits to society of capital punishment don't outweigh the costs, risks OR potential harm. If they did, then I'd have no problem with some percentage of people falling through the cracks and being wrongfully killed (though I would do everything to try and ensure that such failures of the system were rare, and when they DID happen, that lessons were learned and that whatever the failure was it wasn't repeated in the future...and if someone deliberately misused the system to cause the fault that those involved paid the full penalty of the law as well).

That's about where I stand. I'm against the death penalty, but not because it can't be perfect. We give cops guns knowing that some innocent people will end up being killed. But I still want the cops to have guns, because the net result is better than them not having guns.

[amarone]

I think there is a substantial difference. To me, whatever the punishment is, you hove to be accept it being meted out to innocent people. As has already been pointed out in this thread, you cannot un-kill someone. However, you can set an innocent person free.

You can set free an innocent person, but you can't give them back the 5, 10, 15, 20 or whatever years of their life that were taken from them. And you can't simply wave away the psychological damage that transpired.
No, but I can live with having them had to spend some time in jail, whereas to have killed them unjustly is intolerable to me. Hence my comment that you have to find a level of punishment where you can accept its being given to the wrong people, because the justice system will never be perfect.

[XT]

No, but I can live with having them had to spend some time in jail, whereas to have killed them unjustly is intolerable to me

Seemingly small and subtle changes in the law can cause people to die...how do you live with that? Whenever a new drug is put on the market, some non-zero number of innocent people will die as a result. To produce the energy you use to drive your car or power your house, some non-zero (though fairly large) number of innocent people will die for no worse reason than that it's their job.

According to Wiki, since 1975 there have been 1,221 executions in the US. That's 35 years, or about 35 people per year, on average. Even if every single one of them were innocent (which we know they weren't), that figure is minuscule next to the deaths from some of the above (IIRC, it's over a hundred thousand for adverse effects due to medication alone).

Hence my comment that you have to find a level of punishment where you can accept its being given to the wrong people, because the justice system will never be perfect.

I suppose if it helps you sleep at night. Personally, I think that locking someone in a cage for decades if they are innocent and then turning them loose again to try and piece back together their lives is a worse punishment than executing them, but I guess it's relative. Myself, I simply take it as a given that shit will happen, that mistakes will be made, and that the price we all pay for the benefits we get out of society far outweigh the risks and deaths.

To me, the trouble with Capital Punishment, as I've said, is that it doesn't work very well, and it costs a LOT of money. It's simply not worth the effort or resources. That innocents will invariably get killed is certainly a factor, but to me it's a secondary factor. The primary factor is cost, both in terms of money, time, resources, etc etc.

-XT

[amarone]

Hence my comment that you have to find a level of punishment where you can accept its being given to the wrong people, because the justice system will never be perfect.

I suppose if it helps you sleep at night. Personally, I think that locking someone in a cage for decades if they are innocent and then turning them loose again to try and piece back together their lives is a worse punishment than executing them, but I guess it's relative.
Many people state that lengthy imprisonment is worse than being executed, yet when people are actually in a position where they might be executed, the vast majority fight tooth and nail to be imprisoned instead.


Myself, I simply take it as a given that shit will happen, that mistakes will be made, and that the price we all pay for the benefits we get out of society far outweigh the risks and deaths.

To me, the trouble with Capital Punishment, as I've said, is that it doesn't work very well, and it costs a LOT of money. It's simply not worth the effort or resources. That innocents will invariably get killed is certainly a factor, but to me it's a secondary factor. The primary factor is cost, both in terms of money, time, resources, etc etc.

-XT
I am not sure that we have any fundamental disagreement then. All the other situations you mentioned (and I unwittingly deleted) are ones where there is "collateral damage" but the overall situation is worthwhile. The death penalty has no merit, IMO, and therefore is not worth the life of a single innocent.

[mascaroni]

...Myself, I simply take it as a given that shit will happen, that mistakes will be made, and that the price we all pay for the benefits we get out of society far outweigh the risks and deaths.
Would that be a comfort if it was you on the slab waiting for a lethal injection for a crime you didn't commit?

To me, the trouble with Capital Punishment, as I've said, is that it doesn't work very well, and it costs a LOT of money. It's simply not worth the effort or resources. That innocents will invariably get killed is certainly a factor, but to me it's a secondary factor. The primary factor is cost, both in terms of money, time, resources, etc etc.

-XT
It only costs more money because of your convoluted legal system.
Executionees (Shakespeare made up words, so why can't I?) in the UK were normally hanged within 4-6 weeks of their conviction.

[Zsofia]

Pro-death penalty, and the fact that innocent people have been executed points, to me, the need to tighten the guidelines. I could live with sending the more mundane murderers up for life while using the death penalty for the spectacular cases like, say, John Wayne Gacy and Charles Manson, the ones no one in their right mind could question their innocence in all seriousness.
Then you probably wouldn't get Charles Manson, as he didn't actually kill anybody.

[Ludovic]

Executionees (Shakespeare made up words, so why can't I?) in the UK were normally hanged within 4-6 weeks of their conviction.Making up words is something we should all refudiate.

[elfkin477]

The few that claim that, yeah, the system used to be broken but now is acceptable, are usually talking out of both sides of their mouth. I mean, wasn't the system even BETTER in the old days when we could administer frontier justice without all this namby pamby liberal bedwetting about minutiae such as innocence. Amirite?Oh yes, we pro-death penalty people are never at all concerned about the innocent dying. So...which do you think happens more often: an innocent person is executed OR a killer who doesn't get executed breaks out of prison and kills again? The latter has happened within the last two weeks (http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/state/investigators-have-linked-a-prison-escapee-from-kingman-to-a-double-murder-in-new-mexico), and it's hard to argue that their victims deserved it.

[Der Trihs]

Oh yes, we pro-death penalty people are never at all concerned about the innocent dying. So...which do you think happens more often: an innocent person is executed OR a killer who doesn't get executed breaks out of prison and kills again?I'd expect the former, by a large margin.

And yes; I do think that the majority of pro-death penalty people care little to nothing about the innocence or guilt of those they have killed. They're just looking for an excuse to kill someone, anyone.

[Hamlet]

It only costs more money because of your convoluted legal system.
Executionees (Shakespeare made up words, so why can't I?) in the UK were normally hanged within 4-6 weeks of their conviction.Correct me if I'm wrong, but the UK hasn't executed anyone for 45 years or so. Kinda like comparing apples to really old oranges.

[mascaroni]

It only costs more money because of your convoluted legal system.
Executionees (Shakespeare made up words, so why can't I?) in the UK were normally hanged within 4-6 weeks of their conviction.Correct me if I'm wrong, but the UK hasn't executed anyone for 45 years or so. Kinda like comparing apples to really old oranges.

I'd imagine that the execution of Caryl_Chessman ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/) cost a few bob more than that of Hanratty...

[DrDeth]

Oh yes, we pro-death penalty people are never at all concerned about the innocent dying. So...which do you think happens more often: an innocent person is executed OR a killer who doesn't get executed breaks out of prison and kills again?I'd expect the former, by a large margin. .

Show me three in the last decade. :dubious:

[sisu]

But it has not been proven that the death penalty IS a deterant, now is it?

Yes, Australia has a lower murder rate than America. Oops that's right we don't have state sanctioned murder and thank God we don't. It is barbarious and downright evil for a state to kill one it's own citizens. Lock 'em up for ever in crap conditions but who made YOU God?

[Siam Sam]

Pro-death penalty, and the fact that innocent people have been executed points, to me, the need to tighten the guidelines. I could live with sending the more mundane murderers up for life while using the death penalty for the spectacular cases like, say, John Wayne Gacy and Charles Manson, the ones no one in their right mind could question their innocence in all seriousness.
Then you probably wouldn't get Charles Manson, as he didn't actually kill anybody.

Fair enough, but you get what I mean. (And I certainly would not have been mourning if the death sentence he was handed actually had actually been carried out.)

[Guinastasia]

I believe Manson WAS originally sentenced to death, until California abolished the death penalty. (You gotta admit, his parole hearings are entertaining. But then, I have a really sick mind)

[gonzomax]

Some of us feel killing an innocent is such a horrible scar against the society that does it, that executions are wrong. It is not OK to accept a few deaths of wrongly convicted. I suppose those who find it an acceptable risk will inform us what is an acceptable percentage. Would 50 percent be too much? How about 25?
For a lot of people one is too many. It is fundamentally wrong for a society to sanction killing of people once they have them completely in their power. It is enough to incarcerate them.
We are in the group of nations that show little respect for human life. It includes some of the most repressive governments and police states in the world. We belong there.

[Der Trihs]

I'd expect the former, by a large margin. .

Show me three in the last decade. :dubious:
That would require an actual attempt to determine innocence of someone who has been executed by people who care if innocent people are executed and have to resources to investigate. All of those people are too busy trying to prove the innocence of the people who aren't dead yet. But people on death row have been proven innocent, so it's inevitable that some of the people who didn't get the benefit of such an investigation were innocent and executed.

[villa]

Would you agree that it would acceptable to execute people who are guilty?


Depends what you mean by acceptable. I'll oppose it for any offense (that which I come closest to supporting it for is violent attempts to impinge on the integrity of the criminal justice system such as killing a judge), because I don't think it works, but if the person is truly guilty, then my opposition comes from a different ground. In the US at least, I think the death penalty as currently implemented is unconstitutional on a federal level and so must be ended as a legal matter, regardless of the moral aspects.

I don't think it's inherently unconstitutional - its pretty clear the constitution itself contemplates use of the death penalty. However, as applied in the US, its unconstitutional. A large element of this is the racial bias involved - the law seems to value the life of a white victim significantly higher than that of a black victim of crime, at least if the penalties imposed are considered.

[villa]

Show me three in the last decade. :dubious:
That would require an actual attempt to determine innocence of someone who has been executed by people who care if innocent people are executed and have to resources to investigate. All of those people are too busy trying to prove the innocence of the people who aren't dead yet. But people on death row have been proven innocent, so it's inevitable that some of the people who didn't get the benefit of such an investigation were innocent and executed.

And also look at the number of people serving life without parole who took plea bargains to avoid the death penalty who may well be factually innocent.

[Olentzero]

If an innocent person is convicted, and then their conviction is overturned , then the system as a whole has worked.It's been said at length in other responses, but bears repeating: If an innocent person is convicted, the system has failed.