OK, to prevent a hijack of this thread in the Pit I thought it was worth opening this particular can of worms again…
In that thread I said:
To which Ilsa Lund replied:
And we’re left hanging with a promise to continue in the morning. I hope Ilsa Lund is willing to elaborate in this thread rather than back in the original thread (which is really about something else). But I’d be glad to hear others as well.
I do feel that the chance of the state executing an innocent person is sufficient cause for doing away with the death penalty. I’m all for justice, but that cost seems too high.
I would take your position even further. I, like Illinois Governor George Ryan, would empty death row completely, rather than execute an innocent man. There is no more heinous and repugnant act imaginable that the state could do in my name.
[sub]Remind me to visit the Pit to tell Ilsa Lund what I think of her.[/sub]
The corresponding simple fact being that the abolition of death sentences in the US would require the assumption and acceptance of the death of innocents as well. We did not execute Arthur Shawcross, Ed Kemp, Henry Lee Lucas, Jack Abbott, Robert Stroud, Christopher Scarver, Ed Wein, or Willie Horton. As a direct result, they went on to commit further tortures, rapes, and murders.
Incidentally, the number of convicted murderers who have been shown to have been wrongfully executed thru DNA testing in the US since the reinstitution of the death penalty is zero.
There’s no such thing as certainty, everything carries a risk of mistakes. But with your reasoning we would have to do away with all other forms of punishments as well. “We can’t send this 20 year old boy to prison for life, he might be innocent, and we might never know. Or we might first know after twenty years and who’re we going to give the man back the best years of his life then? I feel the chance of the state imprisoning an innocent person is sufficient cause for doing away the prison terms entirely.”
Ilsa is a man who for some obscure reason has taken a female handle.
No, I realize the chance of mistake in all human actions. But the situation with the death penalty is that it’s irreversible.
I can see reason in the state imposing a sentence, based upon due process, then later discovering that sentence was imposed by mistake through the discovery of exonerating evidence. It’s hard but at least there’s a chance to restore some part of the person’s life back.
Ahhh, yes, but when we sentenced them to life in prison without parole, we never let them get outside the walls again, so all those tortures, rapes and murders were committed inside prison. right?
(And even those could be prevented with enough security)
Wrong. Willie Horton and Ed Wein were sentenced to life in prison with no parole. And then released. Robert Stroud and Christopher Scarver both committed murder in prison.
Simply saying “we could prevent all this with enough security” is like saying that we could prevent executing anyone innocent with enough testing. At what point are we sure enough that the guy is guilty? And why don’t we apply the same standard in executions?
Yes but you’re assuming that all death penalty proponents have the same standards.
Personally I think all Shodan’s hall of shame are fitting victims. As are most serial killerts, serial rapists, serial paedophiles…in fact anyone with multiple convictions for crimes against anothers’ person.
If you can give me a list, a short one will do, of people convicted of multiple crimes of violence (serial killers, serial rapists, paedophiles) who are now useful members of society, I’ll rethink.
I don’t propose executing anyone convicted of a single felony. BUt if they rack up a string… convince me we can rehabiitate them because if we can’t we’re just locking them up until they die of their own accord.
By the way I think Shodan has a short list of convicted, released killers who did it again. They didn’t rot in jail first time around.
Everything in life is irreversible. If you convict an innocent man to life in prison, he might die there, and even if you do at a later point establish his innocence, no matter of monetary compensation is going to alter anything about that – or give him back his years if he’s still alive. I agree death penalty is a draconian punishment, but do not think it’s in a category of its own – just a matter of degree.
What’s that supposed to mean? That prisoners are somewhat less entitled to protection? The uncertainty that ensures we can never be absolutely certain of guilt also ensures we can never absolutely guarantee rapes, tortures and murders committed inside or outside prison by convicted felons.
I agree with the OP, although I am dismayed at keeping company with the West Memphis Three defenders, whose zeal for the cause seems to lead them to shade the truth and engage in highly selective recounting of relevant facts.
If the scores of DNA-based reversals for death row inmates have taught us anything, it should be that the death penalty has absolutely been handed to factually innocent defendants before. Whiel there’s no doubt that incarcerating the innocent is a terrible thing, killing the innocent is much, much worse.
I admit I have a moral objection to death dealt by the state - but this a practical objection. I believe the line is life – we have to have enough confidence in our system to relegate those found guilty by a trial to prison; we can seldom if ever have enough confidence in those findings to base an execution on them.
No I’m sorry. That was Ludovic. Also my sentence was supposed to read “…… guarantee convicted felons do not again rape, torture, murder inside or outside prison“. Sloppy me.
Am I correct that some of you are actually willing to say that an executed innocent man is the price we may have to pay for our criminal justice system?
The usual cliche is that the system is balanced so that ten guilty people are acquitted for every innocent person who is convicted.
Obviously, there’s no way to calibrate that, but it is a kind of general goal or “mission statement.” It’s taught in law schools…
It’s like any other problem in statistics: the only way to make a type I error impossible is to place so many restrictions as to make any determination of correlation meaningless. i.e., we don’t ask juries to determine guilt “…beyond any conceivable doubt.”
I’d never agree to such a statement. And I doubt anyone here is accepting and/or nonchalant about such an outcome.
Similarly, one could ask of death penalty opponents whether the murders of prison inmates, guards and other innocents in the population at large are an acceptable price for eliminating the death penalty altogether.
Problem being, allowing a guilty man to go free could lead to further crime, in which an innocent may be harmed. In the case in which we are talking, for the most part only serious multiple offences are considered. Such people are only a drain on society (one way or another).
As a slight hijack, why is killing someone so bad? I have my beliefs (Christian: Thou shall not murder, love thy neighbor), but I know that many dopers are not religious. In such a case, what harm is brought to an innocent that is killed on death row? I know that is whole other can of worms, so I don’t expect an answer.
And just to put it out there, I would gladly be one of the few innocents killed on death row, if it meant keeping a system that keeps bad folks from brining repeated harm to innocents.
Also, incedentally, do you have the number of executed prisoners who were tested? If no one was tested, then it is not surprising that no one was found wrongfully executed. I read somewhere that there are legal obstacles to testing the DNA of executed criminals.
I agree with the OP. But I would go 1 step further. I don’t like that certain government officials have complete power over when to seek the death penalty. They have guidlines, certainly, and they can’t impose it for crimes where it is not allowed. But D.A.s seem to have a lot of leeway in deciding which particular actions qualify as which particular crimes. So, I don’t like the dath penalty because we might get the wrong guy. But I also don’t like it because I don’t think that governments are accurate enough to apply it fairly.
Also, I’d like to address the argument that allowing guilty men to go free to commit further crimes is comparible to condeming an innocent person. The essential difference is who does the killing. If you murder someone it can be said you killed him. If you fail to travel accross town to prevent a murder, it cannot be said that you killed. When an accused person is released, for whatever reason, his future crimes are not the responsibility of the system. At least not in the same sense that those crimes would be if the system actually committed them.