Pray someone inform me, a blabbering idiot of American schooling, but European nationality and current residence as I am what this was supposed to mean?
Pray someone inform me, a blabbering idiot of American schooling, but European nationality and current residence as I am what this was supposed to mean?
Indeed.
the death penalty, atleast here in Texas, is unfair to the poor
because of the blatantly inadequate public defender system. there have been several accounts of public defenders sleeping through their defendants’ trials.
although I am against the death penalty for political and moral reasons (political= the opportunity for the government to kill political prisoners, moral= for the ‘fallacy’ pointed out in the OP),
I would alteast like a moratorium until it is proven that the justice system actually is just.
colin
This is exactly the sort of argument I don’t understand (see my original post). Putting aside executions for the moment, what sort of guarantee do we have that a jury will never imprison an innocent man? Following this logic–because there are no absolute guarantees of a flawless justice system–we couldn’t put anyone in jail either. Perhaps I’m incorrect, but your logic seems flawed.
So you advocate the State confiscate the valuable property of burglars or mechanically rape rapists or even require that Mr Levy return the $150 million he took out of Enron last year ?
(P.S. This applies to people wishing to debate in Great Debates only. If you don’t know why then there’s no need for you to respond.)
wfq1513, heal thy fallacious self: It’s been mentioned a couple of times now that the death penalty is irremediable; imprisonment is not.
And Colinito’s point about inadequate representation really needs to be taken to heart. Nonexistent representation, as well: despite seeming Sixth Amendment guarantees, indigent defendants lack state-ordered counsel after the first step of the appeals process.
There’s no guarantee at all that a jury won’t imprison an innocent person. It’s just a lot easier to free a wrongly imprisoned person than it is to resurrect a wrongly executed person. You are correct in that a flawless justice system isn’t achievable at present, which is why imprisonment offers a middle way between no punishment and the ultimate punishment.
You’re assuming that because I think the fact that we can’t have a flawless system for the death penalty means we shouldn’t have one I must necessarily think that because we can’t have a flawless system for imprisonment we shouldn’t have one either.
There are two problems with that, though. First, it presents a false dichotomy, that I must either accept the death penalty or advocate doing away with the criminal justice system altogether. Those aren’t the only two options, though; I can choose to say the existence of one flawed system is necessary and acceptable and still hold that the existence of the other is unnecessary and unacceptable.
The other is that it’s a weak analogy, that getting rid of one flawed system means that we have to get rid of the other. There’s a big difference between the two. We have to imprison people, we can’t function as a society if we don’t. We accept that there is a rate of error and put into place an appeals system that we hope will minimize it. The dealth penalty is altogether different. Is there an acceptable rate of error for executing people?
But can you cite one innocent prisoner who was executed?
I have seen many cites about prisoners being exonerated while on death row(and released). And one could argue that if many were later found to innocent, it’s possible that one innocent slipped trough the cracks. But can anyone point to an actual case of an innocent person being executed in the modern era (say, in the last 50 years?)?
Well, the last study I recall reading in The Standford Law Review (1987), it was documented that 23 innocent people were killed in the 20th Century. The cases are detailed, but pro-death penalty advocates seem to question the study’s validity.
In reviews of the study, I keep seeing the words ‘intellectual dishonesty’. That many of the ‘innocent’ were freed for legally insufficient evidenve of guilt and not actual evidence of innocence, and that many people on their list of innocents were not actually sentenced to death.
I don’t know how valid those claims are, only that they have been made.
In 1990, Jesse Tafero was executed in Florida. He was convicted in 1976, along with his wife Sonia Jacobs, for murdering a state trooper.
In 1981 Jacobs’ death sentence was reduced on appeal to life imprisonment. The evidence used to convict both of them was identical: the perjured testimony of an ex-convict who turned state’s witness to avoid a death sentence. In 1992 Jacob’s conviction was vacated by a federal court. Tafero probably would have been released at the same time, but he had been executed two years before.
A fairly clear case of execution of an innocent person.
Wrong standard. There are two correct questions. The first is “have any prisoners been executed who should not have been convicted in the first place?” The second is “have any prisoners been executed who, regardless of guilt or innocence, should not have been executed?”
The first question has been answered in the positive, by the DPIC report. Your link disputes this, by trying to substitute your question for the correct one. They try to cast the the debate in terms of “actual innocence.” That is not the correct standard. The correct standard is, and always has been, “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Your question attempts to shift the burden of proof - in our system, the prosecutor bears the burden, not the defendant.
Someday soon, I’m sure, we will have a case in which an actually innocent person was determined to be executed. A while back, there was a case in Virginia where the family of an executed prisoner sued for access to the physical evidence so they could do DNA testing to verify the guilt or innocence of the prisoner. The Virginia prosecutor was resisting their request. I don’t know the status right now, but I’m sure more cases like this will be going forward.
In the meantime, it is absurdity to assume that, when advocates in limited numbers with limited finances have been able to exonerate 13 Illinois death row inmates, and another 87 in other states, that such advocates in unlimited numbers with unlimited resources would not have exonerated more.
As for the second question, that is a verifiable fact. Since the reinstatement of the death penalty, hundreds of people have been executed under circumstances that the Supreme Court now says should have excluded the death penalty - for example, situations where the judge, not a jury, imposed the death penalty or mentally retarded convicts. Those people were wrongfully executed, but nothing can be done about it now.
68% of capital convictions are overturned on appeal
due to reversible error. And most of those were before the Supreme Court’s recent rulings.
And that 68% rate occurs after the burden has shifted from the prosecutor to the defendant.
Sua
I think the main issue regarding the death penalty is being sidestepped in this thread. It’s all well and good to say “Innocents may be executed” or “The system doesn’t evaluate guilt or innocence well enough” or “Is execution a deterrant?”. Let’s take the following hypothetical case:
A man enters a local gas station/convenience store around 10pm and takes the customers and staff hostage. After tieing them up he proceeds to torture them to death in a most gruesome and sadistic fashion. He’s able to succeed in torturing to death 5 out of the 7 people before the police arrive on the scene. At which point he gives himself up. When asked why he committed these atrocities his reply is “to see if I could”. The evidence on hand includes videotape from the convenience store which shows him clearly performing those vile acts. His fingerprints are all over the torture implements. Eye witness accounts from the survivors confirm him as the perpetrator. There are no mind altering substances detected in his body at the time of arrest. There is no history of him being abused or molested as a child and he states that he has had a relatively normal, stable childhood. He is obviously guilty of the crime.
What’s the appropriate punishment for this person? If the death penalty isn’t appropriate then why not? The only position I’ve heard that is in opposition to the death penalty in such a clear cut case is some nebulous idea that execution dehumanizes everyone.
I’ll be the first to admit that the system is far from perfect and that the government executes people that it shouldn’t from time to time. I’m reasonably sure that some innocent people have been executed in the past. This is a tragedy. However I am not swayed by a touchy feely “humanity is harmed when someone is executed!” plea in the face of clear and unquestionable evidence.
Grim
Timothy John Evans, very probably. He was executed in England for killing his wife and daughter on the testimony of the likely actual murderer, serial killer John Reginald Haliday Christie.
Spooje - the first one that springs to mind is Derek Bentley, http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_134000/134951.stm the last man hanged in England. (Yes, I know it’s a non-US reference, but it’s still relevent). He didn’t fire the shot himself, but he said ‘let him have it,’ and his friend shot the policeman. There is some debate as to what he really meant by ‘let him have it,’ but there is also the issue that he was mentally subnormal, and in a modern court, would never be awarded the death penalty.
So yet another problem is that society’s standards can change; back then, people with learning difficulties had an even rougher time in the courts than ‘normal’ people, but now allowances are made for their problems. We are not a society that exists in frozen time, and we have to take into account what future generations will think.
In any case, your question is impossible to be answered in full. If people die innocent, but could not prove it, then we will not know that they died innocent. That doesn’t mean it’s never happened.
Pldennison - you say that some people have been released on appeal and then gone on to commit further murders. Do you have any examples?
Vikes - Why does that apply to America only?
I do agree with the statement in the OP, that it is wrong for the state to both condemn and commit murder; murder is a different crime to theft or rape or almost anything else. For this reason, I agree with Hazel - life sentences need to be much longer.
If you want my answer, shoot, the guy you discussed certainly deserves the death penalty. But that’s irrelevant.
The key is here:
It’s not a tragedy. It’s a mistake. Let’s avoid morality and “touchy feeliness,” and look at this from a utilitarian viewpoint. What are the benefits from the death penalty, and do they outweigh the harm caused by the execution of innocent prisoners?
We can argue about what the actual benefits of the death penalty are - possible ones include the avoidance of the possibility of escape, deterrence, reduced costs of imprisonment. All of these have arguments against them, but I don’t see a reason to pick nits about their actual value.
The costs of executing an innocent prisoner, IMO, outweigh them. The governmental system of our country is, at root, intended to do three things - protect the lives, liberty and property of its citizens. I submit that where the government is in a position to erroneously and irremediably act in such a way that not only fails to provide these protections, but where the government itself is the one violating those protections, the cost outweighs the benefits, particulary when there are alternative means of producing the benefits in question.
As for your hypothetical, the problem is that we do not write laws for individual cases. There is no “ridiculously obvious” category of crimes.
Sua
-
The tragedy of innocents being executed can be avoided by not executing anyone.
-
Given the case you postulated, I have my doubts about the man’s sanity if he tortures 5 people to death to see if he could. However, isn’t having everyday of a long, relatively healthy life to live with what he did a suitable punishment? Maximum security prisons are are hell holes, not the lap of luxury as many people like to paint them. I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t want to contemplate even a day long stay in a super-max, much less the rest of my life.
-
And, if a mistake…no matter how clear cut the case was…had been made in conviction, you can release the person, say you’re sorry and make some kind of recompense to them. (Yes I know you can’t recompense the lost years, but at least they have some time free with the possibility of some help from the society that imprisoned them.)
-
How about a purely practical, even mercenary, everyday consideration. Europe and other parts of the world are starting to have serious diplomatic problems with the US and its use of the death penalty. Enough problems that it is easy to envision costly economic fallout from tariffs, penalties and such.
How much are you willing to pay to kill someone? Are you willing to pursue it even in the face of innocent deaths, a severe alternative form of punishment available and a long-term pariah status for a country that has so much more going for it than killing its citizens? I’m not.
Ooops, sorry for being long-winded.
I didn’t claim this–in fact, I asked for Shodan to provide examples, because I disagreed with him. I’m on the anti-death-penalty side here.