Do death penalty supporters care if they execute an innocent person?

[Annie-Xmas]

I’ll go along with #1 & #2–There has to be very strong evidence that the person committed the crime. My #3 would be that it has to be a hideous crime. Either committed by a serial killer, mass murderer, spree killer, or something like that.

[buttonjockey308]

@Kalhoun

The difference being, of course, is that death is a possible by-product of automobiles, whereas the sole purpose of the death penalty is to kill people.

Death is also a possible by-product of committing murder.

[JThunder]

@whole bean

In my opinion, the state should avoid at all costs affirmatively acting in a way that leads to the loss of innocent life.

At all costs?

Even if this means sentencing someone to life imprisonment, where he could kill other inmates? Or worse, escape and kill innocents?

As I said before, I’m not arguing for or against the death penalty. I just think it’s naive to think that we can prevent the loss of innocent lives by removing the death penalty.

Is is POSSIBLE that some of these guys are innocents who have been wrongfully accused? Certainly. It’s also possible that they are unrepentant, degenerate murderers who would kill again if they ever got loose – or failing that, would kill other people from being closed bars.

[Kalhoun]

@diggleblop

I feel that the following criteria should be met before a person is put to death.

1. Absolute guilt with DNA evidence and/or eyewitnesses who saw the murder take place.
2. Strong physical evidence linking the person to the crime.
3. The family of the victim wants the guilty person put to death.
   Other than that, if there is any doubt or if the case was tried on circumstantial evidence, I don’t feel that a person should be put to death.

1. Eyewitness evidence was proven wrong in 77% of the exhonerated cases. It is one of the least reliable forms of evidence, and one of the main reasons so many innocent people are incarcerated.

2. I would agree, but lab technicians have also proven to be an obstacle to The Truth in many cases.

3. Revenge is not a good reason to kill someone. Those family members could be wrong. I also don’t believe “an eye for an eye” serves any purpose in a civilized society.

[buttonjockey308]

The process by which the DP is applied should be and is under constant scrutiny.There is no human endeavour under the sun that is or can ever be completely 100% perfect 100% of the time. Mistakes will be made, innocent people will die. This is true of every aspect of modern culture from the development of products to the application of laws. I think that, although it’s imperfect, that when society encounters people like Dahmer, Bundy, Gacy Cooey et. al. we have the right and on some level the duty to remove those cancers from our society permanently, beyond prison. The only alternative as far as I can see would be to make prison a place so horrible, so miserable and so dangerous that only the most hardened of the criminals would dare risk going, as opposed to today, where in some cultures, spending time in prison is actually de rigeur and in some cases favored over NOT going.

[Kalhoun]

@buttonjockey308

Death is also a possible by-product of committing murder.

True. But if you don’t have the right guy, what have you really accomplished? You haven’t made your world safer, you haven’t punished a bad guy, and you haven’t deterred others from doing the same thing. What do you have going for you?

[whole_bean]

@JThunder

At all costs?

Even if this means sentencing someone to life imprisonment, where he could kill other inmates? Or worse, escape and kill innocents?

Yes. I would rather see 100,000,000 guilty sentenced to life in prison w/o parole (where every precaution was taken to prevent escapes/prison murders) than to have one innocent person executed.

[buttonjockey308]

@Kalhoun

True. But if you don’t have the right guy, what have you really accomplished? You haven’t made your world safer, you haven’t punished a bad guy, and you haven’t deterred others from doing the same thing. What do you have going for you?

I suppose that depends on the circumstances and how you define innocent.

As i said upthread there are two kinds of innocent, innocent of the crime and innocent in general. There are very few of the latter and perhaps more of the former on DR right now. Most who resort to murder are experienced criminals, as often as you speed on the highway or nick a pencil from the office stash is about how often the career criminal commits a felony crime (IMO only). After years of these little felonies bad guys tend to get cocky and that’s when things go badly.

My point is that if you can show me a person on DR without any other felony convictions and who truly has committed no wrongs against society, the idea of curtailing the DP would hold more sway with me. The problem is you’re not likely to find that person, and even if you are, if you search long enough and hard enough in thier past, you will find something. That’s not to say the DP should be applied for petty larceny or drug dealing, but putting people in the box of ‘innocent’ can be misleading. Of course, you should only be tried, convicted and punished for the crime you ACTUALLY committed, however if a career criminal should happen to get caught up in the DP web, I’m not going to lose a lot of sleep over it.

[gonzomax]

@magellan01

If you were better at writing I might not be confused with your thoughts. Just a thought.

Now if the reason to not have the DP is that an innocent man is being punished while the real perpetrator—the real danger to society—is still at large, shouldn’t we focus efforts on the thousand s of cases that have no doubt resulted in the wrong man being behind bars for years and years while the true guilty party has been roaming free, likely committing more crimes?

The bottom line is that all this justification and rationalization is noise. One can fairly assert that they believe it morally wrong to take a life—in any situation. But not ll people feel that way. I’m not relishing the killing of a criminal. I don’t give a fuck about him. In fact, some of them might prefer the DP as opposed to a life in prison. But fuck what they want. I don’t mind throwing them in a whole and throwing scraps into them every other day. I also don’t mind have them treated civilly if they want to return the favor. But I am not inclined to worry about them, to be concerned for them, or two spend an extra dollar or a moment’s thought on them. They should expect death, even if it is not administered. If they don’t get it, it is only through our good graces. But if they make things harder on us (like the guards who have to watch them), Warden: "Oh Prisoner Jones through his feces at Officer Smith? Okay make an appointment for him and the needle tomorrow afternoon.

And keep in ind, my stance for those subject to the DP is quite small. Only those who are guilty beyond virtually any doubt. Call it the magellan01 threshold for the DP.

The threshold for guilty beyond a doubt is a joke. That is what all murder cases are predicated on. But many mistakes happen. If you do capital punishment, you will kill innocents.
If I were in jail for a murder I did not commit ,I would not be polite to the jailers.

[Kalhoun]

@buttonjockey308

I suppose that depends on the circumstances and how you define innocent.

As i said upthread there are two kinds of innocent, innocent of the crime and innocent in general. There are very few of the latter and perhaps more of the former on DR right now. Most who resort to murder are experienced criminals, as often as you speed on the highway or nick a pencil from the office stash is about how often the career criminal commits a felony crime (IMO only). After years of these little felonies bad guys tend to get cocky and that’s when things go badly.

My point is that if you can show me a person on DR without any other felony convictions and who truly has committed no wrongs against society, the idea of curtailing the DP would hold more sway with me. The problem is you’re not likely to find that person, and even if you are, if you search long enough and hard enough in thier past, you will find something. That’s not to say the DP should be applied for petty larceny or drug dealing, but putting people in the box of ‘innocent’ can be misleading. Of course, you should only be tried, convicted and punished for the crime you ACTUALLY committed, however if a career criminal should happen to get caught up in the DP web, I’m not going to lose a lot of sleep over it.

We don’t kill people for just any felony conviction. We don’t even kill all murderers! And your method of justification is quite frightening.

[whole_bean]

@buttonjockey308

My point is that if you can show me a person on DR without any other felony convictions and who truly has committed no wrongs against society, the idea of curtailing the DP would hold more sway with me. The problem is you’re not likely to find that person, and even if you are, if you search long enough and hard enough in thier past, you will find something.

if you search “long enough and hard enough” in ANYONE’s past you will find something!

the head, it spins:

@buttonjockey308

That’s not to say the DP should be applied for petty larceny or drug dealing, but putting people in the box of ‘innocent’ can be misleading.

vs.

@buttonjockey308

Of course, you should only be tried, convicted and punished for the crime you ACTUALLY committed.

vs.

@buttonjockey308

however if a career criminal should happen to get caught up in the DP web, I’m not going to lose a lot of sleep over it.

[pravnik]

@Max Torque

Ruben Cantu gets bandied about a lot, and there are scads of web pages proclaiming him innocent, but not many for the other side. Have you read the 2007 report by the DA of Bexar County (PDF)? Interesting stuff in there. The pages proclaiming his innocence don’t generally mention that he confessed his involvement to a friend two days after the shootings.

More accurately, three friends were questioned by police as suspects, two made no statements, and one implicated the other two and later refused to testify, claiming fear for his life. Garza, age 15 at the time, pleaded to burglary and avoided a murder charge, but came out after Moreno’s statement and said that it was actually that third person that was with him that night (story). Why he and Moreno would wait until after Cantu’s death is obviously suspect, but it just serves to further illustrate what an absolute clusterfuck this case is.

@Max Torque

They also don’t mention the police’s impression that, when the surviving witness was shown lineups including a photo of Cantu, that he appeared shaken and refused to look at the picture of Cantu.

The DA’s report is a very well written State’s brief, but let’s be honest; it’s a State’s brief, advocating the position of the Bexar Couty DA’s office and law enforcement. They completely gloss over the problem with the lineups that were the subject of Cantu’s appeal. Moreno was shown photo lineups on three separate occasions in which every individual was different except one: Ruben Cantu, who the detectives believed to be his shooter and who they knew had a shooting of a police officer that they couldn’t pin on him. For whatever reason, they kept trying until they got the result they wanted. Even though the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals upheld his conviction on the second prong of their anaylsis, they ruled that this was a suggestive procedure.

Turning to the first step of the analysis, we agree with appellant that showing Juan several photographic displays on different occasions, each containing a photograph of appellant, when Juan has previously not identified appellant is a suggestive procedure. In the instant case Juan was shown photographic arrays on December 16, on March 2, and on March 3. The arrays in March were the same and contained the same photograph of appellant. We note that a different photograph of appellant was used in the December photographic display from that used in the two displays shown to Juan in March. Not every case in which several arrays or displays of a defendant containing different pictures of a defendant are suggestive. It may be necessary to show a witness different pictures because a defendant may have several “different looks”, i.e., different ages, clean shaven and bearded looks. Suggestiveness must be determined by the circumstances of each case. There is no showing of how the photograph of appellant included in the December 16th array differed from the photograph included in the March displays. Nor is any contention made in the instant case that the photographs depicted appellant differently and were necessary to permit the witness to view the “different faces” of appellant.

  In the abstract, therefore, the procedure of showing Juan several arrays on different occasions, all containing appellant's photograph, is a suggestive procedure. Such procedure tends to highlight a particular defendant since the witness sees the same face repeatedly. Such reoccurrence of one particular face might suggest to the witness that the police think the defendant is the culprit. Cf. Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440, 89 S.Ct. 1127, 22 L.Ed.2d 402 (1969). Therefore, repeated showings of appellant's picture in several arrays was suggestive.

Cantu v. State, 738 S.W.2d 249 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987).

The DA’s report does have a lot to say about Moreno’s suggestibility in another matter, though - his suggestibility as concerns the investigator he reacanted to, in one deeply, deeply ironic passage.

Unfortunately for those persons intent on proclaiming Cantu’s innocence, Reyna did not conduct an investigation in the normal sense of that term. Rather, his investigative techniques demonstrate that he set out with preconceived notions about Cantu’s innocence and he employed methods and interview techniques designed tofurther that goal. Whether this was intentional or inadvertent is irrelevant. The fact is that his methods render the information he obtained suspect - it simply cannot be trusted.

Generally, there have been commentators who have criticized various law enforcement agencies for utilizing investigative techniques with suspects that are claimed to elicit false confessions. Furthermore, commentators have noted that, “it is relatively easy to alter an eyewitness’s reliability and accuracy by pressuring the eyewitness with leading or misleading information. In fact, there is “extensive literature suggesting that leading questions have the potential to distort eyewitness memory.”Furthermore, “the type of individual who provides the misleading information can have an important effect on a witness’s response.” Not surprisingly, research has revealed that an eyewitness’s ability to accurately recall an incident can be impacted adversely by who is asking the questions, the types of questions asked, and the amount of time between the actual witnessing of the event and the interview.

So the State’s position is that Moreno was susceptible to the suggestiveness of the private investigator, but not their own. Clearly, one way or another, Juan Moreno is one highly suggestible son of a bitch.

[Max_Torque]

@whole bean

Yes. I would rather see 100,000,000 guilty sentenced to life in prison w/o parole (where every precaution was taken to prevent escapes/prison murders) than to have one innocent person executed.

?

Um, so would everyone. Guilty people are supposed to go to prison. Or did you mean “100 million innocent”?

I wish I could find some statistics about prison murders; unfortunately, it doesn’t seem like anyone is collecting the data I want to see. All I can find are here-and-there snippets. But, in the little tidbits I’ve managed to find, it appears that up to 30-40% of prison murders are committed by capital felons who were serving life sentences rather than being placed on death row. Considering that they’re a relatively small subset of the prison population, they’re doing more than their share.

[LilShieste]

@Annie-Xmas

Once a person is sentenced to life in prison without parole, how are you going to make it more severe when he kills someone in prison or escapes and kills innocent people outside? What sentence is longer than "life in prison without parole’?

A longer sentence was just one example of a more severe punishment; it’s by no means the only possibility.

@diggleblop

I feel that the following criteria should be met before a person is put to death.

1. Absolute guilt with DNA evidence and/or eyewitnesses who saw the murder take place.
2. Strong physical evidence linking the person to the crime.
3. The family of the victim wants the guilty person put to death.

1. DNA evidence is not 100% foolproof, and eyewitnesses could potentially have axes to grind.
2. This should be present in any criminal case, regardless of whether or not the DP is the punishment. (*)
3. The state shouldn’t be in the business of carrying out someone’s dirty work.

• IANAL - is it possible to convict someone on criminal charges based solely on circumstantial evidence?

@diggleblop

Other than that, if there is any doubt or if the case was tried on circumstantial evidence, I don’t feel that a person should be put to death.

IMO, in both of these cases, the person shouldn’t even be convicted.

@Max Torque

@whole bean

Yes. I would rather see 100,000,000 guilty sentenced to life in prison w/o parole (where every precaution was taken to prevent escapes/prison murders) than to have one innocent person executed.

?

Um, so would everyone. Guilty people are supposed to go to prison. Or did you mean “100 million innocent”?

My interpretation of whole bean’s post is that he would rather see 100,000,000 guilty people sentenced to life in prison - that is, not sentenced to death - than risk the possibility of sentencing a single innocent person to death.

[buttonjockey308]

@Kalhoun

We don’t kill people for just any felony conviction. We don’t even kill all murderers! And your method of justification is quite frightening.

It’s not a justification for the DP, rather, it is an observation of the way things are. I don’t care much for the idea that a truly innocent person can be otherwise railroaded into a DP sentence, but I stand by the idea that a smarter criminal who has evaded capture during his or her entire criminal career who somehow, by fate or by prosecutorial zeal, finds themselves staring the ultimate penalty in the face, is, on some level, getting what they have coming.

[whole_bean]

@LilShieste

My interpretation of whole bean’s post is that he would rather see 100,000,000 guilty people sentenced to life in prison - that is, not sentenced to death - than risk the possibility of sentencing a single innocent person to death.

Correct, I was responding to the question

@JThunder

At all costs?
Even if this means sentencing someone to life imprisonment, where he could kill other inmates? Or worse, escape and kill innocents?

I said

Yes. I would rather see 100,000,000 guilty sentenced to life in prison w/o parole (where every precaution was taken to prevent escapes/prison murders) than to have one innocent person executed.

I think it makes perfect sense in context.

[Annie-Xmas]

If .1% of those in-prison killers kill in prison or get out and kill someone, that’s the murder of 100,000 innocent people.

[intention]

whole bean, you say:

@whole bean

I am not even saying that these bad men don’t deserve to die. I am simply saying that if the cost of there deaths is the taking of one innocent life, then it is unacceptable given the alternatives available.

While your commitment to saving innocent lives is certainly commendable, you ignore the people that these men will kill, either in prison or upon their release or escape.

Given the large number of people sentenced to life in prison, and the large number of murders committed by those men … to paraphrase the OP, do death penalty opponents really care if their pet murderers go on to kill again?

Now you can tell me that in a perfect world, life without parole would mean life without parole. And felons serving LWOP would never escape, or murder other people.

But then in a perfect world, we’d never execute an innocent person, either … so neither of those are possibilities, and you’ll just have to learn to live with one of the world’s ugliest facts:

SOMETIMES ALL POSSIBLE OPTIONS LEAD TO THE DEATH OF INNOCENTS

w.

[whole_bean]

@intention

whole bean, you say:

While your commitment to saving innocent lives is certainly commendable, you ignore the people that these men will kill, either in prison or upon their release or escape.

Given the large number of people sentenced to life in prison, and the large number of murders committed by those men … to paraphrase the OP, do death penalty opponents really care if their pet murderers go on to kill again?

Now you can tell me that in a perfect world, life without parole would mean life without parole. And felons serving LWOP would never escape, or murder other people.

But then in a perfect world, we’d never execute an innocent person, either … so neither of those are possibilities, and you’ll just have to learn to live with one of the world’s ugliest facts:

SOMETIMES ALL POSSIBLE OPTIONS LEAD TO THE DEATH OF INNOCENTS

w.

Indeed, so I choose the option which does not require me to sanction, support or fund the killing of innocents. I do not ignore potential victims. I am not suggesting we disband police forces. There are ways to prevent the most heinous criminals from escaping and, if they escape, from killing again. I think you are wrong to assume that they “will” kill again.

@Annie X-mas

If .1% of those in-prison killers kill in prison or get out and kill someone, that’s the murder of 100,000 innocent people.

Why don’t we see some stats on death row escapees* (as I would certainly advocate no less a rigorous confinement - it’s not death row I oppose for the unfortunate innocent swept up in the system, it’s what’s at the end**). If you can show me that the number of death row escapees in the last 32 years is 100,000, I’ll recant my position and practice my toggle switching, or I could just extend buttonjockey308’s line of reasoning and assume that at least for a good many future victims “if [we] search long enough and hard enough in thier (sic) past, [we] will find something” they’ve done to warrant death. :dubious:

• Ted Bundy would not count.

**I also whole-heartedly endorse tightening up the system, DP or no DP.

[LilShieste]

@Annie-Xmas

If .1% of those in-prison killers kill in prison or get out and kill someone, that’s the murder of 100,000 innocent people.

So we should take precautions to get that statistic well below .1%. There’s no need to jump straight to the “kill them” conclusion.

@intention

While your commitment to saving innocent lives is certainly commendable, you ignore the people that these men will kill, either in prison or upon their release or escape.

I don’t think any of us are ignoring this. We’re saying it’s a problem that needs to be corrected, and putting the criminal to death is not the solution.

@intention

Given the large number of people sentenced to life in prison, and the large number of murders committed by those men … to paraphrase the OP, do death penalty opponents really care if their pet murderers go on to kill again?

Our “pet murderers”? :dubious:

Of course we care if they go on to kill again. That’s why we keep saying things need to be done to eliminate or minimize the chance of those situations occurring. In the end, we would be quite happy if there was no killing going on at all.

@intention

Now you can tell me that in a perfect world, life without parole would mean life without parole. And felons serving LWOP would never escape, or murder other people.

But then in a perfect world, we’d never execute an innocent person, either … so neither of those are possibilities, and you’ll just have to learn to live with one of the world’s ugliest facts:

SOMETIMES ALL POSSIBLE OPTIONS LEAD TO THE DEATH OF INNOCENTS

This is a bit of a false dilemma, don’t you think? We’re talking about deaths resulting from the direct action of a criminal, and deaths resulting from the direct action of our justice system. We, as society, can only control one of those things, and we should strive to choose better than the criminal.