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

Great Debates
201

LilShieste, you say:

[QUOTE=LilShiest]

[QUOTE=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
[/QUOTE]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Say what? We, as a society, can control both of those things.

We can control whether or not we put people to death, and we can control whether convicted murderers ever kill anyone again … by putting them to death.

So no, it is not a false dilemma. It is a real dilemma. It’s like Iraq - we could stand by and let Saddam kill some innocent people, or we stop him and kill some innocent people in the process. I’m not trying to argue one side or the other, or to hijack the thread. I’m just pointing out that with either scenario, INNOCENT PEOPLE WERE BOUND TO DIE IN IRAQ, either by our hand or by Saddam’s hand.

The exact same situation obtains here. Whether we execute murderers, or spare their lives so that some of them will assuredly kill again, either way innocents will die. Which makes the OP’s question meaningless.

It certainly does not make the death penalty question meaningless, nor does it make all arguments regarding the death penalty meaningless. Just the argument that if we abolish the death penalty we will perforce be saving innocent lives.

Innocent lives will be lost either way, and as far as I can tell, most people on both sides of the aisle accept those deaths as an ugly but unavoidable part of their preferred solution.

w.

202

For those people hung up on the possibility of a convicted murderer escaping and killing someone, consider that this is possible during the appeals process also. Do you advocate killing the guy immediately in order to eliminate this risk? Appeals tend to drag on for a long time, so the chance of an escape isn’t trivial.

I’d love to be able to be for the death penalty, but the abuses have been too great. Scott Trurow, who was on the Illinois commission, noted for example that prosecutors tended to push for a capital charge in order to help convince an accused to plead guilty. The problem, he said, was this tended to raise the percentage of innocents going to trial, since they were less likely to make a deal.

I haven’t seen it in this thread, but I’ve seen many pro-DP people also complain about all the appeals and about people getting off on technicalities.

Finally, for those who don’t care about violating the rights of possibly innocent convicts to keep innocent people outside from getting killed by escapees, I hope you feel the same way about your second amendment rights.

203

Voyager, thank you for a thought-provoking post.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
For those people hung up on the possibility of a convicted murderer escaping and killing someone, consider that this is possible during the appeals process also. Do you advocate killing the guy immediately in order to eliminate this risk? Appeals tend to drag on for a long time, so the chance of an escape isn’t trivial.
[/quote]
This question doesn’t make sense to me. It’s like saying “You want to put rabid dogs to death, but have you considered the possibility that someone’s pet might get rabies? Do you advocate killing all pets immediately to eliminate this risk?”

Well, in a word, no to both questions, mine and yours. I don’t see any parallel between how we treat the accused and how we treat the convicted, nor any theoretical reason why we should treat them the same.

I was confused by your last paragraph, viz:

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Finally, for those who don’t care about violating the rights of possibly innocent convicts to keep innocent people outside from getting killed by escapees, I hope you feel the same way about your second amendment rights
[/QUOTE]
Which rights of the convicts are being violated? I’ve not seen anyone here say that they felt either that some rights of convicts were being violated, or that they approved of such a violation. However, I could have missed that part.

Thanks,

w.

204

[QUOTE=intention]
LilShieste, you say:

[QUOTE=LilShieste]
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.
[/quote]

Say what? We, as a society, can control both of those things.
[/quote]
If that were actually the case, then we should be the ones being put to death.

By that measure, we can control whether convicted burglars ever kill anyone. Heck, if we execute everyone on the planet, the murder rate would drop to 0! That’s not control; it’s nuking from space.

What if you had captured Saddam, and isolated him from those under his command. He would no longer be able to kill innocent people, and yet your hands would be clean, too. It’s a third scenario that you’ve not accounted for. I’m sure we could think of others, too.

Yes, most people on both sides of the aisle accept that innocent lives are going to be lost. It’s a matter of whether or not we want to be directly responsible for taking those lives.

205

[QUOTE=intention]
LilShieste, you say:

Say what? We, as a society, can control both of those things.

We can control whether or not we put people to death, and we can control whether convicted murderers ever kill anyone again … by putting them to death.

So no, it is not a false dilemma. It is a real dilemma. It’s like Iraq - we could stand by and let Saddam kill some innocent people, or we stop him and kill some innocent people in the process. I’m not trying to argue one side or the other, or to hijack the thread. I’m just pointing out that with either scenario, INNOCENT PEOPLE WERE BOUND TO DIE IN IRAQ, either by our hand or by Saddam’s hand.

The exact same situation obtains here. Whether we execute murderers, or spare their lives so that some of them will assuredly kill again, either way innocents will die. Which makes the OP’s question meaningless.

It certainly does not make the death penalty question meaningless, nor does it make all arguments regarding the death penalty meaningless. Just the argument that if we abolish the death penalty we will perforce be saving innocent lives.

Innocent lives will be lost either way, and as far as I can tell, most people on both sides of the aisle accept those deaths as an ugly but unavoidable part of their preferred solution.

w.
[/QUOTE]
You’re assuming the system has the right guy on the gurney. We know that the system doesn’t always get the right guy. THAT’S the point of the exchange here.

206

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
You’re assuming the system has the right guy on the gurney. We know that the system doesn’t always get the right guy. THAT’S the point of the exchange here.
[/QUOTE]

No, we’re assuming that those who are the victims of released murderers/murderers in prison/who escape/who are furloughed/etc. are also not the right guy, and that these greatly outnumber the innocents on the gurney.

Because there is a non-zero chance that he would be able to kill innocent people, and since we know this, our hands are not clean.

It has already been established beyond any doubt that murderers who are executed never kill again. It has also been established that murderers who are not executed sometimes do. Sending murderers to prison does not always prevent them from killing other inmates, guards, or even members of the general public.

It is certainly possible, although has never been demonstrated, that a very small number of innocents have died as a result of applying the death penalty. It is quite certain that a significantly larger number of innocents have died as a result of not applying the death penalty.

The remaining task is for DP opponents to demonstrate why allowing a larger number of innocent deaths is morally preferable to allowing a much smaller number of innocent deaths. But innocents are going to die in either case.

Regards,
Shodan

207

[QUOTE=Shodan]
No, we’re assuming that those who are the victims of released murderers/murderers in prison/who escape/who are furloughed/etc. are also not the right guy, and that these greatly outnumber the innocents on the gurney.
[/QUOTE]

Hey…I feel for the victims and the families, but…tough shit. Life happens. Are you telling me that they’re fine with an imperfect system just because they lost someone? Do you really think they’d be happy knowing the wrong guy went down?

Why don’t we just use the terminally ill for all executions? It’s not the right guy and it’s not perfect, but as long as someone else dies, it’ll somehow make us stronger as a society. Close enough.

It’s not about numbers or revenge. It’s about justice.

208

The bad news is that the death penalty isn’t preventing the murder of innocents by convicted murderers. Here in Texas, reoffending by death row inmates is caused not only by executing them, but by the level of incarceration they’re under. They don’t escape and reoffend. Since 1936 only one person has escaped from death row, and he was mortally wounded in the attempt and found in a river less than a mile from the unit he esacped from. People aren’t escaping from death row here and committing murder here.

The ones who are escaping and killing are inmates escaping from general population who aren’t condemned to death. In 2000, seven men (the “Texas Seven”) serving sentences ranging from 30 years to multiple life escaped from the Connally unit and went on a crime spree for over a month, commiting multiple burglaries. Durning one of the burglaries they shot and killed Irving police officer Aubrey Hawkins. We administer death as a penalty in numbers far greater than any other state in the union, and it did not save Aubrey Hawkins. If the death penalty isn’t saving the lives of innocents and may be taking some innocent lives, what purpose is it serving that incarcerating them at death row level security wouldn’t achieve?

209

[QUOTE=pravnik]
The bad news is that the death penalty isn’t preventing the murder of innocents by convicted murderers. Here in Texas, reoffending by death row inmates is caused not only by executing them, but by the level of incarceration they’re under. They don’t escape and reoffend. Since 1936 only one person has escaped from death row, and he was mortally wounded in the attempt and found in a river less than a mile from the unit he esacped from. People aren’t escaping from death row here and committing murder here.

The ones who are escaping and killing are inmates escaping from general population who aren’t condemned to death. In 2000, seven men (the “Texas Seven”) serving sentences ranging from 30 years to multiple life escaped from the Connally unit and went on a crime spree for over a month, commiting multiple burglaries. Durning one of the burglaries they shot and killed Irving police officer Aubrey Hawkins. We administer death as a penalty in numbers far greater than any other state in the union, and it did not save Aubrey Hawkins. If the death penalty isn’t saving the lives of innocents and may be taking some innocent lives, what purpose is it serving that incarcerating them at death row level security wouldn’t achieve?
[/QUOTE]

thank you

210

[QUOTE=intention]
Voyager, thank you for a thought-provoking post.This question doesn’t make sense to me. It’s like saying “You want to put rabid dogs to death, but have you considered the possibility that someone’s pet might get rabies? Do you advocate killing all pets immediately to eliminate this risk?”

Well, in a word, no to both questions, mine and yours. I don’t see any parallel between how we treat the accused and how we treat the convicted, nor any theoretical reason why we should treat them the same.

[/quote]

I guess I wasn’t clear. I meant after conviction, not after arrest. Yes, there is a possibility that the convicted murderer would be freed after an appeal, but it seems that there is also the possibility that the convicted murder after appeal will still be found innocent, through additional evidence. It then becomes a matter of the number of people killed by escaped cons and innocent people falsely executed. No one has given either number.

Some people on death row have had their rights to a fair trial violated - such as the guy whose public defender slept through the trial. I think those who would be quick to execute to protect the public at large from even the chance of death from an escapee are being absolutist in protecting those rights versus the rights of the wrongly convicted. I’d say a violation of rights leading to a wrongful execution is worse than the supposed violation of right to bear assault rifles or not to have mandatory registration. That’s another debate,. but it seems that the absolutism is not applied consistently.

211

[QUOTE=Shodan]
No, we’re assuming that those who are the victims of released murderers/murderers in prison/who escape/who are furloughed/etc. are also not the right guy, and that these greatly outnumber the innocents on the gurney. Because there is a non-zero chance that he would be able to kill innocent people, and since we know this, our hands are not clean.

It has already been established beyond any doubt that murderers who are executed never kill again. It has also been established that murderers who are not executed sometimes do. Sending murderers to prison does not always prevent them from killing other inmates, guards, or even members of the general public.

It is certainly possible, although has never been demonstrated, that a very small number of innocents have died as a result of applying the death penalty. It is quite certain that a significantly larger number of innocents have died as a result of not applying the death penalty.

The remaining task is for DP opponents to demonstrate why allowing a larger number of innocent deaths is morally preferable to allowing a much smaller number of innocent deaths. But innocents are going to die in either case.

Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]

Whoa there. There are murderers and there are murderers. How many convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life without parole (which is the alternative anti-DP people propose) get furloughed? You can’t count those convicted of lesser charges, who will eventually get released. Are you saying that anyone who kills someone else, no matter the circumstances, should be executed?

For GD I see an awful lot of unsubstantiated claims. It is clearly impossible to know the number of wrongly convicted people on death row, but it shouldn’t be hard to give us the number of innocents killed. I’d count other convicted murderers a bit less than civilians, since they put themselves into a high risk environment.

212

[QUOTE=pravnik]
The bad news is that the death penalty isn’t preventing the murder of innocents by convicted murderers. Here in Texas, reoffending by death row inmates is caused not only by executing them, but by the level of incarceration they’re under. They don’t escape and reoffend. Since 1936 only one person has escaped from death row, and he was mortally wounded in the attempt and found in a river less than a mile from the unit he esacped from. People aren’t escaping from death row here and committing murder here.
[/QUOTE]
Did you mean this guy? If not, the timing of the news piece is rather unfortunate for your case. :slight_smile:

But of course escapes from death row are not confined strictly to Texas.

But ISTM that the level of security on death row is as high as can reasonably be expected - at least as high as it would be for LWOP. If we cannot guarantee that death row inmates are securely held, surely we cannot guarantee that LWOP prisoners won’t escape. Indeed, my cite mentions O.C. Borden, 33; and Gary Scott, and Lee Knoch, all of whom were sentenced to LWOP, and then escaped.

Willie Horton springs to mind. So there’s one definite example to offset the one theoretical wrongful execution.

And even people who are sentenced to LWOP are sometimes released - I have mentioned Ed Wein in the past, who was sentenced to die, had his sentence commuted to LWOP (by Pat Brown, governor of California before Reagan - I read about it in his autobiography) who then had his sentence changed again to life. He was subsequently paroled, and kidnapped, raped and murdered a woman he grabbed from a bus stop. (Cite.).

Regards,
Shodan

213

[QUOTE=Voyager]
…

Some people on death row have had their rights to a fair trial violated - such as the guy whose public defender slept through the trial. I think those who would be quick to execute to protect the public at large from even the chance of death from an escapee are being absolutist in protecting those rights versus the rights of the wrongly convicted. I’d say a violation of rights leading to a wrongful execution is worse than the supposed violation of right to bear assault rifles or not to have mandatory registration. That’s another debate,. but it seems that the absolutism is not applied consistently.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree with your claim that “I think those who would be quick to execute to protect the public at large from even the chance of death from an escapee are being absolutist in protecting those rights versus the rights of the wrongly convicted.” I’m mildly in favor of the death penalty, and strongly in favor of protecting everyone’s rights - the rights of the accused, the rights of the victim, and the rights of society at large. My friend who is a judge is strong on the death penalty, and stronger on the rights of the accused in his court.

The claim that DP proponents in general don’t care about the accused’s rights is a calumny, and one that I think you would find very hard to substantiate with a citation.

I hate to break it to you, but it is possible to simultaneously believe that a) the accused’s rights should be vigorously protected, and b) there are some people so twisted that they should not see the light of another day.

w.

214

[QUOTE=Shodan]
Did you mean this guy? If not, the timing of the news piece is rather unfortunate for your case. :slight_smile:
[/quote]
Yes, that’s exactly the guy I mean. Gurule was shot during the escape attempt and found dead in the Trinity river less than a mile from the Ellis unit. You’re looking at today’s date rather than the date the piece was published, November 20, 2008.

I don’t see any death row escapees on that page other than Gurule.

No, that’s not the case. Inmates sentenced to life without parole are placed in the same unit as every other first degree offender, unless they display a behavior problem that merits segregation. The three escaped murderers you mention escaped from general population with two robbers and a burglar, just as with the Texas Seven. Inmates serving garden variety life without parole sentences don’t receive anything close to the scrutiny of death row. Nobody, but nobody, receives the level of attention that death row inmates receive. That’s why they don’t escape with their lives from Texas’ death row.

I ask again, if it isn’t saving innocent lives, what purpose is it serving?

215

[QUOTE=pravnik]
I don’t see any death row escapees on that page other than Gurule.
[/quote]
There were six other death row inmates who also escaped. There are others as well.

Then I expect you would agree that LWOP convicts would escape at roughly the same rate as other convicts. Which would tend to argue that LWOP is considerably less secure than death row, from which convicts have been known to escape.

Which is my point. LWOP means the convict remains a danger to society in ways that execution does not permit. The only danger of the DP is if an innocent man is executed. This has not been demonstrated to occur, at least in the modern era of the DP, but it could happen. The advent of DNA testing and other modern forensic methods means that the likelihood of this has been markedly reduced by the laudable actions of the Innocence Project. But that also means that those who were not cleared by the Innocence Project - some two thirds of those tested, IIRC - are that much more clearly guilty.

Thus people like this - murderers - continue to present a danger to the public that cannot be addressed with a sentence of LWOP. Therefore, they should be executed. There is essentially no risk that any of them are innocent (I assume you would agree), and therefore arguments that one of them might be innocent have little force.

Regards,
Shodan

216

[QUOTE=Shodan]
Because there is a non-zero chance that he would be able to kill innocent people, and since we know this, our hands are not clean.
[/quote]
If we are holding him in custody, it is our responsibility to make sure he does not have the ability to kill anyone. If he still somehow manages to, that’s a demonstration of a failure on our part.

[QUOTE=Shodan]

There were six other death row inmates who also escaped.
[/quote]
Close, but not quite. There were six other death row inmates mentioned on that page, but none of them successfully escaped.

From the article:

Wouldn’t the logical answer to this situation be to fix the security problems that allowed the convicts to escape in the first place? Why do we have to go so far as to execute people?

217

[QUOTE=pravnik]
Yes, that’s exactly the guy I mean. Gurule was shot during the escape attempt and found dead in the Trinity river less than a mile from the Ellis unit. You’re looking at today’s date rather than the date the piece was published, November 20, 2008.
[/QUOTE]
Good Lord man, if we even know the date he’s going to escape and still can’t stop it…

218

[QUOTE=ArizonaTeach]
Good Lord man, if we even know the date he’s going to escape and still can’t stop it…
[/QUOTE]
Whoops, make that 1998. Mistakes happen. :smiley:

219

And, speaking of innocent people put to death, the Times today reports that Jeffrey Lee Wood is to die this week for sitting in a car outside a store, where his partner killed a clerk. By Texas law accomplices are guilty also. It is unclear that he knew his partner had a gun, and it is unclear if he was fit to stand trial, but it is clear that he was not in the store where the murder happened. I’d rather guess that no one on Earth is in danger from this poor guy.

And this is why I’m against it, despite the fact that there are tons of people who the world would be better off without.

220

I wonder if more escaped/paroled killers have killed again or if more innocent people have been executed.

Actually, I don’t really wonder. Common sense tells me it’s the former.