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

[Blaster_Master]

I’m probably the most staunch supporter of the Death Penalty you’ll run into. I won’t go into my reasons in depth, because I don’t think they’re particularly relevant, I’ve already discussed them at length in other threads recently, and they’re difficult to explain because it’s an unusual and very convoluted stance. However, to break it down to it’s most basic element, I support the Death Penalty precisely because of how much I value life and justice rather than, as some might say of Death Penalty supporters, because of a lack of it.

Do I care when innocent people are executed? Absolutely. Hell, I care when guilty as sin people are executed. But it is, unfortunately, a necessary evil. Justice is a perfect ideal, but humanity, as we currently stand, just aren’t able to achieve a perfect implementation of it yet. So the real question isn’t whether I care, but whether I think our system, as flawed as it may be, is important enough to make it worth such a great cost. And my answer is, sadly, yes.

But there’s plenty of things in our society that cost people their lives that we don’t think twice about. Sure, many people look at a war, like the ones in Iraq or in Vietnam, as a waste of human lives, but how many people would say WW2 wasn’t worth the cost? Would people feel different about the wars in Iraq and Vietnam if the costs in lives were significantly lower? What if the cost in lives for WW2 were much higher?

Here’s the thing. If we could 100% guarantee that everyone who got the death penalty was guilty, I’m sure a lot of people who oppose it might change their minds. Similarly, if we were finding that a significant percentage of people who are being executed are later found to be innocent, I’m sure a lot of people who support it would also change their minds. There’s a threshold in there that’s different for different people.

For me, I value human life above all other things, but when you start talking about things that effect many people, particularly a society as large as the one we live in, sometimes the summation of some ideals, millions of times, exceeds the value of a human life, or even many of them. I believe justice is one of those things and, though I am saddened even for those who are guilty.

As bad as the movie is, I think there’s an apt discussion in Swordfish that covers this sort of thought.

You have the power to cure all the world’s diseases but the price for this is that you must kill a single innocent child, could you kill that child Stanley?

Sure, it’s the logical extreme, but that’s the point. Sure, we’re probably talking about something that’s not as much the greater good as curing all the world’s diseases, and we’re probably talking about more lives than a single innocent. It’s just plain hard to compare the lives of an individual with a face, and a name, and a family that will miss them against the needs of the faceless, nameless world, but I think it’s a sacrifice we have to make, even if it is horrid.

[whole_bean]

It’s hard to communicate this without it coming across as condescending, but here goes:

I find that most genuinely decent people who support the death penalty (not the concept of death as a punishment but the “death penalty” as implemented and applied) are incredibly ignorant regarding matters of criminal justice.

I have arrived at this conclusion after hearing plenty of smart, well meaning people say things like:

“well, if we’re sure they did it”; and

“false convictions have got to be rare with DNA evidence.”

Both of the statements are so naive as to approach ridiculous.

To begin with, the decision to seek the death penalty, like any prosecutorial decision, rests with the prosecutor. The prosecutor does not always go to the cases where he knows the guy did it. He often goes to high profile (often racially tinged) cases, often near election time, and these cases are often decided on conflicting testimony. “So are many more criminal matters,” you might say. True, but none with so permanent and irreversible an outcome. Criminal punishment of any kind, including the death penalty, is not and has never been restricted to cases were we were 100% sure the guy did it. To do so would be very difficult in a few cases, impossible in most.

Furthermore, DNA evidence doesn’t make an appearance in every death penalty case – if there’s a rape, sure probably, but otherwise, not so.

I just don’t see any possible informed justification for the “death penalty” as it is meted out today. Those folks who say that they are comfortable with a few mistakes (eggs and omelets, and such) have not arrived at any approaching just, IMHO.

[gonzomax]

@Annie-Xmas

Killing innocent people is wrong. Killing people guilty of killing innocent people is sometimes right and justified.

Says who.? Most civilized countries think it is wrong.

[whole_bean]

@Blaster Master

It’s just plain hard to compare the lives of an individual with a face, and a name, and a family that will miss them against the needs of the faceless, nameless world, but I think it’s a sacrifice we have to make, even if it is horrid.

Good thing that individual, with his face and name, reappears and returns to his family upon the execution of someone who we’re rpetty sure killed him? sound. very sound.

[Kalhoun]

@buttonjockey308

Every penalty imposed by the state has, at one time, been misapplied. Granted, none so permanent as the DP, but if you stop applying the DP to the cases where it is applicable, you remove the incentive of those who do not commit a crime simply based on the potential punishment. No one can know how many people that is, but even if it is, let’s say, less than 1% of people who WOULD commit a DP-eligable crime, but would rather not die at the hands of the state, that saves, by SWAG numbers alone more people than have potentially been wrongly executed.

The death penalty serves as a deterrent to some and a punishment to others. Though the studies mentioned by Kinthalis (which were apparently uncite-able or at least unpublished for cite) seem to say otherwise, we can truly never know about the crimes that aren’t committed. I suppose that’s bordering on false logic, but considering the variables in any dataset, it would almost HAVE to be true. The DP exists as a last possible recourse for justice based, somewhat ironically on the barbarity of the crime in question. You can wring your hands and stomp your feet and look down your noses at pro DP folks as barbaric and being filled with little more than vengeful bloodlust, but that’s not the case most of the time. Some people are hateful about it, but those of us who think *and * agree with the DP understand that sometimes, horrible things happen in the name of justice. Just as sometimes, horrible things happen in the name of freedom. Though I wish this were not the case, it is.

I am gravely concerned for the lives of the innocent. Still, one very rarely, at least from a statistical viewpoint, goes from honor roll student who delivers meals on wheels on the weekends to coked-up murdering, raping scumbag in one incident. Meaning, the definition of “innocent” can be subjective, while being “innocent of the crime” is a definate, objective thing. Some people fit one description, some fit neither, but when it comes down to it, in today’s day and age, using today’s technology, administering the DP is as close to perfect as it can get, for now. The best thing about the arguement is that it causes the argument. Dialog on something so very important to our own humanity has caused procedural overhauls and corrections, transparency on several levels of record keeping and most importantly, public oversight.

With all that said, some people simply need to die. The most famous serial killers (Gacy, Bundy, Speck, Dahmer) and the more recently famous Death Row residents (Pvt. Ronald A. Gray, Richard Cooey) all have one very important thing in common. They were admittedly guilty. Gacy copped, Dahmer did too, Speck the same. Cooey just doesn’t want to die, he’s not very loudly proclaiming his innocence. People like this do not deserve freedom or life in prison, but a rapid exit from this world and I for one sleep soundly in the knowledge that, although not all were done in by the needle, that only Cooey remains and hopefully not for much longer.

Oh, and we don’t DO the penal system thing anymore, we do a correctional system thing. Prison isn’t the punishment it should be.

However, the “system” isn’t interested in justice. If they were, they would order DNA testing on all capital cases, they’d automatically test and re-test samples from crimes where guys are on death row or are serving life sentences. All the things the Innocence Project is doing SHOULD be done as a matter of course in a just system. I have a hard time believing that it is anything but revenge or bloodlust.

Regarding “some people need to die”… if you don’t know they’re the right people, the statement sort of loses its punch.

[Magiver]

@Czarcasm

Ah, yes. The false dilemma of “kill them or set them free to kill again.” What’s wrong with keeping them in prison for life?

As has been pointed out it doesn’t prevent them from killing guards or other inmates.

I would like to see the standard of proof raised to a higher standard. When you have a case like Mumia Abu-Jamal where the suspect is caught at the scene of the crime and was never out of eyesight of multiple witnesses, then the death penalty should be applied.

[whole_bean]

@Mr. Moto

Just for grins, let’s just post something from a Scalia opinion. This is fun to do because the man writes with considerable clarity, and you do know at all times what his opinions are.

Callins v. James, sometimes noted as Callins v. Collins:

It is a persuasive argument - indeed, I think most Americans would nod their heads at that.

Thoughts?

I don’t disagree with him and I oppose the death penalty. I think he’s correct when he says that the concept of punishment by pain of death is not unconstitutional - i.e. it’s not cruel and unusual. In comparison to the crimes comitted, it is humane and ordinary. Still, I think that the rubber fails to satisfactorily meet the road. It’s a fine idea but it is a bad, bad system.

[Annie-Xmas]

@whole bean

Good thing that individual, with his face and name, reappears and returns to his family upon the execution of someone who we’re rpetty sure killed him? sound. very sound.

And that individual, with his (or her) face and name, reappears and returns to his (or her) family upon the life imprisonment of someone who we’re pretty sure killed him (or her)? sound, very sound :rolleyes:

[tim314]

@Mr. Moto

It is a persuasive argument - indeed, I think most Americans would nod their heads at that.

My thought is that saying the actions of our government are “better than the actions of brutal murderers” isn’t much of a defense.

In fairness, this is only one of Scalia’s (by my count) three basic arguments:

(1) The death penalty isn’t nearly as brutal as the crimes these murderers are guilty of.

Reply: Yes, but so what? That would only be a convincing argument if I believed in eye-for-an-eye justice. That is, if I thought it was always just to make a criminal suffer as their victim suffered, then doing anything less despicable than what he did is lenient. But I don’t believe that. Just because someone does a horrible thing, it doesn’t mean it’s OK to do a horrible thing to them.

(2) The death penalty could prevent such horrific crimes by acting as a deterrent to future criminals, so the fact that executing someone is less horrific than the crime that would otherwise be committed means it’s a net gain for society.

Reply: If we knew with certainty (or even near-certainty) that executing someone would prevent a horrific crime, this would be a decent argument. For instance, if a knife wielding maniac is charging at an innocent bystander, I have no problem with the police gunning the maniac down. But the connection between an execution and crime prevention by means of deterrence is far more tenuous. I’m not at all convinced that the death penalty is an effective deterrent. Moreover, by this argument you’re killing someone to discourage someone else from committing a crime, which is morally a lot more suspect than killing someone to stop their own criminal act.

(3) The arguments against the death penalty aren’t supported by the Constitution or other relevant law.

Reply: I’ll leave this one to the lawyers. It’s relevant to Scalia in deciding what the law says, but it’s totally irrelevant to the question of what the law should say. I’m saying I don’t think we should execute people, not that I’m necessarily convinced that the law as it currently stands should be read as forbidding executions.

[whole_bean]

once more, with a little emphasis:

DNA evidence doesn’t make an appearance in every death penalty case (i.e. there isn’t any to prove guilt or exonerate - it’s simply not part of the trial)

[whole_bean]

@Annie-Xmas

And that individual, with his (or her) face and name, reappears and returns to his (or her) family upon the life imprisonment of someone who we’re pretty sure killed him (or her)? sound, very sound :rolleyes:

you can’t possibly be serious?

[Der_Trihs]

As far as I can tell, the majority of DP advocates don’t care about the innocence of the people executed, they just want to kill someone. And in general, most Americans don’t care if innocent people in general are convicted and punished; the main motivation is sadism, not a desire for justice. Most Americans have a sublime conviction that it won’t happen to them anyway, and they don’t can what happens to others if they can get their kicks. That’s why Bush got voted in again AFTER the revelations of torture.

@ArizonaTeach

Interestingly, while evidence of criminals released from death row murdering someone else exists, no such evidence of an innocent person actually executed does (not to say it hasn’t happened, but no such evidence exists), so it seems to me you have a much more difficult moral dilemma.

And how much effort is put towards exonerating the innocent dead, when there are living people to save ? The people trying to prove that convicts are innocent have very limited resources. They are a minority of the minority that actually care.

[tim314]

@Arizona Teach

Interestingly, while evidence of criminals released from death row murdering someone else exists, no such evidence of an innocent person actually executed does (not to say it hasn’t happened, but no such evidence exists)

You may not be saying it hasn’t happened, but you’re implying that it’s reasonable to consider the possibility. It isn’t.

We know that not everyone who’s been sentenced to death was guilty, because some have later been exonerated by DNA evidence. If nevertheless you want to postulate that no innocent person has ever been executed, you have to assume that every person who was wrongfully sentenced to death was later cleared by DNA or some other new evidence (or that the conviction was overturned for some other reason, like police misconduct). But we know that DNA testing was not used in every case, and in some cases there was no DNA to test. So are you saying 100% of the cases where someone was wrongly convicted and sentenced to death just happened to be ones where there was DNA or some other new evidence that became available later? What possible basis for that assumption could there be?

In other words, you’d basically be postulating that the justice system is more prone to make mistakes in cases where new technology will come along later and allow it to correct those mistakes than it is in other cases. That’s a preposterous claim.

Innocent people have been executed in America. Obviously.

[Bricker]

@Mr. Moto

Just for grins, let’s just post something from a Scalia opinion. This is fun to do because the man writes with considerable clarity, and you do know at all times what his opinions are.

Callins v. James, sometimes noted as Callins v. Collins:

It is a persuasive argument - indeed, I think most Americans would nod their heads at that.

Thoughts?

I agree with Nino that the death penalty is not unconstitutional – we should not look to the Supreme Court to forbid a penalty which is explicitly contemplated by the Constitution.

But we are discussing (I thought) the question of whether it’s wise for our society to impose such a penalty. Justice Scalia does not address this question – nor should he. As a judge, his job is to decide the application of the existing law to the facts. The question of the wisdom of the law is left to the legislators.

[Bricker]

@Spiff

To the OP:

In fact, Justice Scalia wrote an opinion on a SCOTUS death penalty case about 10 years ago. The legal eagles on this board could probably find it (or so could anyone with more time than I have at this moment).

Anyway, the gist of what Scalia said was that he couldn’t care less if an innocent person were executed, becuase God would ensure that the dead person’s soul would be bathed in His Eternal Glory for all time.

Scariest. SCOTUS. Opinion. Ever.

Yeah, I’m gonna need a cite for that claim.

[Kalhoun]

@Mr. Moto

I think it is the same, since you have to “sell” various criminal justice systems to legislators, executives and the voting public. And failing to account for potential costs in your chosen policy might open you up to devastating attack from the other side.

Therefore, pro-DP supporters would have to account for the fact that this costs them support in extradition cases, and anti-DP advocates have to fight notions that they are soft on crime in general. That’s just politics.

You’re claiming a good reason for wanting to set your policy as you wish - but you fail to account for the fact it may likely mean more criminals on the street. If you want to claim that this problem is offset by the greater justice of letting innocents free, fine - but you have made no such argument here.

I think it’s wrong to throw innocent people under the bus so that most of the bad guys get the needle. I do not think that innocent people should be sacrificed. The fact that we have so many people on death row who AREN’T being re-tried with the benefit of DNA evidence that wasn’t available, or that may change the outcome due to better testing today, is even more unsettling. I think more criminals on the street is the price we have to pay in order to avoid taking the life of someone who didn’t do the crime.

No system we advocate will be perfect - we ought to accept that right now. So in our discussons we are discussing various degrees of permitting the innocent to be punished or the guilty to go free. These are unsatisfactory choices to normal people, and the mind rebells at making them - but we have to make them to arrive at a system remotely workable.

We don’t have to make THIS decision. Not using the death penalty doesn’t mean guilty men go free. It means we don’t kill them.

[Kalhoun]

@ArizonaTeach

I’m confused as to what your “How so?” is refering to. To my statement that opponents to the DP have a moral dilemma if someone who should have been executed wasn’t and then murders someone? How exactly is that a situation open to correction?

I’m not against the death penalty solely because of the mistakes that have been made. I’m against the whole concept of killing someone for killing someone.

I didn’t say that falsely convicted people have gone to commit murder, although you can certainly extrapolate that. I said that criminals released from death row could (and I was referring to in-jail crimes, but I freely concede I was nowhere near clear on that point).

If another person is murdered because the murder didn’t get the needle, it’s another example of an imperfect world. Would it matter to you if the person he killed was a fellow inmate (also guilty of murder)? I guess my opinion is that if killing people is wrong, then it’s wrong.

[Kalhoun]

@Annie-Xmas

Killing innocent people is wrong. Killing people guilty of killing innocent people is sometimes right and justified.

If this is true, then the death penalty should never be an option. It is rare that the evidence against a person in a murder case is indisputable.

[Kalhoun]

@Max Torque

Didn’t we just do this?

Ugh. I’m not typing it all over again. Yes, I’m in favor of the death penalty. Yes, I care if we execute innocent people. Yes, I believe we should try like hell not to. No, I don’t believe we should halt all executions on the minute chance that maybe possibly just in case there’s a remote possibility that a factually innocent person might perhaps be executed.

Problem is, the numbers aren’t all that minute. Defense lawyers aren’t always as vigorous as they should be. Eye witnesses aren’t always seeing 20/20. And the person whose ass is on the line doesn’t happen to be you…at least not at the moment.

[Annie-Xmas]

@whole bean

you can’t possibly be serious?

And you were?

Nothing will bring a dead person back. But serial killers only stop killing when they are imprisoned or dead. The ones that have escaped prison have killed again. When Bundy escaped prison and went to Florida, he could have lived the rest of his life in obscurity. What did he do? GO ON A KILLING RAMPAGE! When did he stop? WHEN HE WAS EXECUTED!