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

[Max_Torque]

@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 see, so we who do not agree with your point of view are ignorant. Gotcha.

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.”

That’s some mighty fine research there, Lou. So, your statement that we supporters of capital punishment are “incredibly ignorant regarding matters of criminal justice” is based on some stuff you’ve heard some dudes say this one time. I think I’m followin’ ya.

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.

A few brief tidbits of information for you to munch upon: first, as I demonstrated in the other thread, the only offense for which one may be sentenced to death is murder, and, although blacks commit more murders than whites, more white murderers than black murderers, percentage-wise, receive death sentences. So, while there is an imbalance in the ethnic makeup of death row denizens versus the population at large, the imbalance results from the races of the murderers themselves, not prejudice in the judicial system.

Second, capital cases are a royal bitch to prosecute. Compared to a more typical felony, such as selling cocaine, the amount of evidence to go over is absolutely staggering. You know those big file boxes, the ones that hold about ten reams of paper? Just the paper evidence in a capital case, the depositions and reports and the like, will frequently fill 5-10 of those boxes, even more if the case is complicated. The amount of labor required on the part of a prosecutor to obtain a death penalty conviction doesn’t justify any perceived glory he’ll obtain therefrom.

Finally, there’s a very simple reason that the death penalty may be sought for a high-profile murder: whether you like it or not, the general public is in favor of the death penalty. When the public votes to give capital murderers ice cream cones, by God, they’ll have ice cream, but right now, the courts have held that execution is not unconstitutional so long as the law is followed, and the people have said they like it that way.

In closing, I find it ironic that you post about how pro-DP persons are “incredibly ignorant regarding matters of criminal justice”, yet you don’t seem to know much about real-world DP prosecutions. I’m guessing that your statements about how DAs have a hankerin’ to kill black folks right before an election are based on your years of prosecutorial experience, right?

I seem to be posting this all the time these days, but here it is again: “It shall be the primary duty of all prosecuting attorneys, including any special prosecutors, not to convict, but to see that justice is done. They shall not suppress facts or secrete witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused.” Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, article 2.01. Some of us take that quite seriously and find it mighty offensive when someone suggests otherwise.

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

All those years of prosecutorial experience and you’ve never heard of a homicide case where DNA was used where there wasn’t a rape? There was a case a few years back in California, I believe the defendant’s name was Simpson? They found some blood in his white Ford Bronco that belonged to his murder victims? Ring a bell? Anyway, he got off, but the point is that DNA comes from more than just semen.

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.

My informed justification is that there are monsters in the world today who have no chance of ever joining civilization and who have committed acts so heinous that they merit a penalty that is worse than any other penalty, in part to ensure that they never kill again, in part to demonstrate to society that we value the lives of innocent citizens so highly that the worst murderers should be themselves killed, and in part because they deserve the ultimate sanction for their actions. A cold-blooded murderer deserves a penalty greater than that given to a third-strike meth dealer.

[Annie-Xmas]

@Max Torque

My informed justification is that there are monsters in the world today who have no chance of ever joining civilization and who have committed acts so heinous that they merit a penalty that is worse than any other penalty, in part to ensure that they never kill again, in part to demonstrate to society that we value the lives of innocent citizens so highly that the worst murderers should be themselves killed, and in part because they deserve the ultimate sanction for their actions. A cold-blooded murderer deserves a penalty greater than that given to a third-strike meth dealer.

What he said sums it up perfectly.

I’ve read a lot about serial killers and I’ve known a lot of cops. I’ve yet to meet a cop who is not in favor of the death penalty. It’s one thing to be against it when you don’t know these monsters. It’s another thing to be for it when you have interviewed hundreds of these people, know how they tock, and realize they will never tick like the rest of us.

Robert Ressler’s book “Whoever Fights Monsters” is a great read on the subject. He had to appear in California court to argue for more than the maximum possible crime for a guy guilty of kidnapping a woman, holding her for three days while raping and torturing her, and draining her blood to drink it! When the defense said “You cannot possibly be an expert on the mental processes of people who drink blood. How many of these people have you even interviewed?” Ressler thought a minute and said “SIX.” The guy got life in prison with no parole.

[Kalhoun]

From The Innocence Project website:

There have been 218 post-conviction DNA exonerations in United States history. These stories are becoming more familiar as more innocent people gain their freedom through postconviction testing. They are not proof, however, that our system is righting itself.

The common themes that run through these cases — from global problems like poverty and racial issues to criminal justice issues like eyewitness misidentification, corrupt scientists, overzealous police and prosecutors and inept defense counsel — cannot be ignored and continue to plague our criminal justice system.

Sixteen people had been sentenced to death before DNA proved their innocence and led to their release.
The average sentence served by DNA exonerees has been 12 years.
About 70 percent of those exonerated by DNA testing are members of minority groups.
In over 35 percent of the cases profiled here, the actual perpetrator has been identified by DNA testing.
Exonerations have been won in 32 states and Washington, D.C.

This is just one organization and they are only commenting on the cases they have actually taken on. There are many more that deserve the same vigorous investigation, but because of time and cost and manpower considerations, innocent people will die.

We are capable of stopping *these * injustices. Certainly trading one injustice for another isn’t the answer.

[BobLibDem]

@Annie-Xmas

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!

I’d rather roll the dice on our ability to keep people in prison than assume that our verdicts are always reliable enough to execute someone.

[whole_bean]

@Max Torque

So, while there is an imbalance in the ethnic makeup of death row denizens versus the population at large, the imbalance results from the races of the murderers themselves, not prejudice in the judicial system.

Really? Huh? What do your cites say? Remember, “racially tinged” doesn’t just mean black/brown killer.

@Max Torque

When the public votes to give capital murderers ice cream cones, by God, they’ll have ice cream.

ice cream. life in prison w/o parole. ice cream. life in prison w/o parole. ice crea . . .cause those are the only two options. [Hey, Max, I’m the middle. Quit excluding me, man.]

@Max Torque

All those years of prosecutorial experience and you’ve never heard of a homicide case where DNA was used where there wasn’t a rape? There was a case a few years back in California, I believe the defendant’s name was Simpson? They found some blood in his white Ford Bronco that belonged to his murder victims? Ring a bell? Anyway, he got off, but the point is that DNA comes from more than just semen.

Wait, show me again how every case involves DNA. That was my statement, remember. I mean you were refuting it (or trying), right? So, instead of attacking a non-exclusive example, show me again how every case involves DNA. I mean, you ARE suggesting I am wrong, right? Every case has DNA? Yeah, I know, you don’t have to. We both know the answer.

@Max Torque

My informed justification is that there are monsters in the world today who have no chance of ever joining civilization and who have committed acts so heinous that they merit a penalty that is worse than any other penalty, in part to ensure that they never kill again, in part to demonstrate to society that we value the lives of innocent citizens so highly that the worst murderers should be themselves killed, and in part because they deserve the ultimate sanction for their actions. A cold-blooded murderer deserves a penalty greater than that given to a third-strike meth dealer.

Why do we kill the innocent though?

To sum up, I said “most” supporters. Given the large support (which you cite) the death penalty has, I think it’s safe to conclude that it’s proponents are not limited to prosecutors, defenders and jurists. In fact, I think it’s safe to conclude that non-prosecutor/defender/jurists comprise the overwhelming majority of death penalty proponents.

[whole_bean]

@Annie-Xmas

What he said sums it up perfectly.

I’ve read a lot about serial killers and I’ve known a lot of cops. I’ve yet to meet a cop who is not in favor of the death penalty. It’s one thing to be against it when you don’t know these monsters. It’s another thing to be for it when you have interviewed hundreds of these people, know how they tock, and realize they will never tick like the rest of us.

Robert Ressler’s book “Whoever Fights Monsters” is a great read on the subject. He had to appear in California court to argue for more than the maximum possible crime for a guy guilty of kidnapping a woman, holding her for three days while raping and torturing her, and draining her blood to drink it! When the defense said “You cannot possibly be an expert on the mental processes of people who drink blood. How many of these people have you even interviewed?” Ressler thought a minute and said “SIX.” The guy got life in prison with no parole.

I am not saying serial killers don’t deserve to die. Death row is not reserved for serial killers. Instead of telling us why bad people should die, try convincing us that it’s ok when innocent people die. It is safe to assume that innocent people have died at the hands of the state. Try addressing their deaths, cause that’ the OP’s question - one that has been successfully avoided by all but those callous enough to take the eggs/omelet approach.

[pravnik]

I don’t think the Scalia thing was in an opinion, I think it was in response to a question at a seminar (he might have reiterated it in an opinion, I don’t know). His response wasn’t exactly that he couldn’t care less, it was more of utilitarian acknowledgement that the death penalty will inevitably lead to the innocent being condemned:

“I think the question, if I got it correctly, was do I think the death penalty is immoral because it will – I have to say it – it will inevitably lead at some point to the condemnation of someone who is innocent. Well, of course it will. I mean, you cannot have any system of human justice that is going to be perfect. And if the death penalty is immoral for that reason, so is life in prison. You think you’re not going to have innocent people put in prison for life?..I don’t think you can judge the validity of any criminal law system on the basis of whether now and then it might make a mistake.”

The whole quote is at the bottom of the page here

[Blaster_Master]

@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.

This is a logical fallacy and, quite frankly, I’m REALLY sick of people using this as an argument against the Death Penalty, because it’s completely nonsensical. Justice isn’t about “undoing” anything, it’s about a having a punishment that fits the crime. Does punishing a rapist undo a rape? Does punishing an arsonist unburn a building? Does punishing an imbezzler undo economic damage to a company? No punishment of any crime undoes anything. Life imprisonment doesn’t bring back the victim any more or less than the Death Penalty, nor any other potential punishment you can dream up. So, really, I don’t even see what the point of this argument is.

[whole_bean]

@pravnik

“I think the question, if I got it correctly, was do I think the death penalty is immoral because it will – I have to say it – **it will inevitably lead at some point to the condemnation of someone who is innocent. ** Well, of course it will. I mean, you cannot have any system of human justice that is going to be perfect. And if the death penalty is immoral for that reason, so is life in prison. You think you’re not going to have innocent people put in prison for life?..I don’t think you can judge the validity of any criminal law system on the basis of whether now and then it might make a mistake.”

And that’s certainly rational. I just find it repugnant. I think that if most DP supporters knew that they had to own this sort of reasoning to rationally support the DP, they might change their minds. Maybe not. Maybe I have to much confidence in, well, I don’t know, respect for the life of the innocent.

[whole_bean]

@Blaster Master

This is a logical fallacy and, quite frankly, I’m REALLY sick of people using this as an argument against the Death Penalty, because it’s completely nonsensical. Justice isn’t about “undoing” anything, it’s about a having a punishment that fits the crime. Does punishing a rapist undo a rape? Does punishing an arsonist unburn a building? Does punishing an imbezzler undo economic damage to a company? No punishment of any crime undoes anything. Life imprisonment doesn’t bring back the victim any more or less than the Death Penalty, nor any other potential punishment you can dream up. So, really, I don’t even see what the point of this argument is.

Read it in context. It was offered in response to your statement that

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.

Why compare the two? The executed innocent is just as much “an individual with a face, and a name, and a family that will miss them.” Where an innocent is executed, what does the DP do for the “family that misses” the victim of either injustice? Nothing.

[Max_Torque]

@whole bean

Really? Huh? What do your cites say? Remember, “racially tinged” doesn’t just mean black/brown killer.

I’m pressed for time, so I’ll tackle the rest of your post tomorrow. In short, blacks accounted for 52.2% of murderers, compared to 48.5% for whites, according to DOJ statistics. Since 1976, according to another page at deathpenaltyinfo, 34% were black, and 57% were white. In short, a larger percentage of murderers are black, but a larger percentage of executed persons are white. Regarding the race of victims, as I explained in the other thread (and I’m getting tired of retyping stuff I argued just one month ago, so I’ll just quote myself:

@Max Torque

An interesting question that has some peculiar nuances. Indeed, it does appear from the statistics that the death penalty is more likely to be sought in cases where the murder victim is white. As we discussed earlier, blacks commit more than 50% of all murders. Also, most murders are not interracial; “from 1976 to 2005, 86% of white victims were killed by whites, and 94% of black victims were killed by blacks” (BJS cite). Most interracial killings are “stranger homicides”, meaning that the victims didn’t know each other; in stranger homicides, blacks killed white victims about 17.5-21% of the time, while whites killed black victims 3.6-6.6% of the time. For acquaintance homicides, blacks kill white victims about 3.8-6.6% of the time, and whites kill black victims about 1.5-3.4% of the time (cite for all this). At least a part of the disparity may be because juries are more likely to assess the death penalty in a stranger homicide case than in an acquaintance homicide case, and whites are the victims in over 60% of stranger homicides. But, that’s a guess, I’m not sure if that’s ever been studied.

And now I’ll have to get going. See y’all tomorrow.

[whole_bean]

@Max Torque

I’m pressed for time, so I’ll tackle the rest of your post tomorrow. In short, blacks accounted for 52.2% of murderers, compared to 48.5% for whites, according to DOJ statistics. Since 1976, according to another page at deathpenaltyinfo, 34% were black, and 57% were white. In short, a larger percentage of murderers are black, but a larger percentage of executed persons are white. Regarding the race of victims, as I explained in the other thread (and I’m getting tired of retyping stuff I argued just one month ago, so I’ll just quote myself:

And now I’ll have to get going. See y’all tomorrow.

I could not find a distinction between capital and non capital homicide on your DOJ cite. If there is not one, then the stat is not relevent. The percentage of white and black capital homicides would be more relevant (though not without flaw, seeing as how charging is subject to prosecutorial discretion).

I honestly don’t think we disagree about any of the evidence here. You think it’s ok that a few eggs might get broken. I don’t. I think a lot of people who agree with you are not completely aware of how likely it is that a few eggs *have gotten and will get * broken and that if they did know, they might change their minds. If could be sure that every man and woman on death row was guilty of the crime for which they were charged, I think I would want to hang em high. If someone killed or hurt my wife (hell even my dogs), my initial reaction would be to want their life. I’d like to think I could temper that emotion. I don’t know if I could, but that’s not the debate. The debate is “is it ok to kill innocents?” I say no. You say yes.

[ArizonaTeach]

@tim314

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

No, I’m making the factual statement that it has never been proven that an innocent person has been put to death. I am quite willing to believe it has happened, but the fact is that more people have definitely been killed by people who were formally on death row and for whatever reason were removed from it than people who have definitely been executed while innocent.

Regardless, the only point I was making was that I think it’s reasonable to state that DP advocates care as much for the alleged innocents that have been put to death as DP opponents care about the people who have been killed. Which is to say, quite a bit (I presume), but they feel there are larger issues involved that are more important to either having or banning the DP.

All this other stuff is hijacking the OP, and if nobody wants to debate the question that’s there at the top of the page, I’ll bow out now.

[whole_bean]

@ArizonaTeach

No, I’m making the factual statement that it has never been proven that an innocent person has been put to death. I am quite willing to believe it has happened, but the fact is that more people have definitely been killed by people who were formally on death row and for whatever reason were removed from it than people who have definitely been executed while innocent.

Regardless, the only point I was making was that I think it’s reasonable to state that DP advocates care as much for the alleged innocents that have been put to death as DP opponents care about the people who have been killed. Which is to say, quite a bit (I presume), but they feel there are larger issues involved that are more important to either having or banning the DP.

All this other stuff is hijacking the OP, and if nobody wants to debate the question that’s there at the top of the page, I’ll bow out now.

See though, on the one hand, a murderer is killing someone innocent. On the other, the state (and by extension through acquiescence and endorsement YOU) are killing an innocent person.

[whole_bean]

@Max Torque

I’m pressed for time, so I’ll tackle the rest of your post tomorrow. In short, blacks accounted for 52.2% of murderers, compared to 48.5% for whites, according to DOJ statistics. Since 1976, according to another page at deathpenaltyinfo, 34% were black, and 57% were white. In short, a larger percentage of murderers are black, but a larger percentage of executed persons are white. Regarding the race of victims, as I explained in the other thread (and I’m getting tired of retyping stuff I argued just one month ago, so I’ll just quote myself:

And now I’ll have to get going. See y’all tomorrow.

going back to my original statement, the one that provoked your prosecutorial chest thump, care to refute my characterization of the following statements as naive?

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

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

re the second, relatively, they are rare, w/ or w/o DNA; DNA does not eliminate the possibility of a false convition where DNA is not part of the evidence.
I simply said most DP supporters are ignorant of the workings of the CJS. Do you disagree with that assesment?

[ArizonaTeach]

@whole bean

See though, on the one hand, a murderer is killing someone innocent. On the other, the state (and by extension through acquiescence and endorsement YOU) are killing an innocent person.

I’m assuming that means that you don’t see a difference between them? Because I do.

[whole_bean]

@ArizonaTeach

I’m assuming that means that you don’t see a difference between them? Because I do.

it does. and the difference is? because the result in either case is a dead innocent. hey, if you’re cool with that fine.

[Kalhoun]

@Blaster Master

This is a logical fallacy and, quite frankly, I’m REALLY sick of people using this as an argument against the Death Penalty, because it’s completely nonsensical. Justice isn’t about “undoing” anything, it’s about a having a punishment that fits the crime. Does punishing a rapist undo a rape? Does punishing an arsonist unburn a building? Does punishing an imbezzler undo economic damage to a company? No punishment of any crime undoes anything. Life imprisonment doesn’t bring back the victim any more or less than the Death Penalty, nor any other potential punishment you can dream up. So, really, I don’t even see what the point of this argument is.

You’re assuming the accused is guilty. I am assuming that the system is too flawed for us to ever be certain that justice was served. I also think the idea of a death penalty feeds, rather than cures, the ills of our society.

[UltraVires]

What about Scalia’s point? Will some of you death penalty opponents not concede that even if we abolish the death penalty, there will be some innocent people sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, and their innocence will never be found?

If that is the case, then is not this punishment something which needs to be abolished?

ETA…Other “civilized” countries don’t have Life w/no parole either…

[Der_Trihs]

@jtgain

What about Scalia’s point? Will some of you death penalty opponents not concede that even if we abolish the death penalty, there will be some innocent people sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, and their innocence will never be found?

If that is the case, then is not this punishment something which needs to be abolished?

Prison is necessary, at least for some people, executions are not. And, there is always the HOPE that they will be found innocent as long as they are alive. There’s the difference.

Or to be strictly accurate, prison is the best of a collection of bad alternatives.