Also, I’d like to see a statistic on how many instances of “escaped convict gone wild” we have, vs. the number of innocent men behind bars (speaking strictly of the proven cases).
I’d like to see a statistic of “innocent people executed by the state” vs. “innocent people executed by imprisoned/escaped/paroled person.” I have a hunch the latter catagory will be much higher.
Weirddave, you and I are on the same page as far as I can tell, yet I feel I need to clarify something from your post for the benefit of everyone participating in this discussion. It’s about this:
A lot of folks seem to think that this is the way things play out, that capital felony defense attorneys are inexperienced neophytes and that therefore capital felons don’t get a fair shake. I’ll quote my state’s law again, this time from the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, article 26.052, in relevant part:
So, someone fresh out of law school isn’t going to be appointed to defend a capital murderer, and if that’s all that the defendant can afford, he’d likely qualify as indigent and thus be given experienced appointed counsel.
Sorry for the multi-posts (I’m multi-tasking).
I just wanted to address the “100% certainty” factor. Can that level of perfection be reached today? In my opinion, the answer is no. Eye witness testimony is frequently used in capital cases and has an extremely high rate of error. DNA testing isn’t used as it should be. Incompetence in the legal profession is a known problem. In the current state of the system, how can you know you’re 100% sure you’ve done it right?
I have a feeling the results will be the exact opposite. However, as others have said, the state is probably not going to go back through the archives to research their mistakes. After all…dead defendants and unusable DNA samples will make things difficult.
But even if the numbers on your side of the scales were true, it doesn’t excuse the fact that innocent people are getting the needle (or life behind bars) or that the system isn’t doing everything it can to correct mistakes.
But there’s always this:
http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Bad-Lawyering.php
So the safeguards that are in place are not enough to protect people from bad lawyering. It may be a necessary evil in lower cases, but when someone’s life is on the line, we should be guaranteed the absolute best defense available. Since that is not possible, they should take the death penalty off the table. As long as human error is part of the equation, I don’t see how it can be fair or just.
The only person really entitled to answer that is a member of her family or loved one who has been harmed by the crime. But, they are the people least likely to come up with a reasoned, rational response, which is why we have courts of law for these crimes. The instinctive reaction of anyone who is a victim of such an action, is revenge, but the state denies this to the individual, so why should it be entitled to do it itself?
Yes, we are. In fact, several posts have been devoted to that topic, and rightfully so.
If we’re going to discuss the ramifications of abolishing the death penalty, then why shouldn’t we consider that possibility?
Which does not preclude discussing situations wherein guilty people manage to escape prison or otherwise reenter society.
By the same reasoning then, we should ignore questions like “What if it was your husband or child who was wrongfully sentenced to death?” The loved ones of that innocent victim are also the ones who are least likely to address that situation in a well-reasoned, rational manner. That’s why these decisions are left to the legislature and the courts of law.
Again, note that I’m not arguing for or against the death penalty. What I’m saying is that people should treat both sides of this issue in an equitable manner. You can’t implore people to consider how they’d feel about a loved one being wrongfully convicted, while simultaneously asking them to set their feelings aside when it comes to loved ones being murdered or tortured by escapees or parolees.
I was referring to the topic of the thread, not the obvious flip side of abolishing the death penalty. The point I’m making is that if supporters truly cared, they would not continue to allow the death penalty to be used while knowing full well that in a system fraught with huge gaps (many of which could be remedied if people wanted to fix it), it means innocents will be put to death.
It wasn’t too long ago that, once the killer of your family member was convicted, you still had no right to speak before they were sentenced. The state spoke for the law and the killer’s family could speak at the sentencing, but nobody was allowed to speak for the victim. It might prejudice the sentencing.
Getting rid of that notion is a pure case of justice for the victim being served.
Having served on a jury, I would have to say the most irritating part was having the family speak. It served no purpose but as a crass emotional appeal. (It wasn’t a criminal trial)
I would personally rather not hear from either family at the sentencing.
**Annie X-mas ** you keep bringing up Bundy as if he were an example of the sort of mayhem we could expect if the DP were abolished. His case is not a good example. It’s a bad example. An awful example. Bundy escaped while awaiting trial in a state that had the DP. He escaped because law enforcement didn’t do its job well, not because there was not a DP to see him punished sufficiently. The DP could have done nothing, NOTHING, to prevent his escape. His case does nothing for your argument.
Also, you act as if there is no other mechanism out there to prevent escapees from killing again. There is. The people who are trying to catch them and put them back in prison. The people who generally try to see to it that crimes aren’t committed. On the other hand, to date, there is NO method to revive the innocently executed. I really don’t think you’ve thought this through. Stop focusing on the Bundys (whose final spree the DP couldn’t have stopped) or the other folks out there who do heinous things and deserve to be removed from society and focus on the fact that an innocent person is going to be executed.
Max, I haven’t seen you comment substantively on the proposals the DP supporters here have offered to tighten up the system. Is it because you know as well as I how unrealistic they are?
At least he’s one real life example of someone escaping from prison and killing again. Your innocent executed man is still entirely hypothetical (although I do concede that statistically it must have happened. That’s not proof though. Bundy is)
Again, so? If one innocent man is executed for every 1000 guilty ones, and there is even one Bundy type amongst those 1000 who would have escaped and killed multiple times again if not executed, then society is better off with a 99% effective DP than without it.
gimme a break dude,
That’s a relief. At least known they actually get a, uh, LAWYER!
Yeah, this is tested how?
Again, what a relief, not only do you get a lawyer; you get one who hasn’t been caught falling asleep during a trial (yet)
Five whole years. So your lawyers probably also going to be at least 30. 29 if they can count their law school DUI clinic. Feeling better already.
Tried to verdict but nothing about winning (just not falling asleep)
Experience, huh. Kinda like if you have experience in getting the crap kicked out you by bullies you’re qualified to be an ultimate fighter.
he he he, heh heh heh, whoooo . . . this is too funny
Look there are plenty of brilliant dedicated defense lawyers out there. This statute hardly assures indigents that such folks will represent them and it’s hardly the blue print for the legal dream team Weirddave had in mind.
I am sure if your neck was on the block for a crime you didn’t commit, you would want someone who just met these standards
The example is relevant in a “do criminals escape while awaiting trial” GQ thread. It is irrelevant to a DP debate. There was a DP in Colorado when he escaped. It did nothing to stop his escape because he wasn’t convicted yet. He hadn’t even been tried. Unless someone is advocating a shoot 'em on sight approach, it’s just not relevant. Seriously, this shouldn’t need to be explained.
You’re missing the point. The point is that you’re proposing life in prison to replace the DP, and these people will have years and years of life where one small mistake in security gives them to opportunity to escape and possible murder again, or to take the life of a prison guard or worker or another inmate. You say “Life without parole” like it’s a guarantee that the person will never hurt or kill anyone again, and it’s not, it just isn’t. The DP is. Just like the DP can never be perfectly applied by human beings, so too is there no perfect system of incarceration that guarantees that the criminal will never be able to hurt or kill anyone again. Keeping them alive substantially increases those chances, execution eliminates them.
Right…but you still haven’t come up with a foolproof way to determine if someone absolutely, positively did the crime. So…who are you really eliminating???
I haven’t missed the point. I have never argued that people don’t escape from prison; it happens. Not grounds to off the innocent.
You’re not reading all of this, are you? I never claimed to have a foolproof method, I conceded that ANY method used by humans wasn’t going to be perfect, and that no matter how stringent the methods we use are, occasionally an innocent person is going to be executed. And I’m OK with that. Looking for perfection in human endeavors is a fool’s game. STRIVING for perfection is not, of course we should do that, but achieving it is impossible.