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

Great Debates
161

I am against the Death Penalty but not on moral grounds.

I am ONLY against the death penalty because innocent people have been executed in the past.
If fear of the death penalty prevents one arsehole from murdering someone then its worthwhile.

If being dead stops one murderer getting parole(I seem to recall a convicted murderer,I think in the New York area being,released from prison as a result of famous people being ecstactic about a book he wrote in gaol who on release shortly murdered another person,then its OK by me.

Much as I worry daily about the human rights of people who because their parents didn’t show them enough love when they were young or forgive them when they accidently murdered an old age pensioner who lived nearby when all they were doing was a burgulary but the the old person who lived there cocked it all up by challenging them,I still think that its not a bad idea to put them "to sleep"just like vetenarians do to rabid dogs.

162

[QUOTE=Lust4Life]

If being dead stops one murderer getting parole(I seem to recall a convicted murderer,I think in the New York area being,released from prison as a result of famous people being ecstactic about a book he wrote in gaol who on release shortly murdered another person,then its OK by me.

[/QUOTE]

Jack Abbott definitely one of the better arguments for the Death Penalty.

. You go to prison, kill an inmate, get released, kill an innocent person, and you want an apology for the way you have been mistreated? The best thing you ever did for society was hang yourself!

163

[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]

Well, apples and oranges. of course - no one intends that innocent people die in either case. We, as a society, have decided that the unavoidable deaths are worth it in both cases. And we certainly make far more of an effort to avoid executing the innocent than we do to prevent traffic deaths - compare the decades of appeals of every conceivable point vs. the ease with which the average sixteen year old can get a driver’s license.

Regards,
Shodan

164

[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]
The purpose of the death penalty is to kill guilty people. It’s the death of innocent people that would be the possible by-product.

Remember, this thread, as it was originally conceived by the OP (see the thread title), is not about whether or not it’s appropriate to put guilty people to death, but about the possibility of executing the innocent as an argument against the death penalty.

165

[QUOTE=Annie-Xmas]
Our only two fair choices are to only lock up people who are 100% absolutely totally guilty or lock up nobody. Very few cases are found guilty without a shadow of a doubt.

Since we cannot give an innocent person the years spent in prison back, we should lock up nobody who is not 100% percent guilty.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think you really believe that, though. Nobody on any side of the death penalty issue seriously advocates that we abolish prisons. There’s no modern country in the world without a criminal justice system and a prison system. It’s an inescapable necessity, and despite our very best efforts it’s also inescapable that the factually innocent will sometimes get convicted. Nobody advocates that we get rid of prisons, though, because we can’t. It’s just not possible without a complete descent into chaos and anarchy. The argument seems to be that because we have to accept the possibility of wrongful imprisonment, then we also have to accept the possibilty of wrongful executions. That doesn’t necessarily follow.

No cases are found guilty without a shadow of a doubt, because that’s not the legal standard. 100% of defendants sent to death row are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, including those that are later exonerated. Prosecutors and juries were morally certain that the defendant committed the crime to such a degree that they were willing to send them to die, and were wrong hundreds of times. When presented with evidence of innocence after the execution, prosecutors and jurors are often horrified.

166

[QUOTE=Max Torque]
Dude, these are minimum standards. If the individual judicial districts want rules that are more stringent, they’re entitled and empowered to enact them, and many have. I’m simply pointing out that, contrary to what you see on TV or in movies, defense attorneys for capital felonies simply won’t be “baby lawyers” fresh out of law school, since it’s a misconception that many people, including yourself apparently, have.

Lemme tell you how it works: in order to be placed on the appointment list for capital felonies, an attorney who meets the minimum qualifications of that district must apply to the court for that district. The application is usually hefty, around 7-15 pages the last time I filled one out (and that wasn’t even for capital felonies), requiring a substantial amount of detail about your past trial experience, including grade of offense, trial date and length, first or second chair, bench trial or jury trial, verdict, and sentence. The application must be approved by the senior judge for that district. And then, the attorney is placed on the appointment list. That means that there is judicial oversight of the process before a lawyer is even placed on the list.

The practical problem is that there is a fine line to be walked. Many, dare I say most, capital felons are poor. There is a substantial public interest that they be properly defended by experienced counsel, so the minimum standards for their attorneys must be set high. But, because the very best criminal defense lawyers know they won’t make much money defending an indigent defendant, they tend not to ask to be placed on the appointment lists, so the standards can’t be set too high, or there will be no attorneys at all to defend indigent capital murderers. You can’t force Johnny Cochrane to represent capital defendants unless he has asked to be on the list.
[/QUOTE]

This is rich. I came in here originally to state that it is my belief that many, if not most, DP supporters are unfamiliar with the CJS and how uneven the playing field can be – that if they were more familiar they might not support the DP. I base this on the observation that many DP supporters seem (as they have in this thread) to view the execution of an innocent as a hypothetical or ignore it altogether and instead focus on the heinousness of some crimes (this is obviously irrelevant if the guy being offed didn’t commit the crime, but whatever). You enter the fray beating your chest about your trial experience – you know the CJS, you support the DP, I must be wrong . False, you’re in the minority of DP supporters who know the system. Apparently, you simply think that it’s worth someone else’s sacrifice. DP supporters are falling into two camps, the omelet/egg camp and the head-in-sand camp. That is because these are the only two positions. Either you acknowledge the fatal flaw and support the system despite it or you remain cognitively dissonant.

In an effort to dispel the notion that PDs on capital murder cases are baby lawyers, you post qualifications which in no way weed out baby lawyers. A fifth year lawyer is still getting his sea legs. Now, that is not to say that where you practice, the defense bar overfloweth with Matlock, but your response to Weirddave does not disprove his notion. That doesn’t mean he’s right, but you just didn’t come back with very strong support.

Finally, to answer your question:

[QUOTE=Max Torque]
is there any point in debating this issue with you any further, or will all of your replies be of the form, “NOT GOOD ENOUGH, NO MORE EXECUTIONS, LA LA LA CAN’T HEAR YOU”
[/QUOTE]

Seriously? In support of your position that PD’s are not baby lawyers you post these flimsy standards that I address by sub-section and you think I am saying “LA-LA-LA.” You’ve come back with better info now, fine I can only respond to what you’ve posted.

This is not complicated.

  1. Under our current system of criminal justice, the application of the death penalty has and most likely will continue to lead to the occasional execution of an innocent person.

If you would like to debate this, cool. If you want to accept this as a premise, then let’s move on.

  1. In my view, that is unacceptable. Why is it ok for you? Because these innocent people will at least have had a grown up lawyer lose the case?
167

whole bean, you say:

To which I can only reply:

This is not complicated.

  1. Under our current system of criminal justice, sending people to jail has and most likely will continue to lead to the occasional jailing of an innocent person.

If you would like to debate this, cool. If you want to accept this as a premise, then let’s move on.

  1. In my view, that is acceptable. Is it not ok for you?

And if that is OK, why is the corresponding statement about the DP not OK?

All systems are flawed. You say that the fact that the justice system is flawed is reason enough to stop the DP, but presumably not reason enough to stop jailing people.

What is the difference for you? I’m not saying there isn’t one … I just don’t see what it is. If you can argue that an occasional mistake justifies taking the DP off the table, why shouldn’t making an occasional mistake justify taking prison time off the table?

w.

PS - I neither support nor oppose the DP … I just stand back and marvel at the tortured logic used to support both sides of the argument …

168

[QUOTE=intention]
whole bean, you say:

To which I can only reply:

This is not complicated.

  1. Under our current system of criminal justice, sending people to jail has and most likely will continue to lead to the occasional jailing of an innocent person.

If you would like to debate this, cool. If you want to accept this as a premise, then let’s move on.

  1. In my view, that is acceptable. Is it not ok for you?

And if that is OK, why is the corresponding statement about the DP not OK?

All systems are flawed. You say that the fact that the justice system is flawed is reason enough to stop the DP, but presumably not reason enough to stop jailing people.

What is the difference for you? I’m not saying there isn’t one … I just don’t see what it is. If you can argue that an occasional mistake justifies taking the DP off the table, why shouldn’t making an occasional mistake justify taking prison time off the table?

w.

PS - I neither support nor oppose the DP … I just stand back and marvel at the tortured logic used to support both sides of the argument …
[/QUOTE]

No tortured logic necessary. To argue that Ted Bundy’s escape proves the need for the DP, that tortures logic.

We are forced to balance the legitimate need to separate a certain strain of criminals from society with the inevitability of occasionally separating the wrong person. In an effort to minimize the repercussions of unavoidable mistakes, we should look to the option that allows for remedy in the event of wrong.

The “difference,” though I am stunned it needs an explanation, is that once meted out, one punishment is not in any way retractable or compensable. We can release the wrongly imprisoned; we cannot revive the dead. Now, you might say, you cannot give the imprisoned innocent his lost time, and you would be correct, BUT you can return to him the opportunity to live his future days a free man. This cannot be returned to the deceased. If faced with the prospect of serving several years in prison only to be cleared and freed versus being killed, I would choose the former. I truly doubt that you or any DP proponent in this thread would “volunteer” to be the sacrificial lamb just so that some primitive bloodlust can be satisfied.

169

[QUOTE=whole bean]
In an effort to dispel the notion that PDs on capital murder cases are baby lawyers, you post qualifications which in no way weed out baby lawyers. A fifth year lawyer is still getting his sea legs. Now, that is not to say that where you practice, the defense bar overfloweth with Matlock, but your response to Weirddave does not disprove his notion. That doesn’t mean he’s right, but you just didn’t come back with very strong support.
[/quote]

Might wanna look back at the list: it’s not “five years as a lawyer”, it’s “five years of experience in criminal litigation”. And again, that’s a minimum standard; there are judicial districts that have set a minimum standard of 10 years experience. There is also the requirement, which you haven’t acknowledged, of having tried a significant number of first and second degree felonies as first chair counsel. Now, unless you’re hired to represent someone on such cases, you’ll need to get experience by appointment, and how do you do that? Answer: you qualify for appointment on second-degree cases by trying a significant number of third-degree cases, and you qualify for first-degree cases by trying a significant number of second-degree cases. Of course, most of your cases will be settled by plea bargain, so the cases that go to trial will tend to be slow in coming. By the time you’ve worked your way up to capital, your trial experience will be extensive.

Anyway, I’m getting sick of going over this point with you. How about, you tell me what you think the minimum qualifications should be for appointed counsel in capital cases? That should make for some interesting reading.

Your response was a line-by-line “nope, not good enough.” Hence, my comment. It appeared to me that you were refusing to accept any evidence that the state was at least making an effort to provide quality representation to capital defendants. By all means, tell me if I’m wrong.

I do take issue with “has and most likely will continue to”. As of yet, there is no evidence of a factually innocent person being executed by any state since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. Sentenced, I could concede, but not actually executed.

I accept the slim chance that someone, someday, might slip through the cracks somehow, despite all of the safeguards in place, and actually be executed. However, I believe that the net social benefit of capital punishment outweighs the foreseeable future possibility that an innocent person could through massive misadventure end up on the wrong side of the needle. I feel that killing the worst of our offenders is a positive message that we as a society hold life precious, because we eliminate those who devalue it by murdering the innocent. Why is it more noble to keep our monsters alive, well fed, and within arm’s reach, rather than saying, “Never again,” and punishing them with greater consideration than their victims received?

And once again, the five o’ clock bell rings. Time to pick up my little girl. I’ll check back in tomorrow.

170

[QUOTE=Max Torque]

I accept the slim chance that someone, someday, might slip through the cracks somehow, despite all of the safeguards in place, and actually be executed. However, I believe that the net social benefit of capital punishment outweighs the foreseeable future possibility that an innocent person could through massive misadventure end up on the wrong side of the needle. I feel that killing the worst of our offenders is a positive message that we as a society hold life precious, because we eliminate those who devalue it by murdering the innocent. Why is it more noble to keep our monsters alive, well fed, and within arm’s reach, rather than saying, “Never again,” and punishing them with greater consideration than their victims received?

[/QUOTE]

Um…because you don’t know if you have the right guy?

It appears, judging by this list, that not only is it more than a “slim chance” that the wrong guy sometimes gets the needle, but that the state of Texas is by far the biggest offender in suspected wrongful execution cases.

The numbers of wrongful convictions nationwide are staggering: Home - Center on Wrongful Convictions

171

[QUOTE=Max Torque]
I accept the slim chance that someone, someday, might slip through the cracks somehow, despite all of the safeguards in place, and actually be executed. However, I believe that the net social benefit of capital punishment outweighs the foreseeable future possibility that an innocent person could through massive misadventure end up on the wrong side of the needle. I feel that killing the worst of our offenders is a positive message that we as a society hold life precious, because we eliminate those who devalue it by murdering the innocent. Why is it more noble to keep our monsters alive, well fed, and within arm’s reach, rather than saying, “Never again,” and punishing them with greater consideration than their victims received?

And once again, the five o’ clock bell rings. Time to pick up my little girl. I’ll check back in tomorrow.
[/QUOTE]

We disagree about the width of the chance. I do not accept it. I think it is all but certain that an innocent has been executed since 1976.

172

[QUOTE=Max Torque]
I do take issue with “has and most likely will continue to”. As of yet, there is no evidence of a factually innocent person being executed by any state since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. Sentenced, I could concede, but not actually executed.
[/QUOTE]
No, there is some evidence of actual innocence of some executed inmates. Not conclusive proof, but evidence. See post 5. There’s also another guy, Carlos DeLuna, but I’m still reading up on him.

173

whole bean, thank you for your response. You say:

[QUOTE=whole bean]
We are forced to balance the legitimate need to separate a certain strain of criminals from society with the inevitability of occasionally separating the wrong person. In an effort to minimize the repercussions of unavoidable mistakes, we should look to the option that allows for remedy in the event of wrong.

The “difference,” though I am stunned it needs an explanation, is that once meted out, one punishment is not in any way retractable or compensable. We can release the wrongly imprisoned; we cannot revive the dead. Now, you might say, you cannot give the imprisoned innocent his lost time, and you would be correct, BUT you can return to him the opportunity to live his future days a free man. This cannot be returned to the deceased. If faced with the prospect of serving several years in prison only to be cleared and freed versus being killed, I would choose the former. I truly doubt that you or any DP proponent in this thread would “volunteer” to be the sacrificial lamb just so that some primitive bloodlust can be satisfied.
[/QUOTE]

You are correct that we cannot return the lost life of a man wrongly killed. This, however, seems like an argument for the death penalty, in that we are striving for justice. There is justice in putting someone in prison for say aggravated assault, that is, there is some balance between the size of the punishment (jail) and the size of the crime (assault). But as you say:

[QUOTE=whole bean]
We can release the wrongly imprisoned; we cannot revive the dead.
[/QUOTE]

So … you clearly distinguish between acts which are in some sense remediable (putting someone in jail or otherwise harming them) and those which are not (killing someone). Logically, then, if you agree with putting someone in jail for a remediable act (assault), should there not be a different punishment for an unremediable act (murder)?

w.

174

[QUOTE=intention]
So … you clearly distinguish between acts which are in some sense remediable (putting someone in jail or otherwise harming them) and those which are not (killing someone). Logically, then, if you agree with putting someone in jail for a remediable act (assault), should there not be a different punishment for an unremediable act (murder)?
[/QUOTE]
Why does the latter require killing the criminal? Couldn’t the “different punishment” simply be a more severe version of the former punishment (e.g., longer sentence)?

Why punish an unremediable act with another unremediable act? Especially when flaws are inherent in the system (e.g., human bias). It just seems like asking for trouble.

175

[QUOTE=LilShieste]
Why does the latter require killing the criminal? Couldn’t the “different punishment” simply be a more severe version of the former punishment (e.g., longer sentence)?

[/QUOTE]

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’?

176

[QUOTE=pravnik]
No, there is some evidence of actual innocence of some executed inmates. Not conclusive proof, but evidence. See post 5. There’s also another guy, Carlos DeLuna, but I’m still reading up on him.
[/QUOTE]

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. 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. Nor do they mention that the witness to whom Cantu confessed, Ramiro Reyes, was shot at when he left a hearing to suppress the identification of Cantu, from a truck belonging to Cantu’s brother. And that’s just what’s on the timeline, I’ll need some time to read through the other 180 pages of the report. Anyway, interesting stuff.

177

[QUOTE=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’?
[/QUOTE]

His term in prision can be made more uncomfortable.

178

[QUOTE=intention]
whole bean, thank you for your response. You say:

You are correct that we cannot return the lost life of a man wrongly killed. This, however, seems like an argument for the death penalty, in that we are striving for justice. There is justice in putting someone in prison for say aggravated assault, that is, there is some balance between the size of the punishment (jail) and the size of the crime (assault). But as you say:

So … you clearly distinguish between acts which are in some sense remediable (putting someone in jail or otherwise harming them) and those which are not (killing someone). Logically, then, if you agree with putting someone in jail for a remediable act (assault), should there not be a different punishment for an unremediable act (murder)?

w.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, there should be a difference, the duration of the confinement.

When we debate whether there should be a death penalty, we are debating what the state should do. In my opinion, the state should avoid at all costs affirmatively acting in a way that leads to the loss of innocent life. The state did not kill the murder victim. The state cannot bring back the murder victim. The criminal killed the murder victim. The criminal committed an irremediable act which neither the state nor he can undo, but the state can and should punish him - depriving him of his liberty for his natural life seems sufficient.

The only way to avoid executing the innocent, as I see it, is to simply avoid executing anyone. This assures that nothing the state does will directly result in the loss of innocent life. This does not mean the state cannot deprive the guilty of liberty, which of course will, inevitably and unfortunately, lead to the occasional imprisonment of the innocent; however, when it has been established that the state has wrongly imprisoned the innocent, the state can be forced to remedy the mistake by releasing the innocent and where appropriate, providing restitution.

The OP was asking whether DP supporters care that innocents will be executed. The assumption being that innocents will be/have been executed. Though there seem to be some deniers here, none of their arguments have gone much beyond “you haven’t shown that it has happened,” despite the fact that it has been shown a number of times how close it almost did. I think it only honest to concede that it has, at least once, and probably will again happen. Based on that assumption, we must decide if the DP is worth the risk. I say no, it is not worth the risk of executing the innocent when there are other options available - namely life in prison without parole. I am not saying there are no bad men out there. 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.

179

[QUOTE=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’?
[/QUOTE]

if he escapes - going back to prison
if he commits his crime in jail - see Kalhoun’s response

180

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.