Here’s the story of 14 year old George Stinney Jr., convicted of beating two white girls to death in 1944, and posthumously exonerated just this morning. I guess you could say “justice” was swift for the 95 lb. boy-although there were no witnesses to the crime itself, and his family said he was with them that day, the trial only lasted three hours, the all-white jury only deliberated 10 minutes, and he was put in the electric chair only three months later. I wonder if that’s what people are wanting when they say the problem with the death penalty is that it takes too long to go through with it?
In Roper v. Simmons SCOTUS abolished the death penalty for those under 18.
These guys are the reason:
http://blog.sfgate.com/crime/2014/07/16/notorious-california-death-row-inmates/
I’m as anti-DP as they come, but the goings on in the Jim Crow south isn’t much of an argument against it in 2014. That was a horrible miscarriage of justice in so many ways, but nothing like that could happen today.
Under 18. Can’t happen today.
All white jury convicts black person w/ DP. Can’t happen today.
3 months trial to execution. Can’t happen today.
Sorry, but this is appeal to emotion.
Heck, the DP itself is an appeal to emotion. Its practical value, especially considering the costs of implementation, is tenuous at best.
When you can say:
“Executing an innocent person. Can’t happen today.”
please let us know.
Executing an innocent person can’t happen today.
I don’t think that’s the strongest argument against the DP. Is it really better to lock up an innocent person in person for the rest of their life? I’m against the DP because I don’t think a civilized country needs to deliberately kill its citizens today. It doesn’t reduce crime, and it isn’t necessary.
But arguing that it was bad in the Jim Crow south is an argument against everything in the Jim Crow south. I expect that plenty of innocent blacks were sentenced to life in prison in the Jim Crow south, and many of them died in prison.
Appeal to emotion. I don’t like it when someone on my side of the issue uses a weak argument in support of that issue.
Well, dash it all, I’ll come right out and say it: It is very wrong to execute a fourteen-year-old for something he didn’t do. There, now it’s out. I’m glad we felt able to have this conversation.
Much anti-slavery campaigning was an appeal to emotion- emotion is about empathy and interpersonal identification. Both bondage and judicial killing are emotional issues that are open to appeals to emotion.
What a giant load of horses hit.
Any country that has the death penalty can execute innocent people.
And no, I’m not anti-American. I very much like New Zealand and Norway and I and I suspect most people reading this would laugh if someone arrogantly proclaimed “In Norwary we could never imprison an innocent person” or “There are no innocent Kiwis in prison.”
Any system designed by humans will have flaws.
The main point to this argument, at least when I use it, is that a living person still has at least some chance at exoneration and freedom.
Also, some people can manage to still find some meaning and purpose in life even while incarcerated.
If someone does decide that death is better than a lifetime of incarceration, it’s probably not that hard to get oneself killed in the kind of prison that they send murderers to, but that should be the decision of the individual, not the courts.
(I realize that you’re against the DP, I’m just addressing your comments on this one particular argument.)
I had a little side bet with myself that the above ruling happened in the last decade…yup, 2005. Better late than never I suppose.
Reality bite most in the article are true.
Cite?
Cite that an innocent person has been executed in the US in this century?
He was exonerated, right? The system works.
Tell that the child in the OP. They thought the system was working then, too.