Without getting in too deep about the rights or wrongs of a death sentence (and it seems as though it was wrong in this case * I found this statement totally illogical:
“It also sends a salutary warning to those who still believe that the death penalty still has an appropriate place in our legal system,” he said.
This was said by a state politician, and they aren’t necessarily the sharpest people on the planet but even so- a verdict reached 86 years ago can hardly be a “salutary warning”. Is it impossible to logically reason that the modern techniques and court procedures would have been able to preclude that particular evidence? Especially forensic techniques which may have even prevented the case reaching a prosecution stage.
I say it seems wrong- I have not read a transcript of the case or the subsequent Supreme Court findings so I have no idea of what other evidence was available.
The article doesn’t say whether he has since come back to life.
I get what you’re saying - he would be dead either way by now, however, I think the argument being made here is that wrongly executing him was worse than it would have been to wrongly imprison him.
I may have worded it clumsily. The point I was trying to make is that I can’t see the case being much of an argument (in 2008) for not having the death penalty solely based on the grounds that there was a flaw in the
a) court proceedings, and
b) forensic techniques of 1921.
Of course, having an innocent man executed is a pretty powerful argument.
Yeah, although nothing is infallible, and when you kill people, they stay dead, even if it later turns out that there was no reason to kill them. In 2008, we still make mistakes, and people are still wrongly convicted - undoubtedly less so than in 1921, but at what point does the margin of error become acceptable?
Furthermore, the notion that it’s OK to kill some criminals was founded in an era when, clearly, systems were greatly more fallible - which I think is interesting, even if it doesn’t really lead to any conclusions.
Further, I would want to see what evidence convicted him. Convictions are not based on ‘science’, but on evidence and rules of evidence, and a total lack of DNA doesn’t exclude a whole lot, IMHO.
Your argument seems to be along the lines of “well, yeah, we convicted and executed an innocent man back then. But with all the advancements in forensic science it doesn’t happen now.” Correct me if that’s not a fair rephrasing.
If that is your point, I disagree. People are not perfect, and neither are the things we create. In another 80 years, there may be breakthroughs that exonerate someone who is executed today. We make mistakes. The best systems we have are those that humbly accept that fact and try to limit the consequences.
Note this part of the article:
<< A re-examination of the case has found hairs on a blanket at his home did not belong to the girl.>>
I presume that those hairs were the major evidence against him. I’d guess that forensic science, as it existed at the time, said the hairs probably came from the girl.
That is not my point. I am not saying the conviction and execution of innocent people doesn’t happen- I was referring to this specific case and my argument was that with the advances in forensic science the evidence admitted in this case shouldn’t now be accepted.
I think you are correct in that the Supreme Court seemed to pardon him on the point that the hairs did not belong to the girl. If there was other compelling evidence that alone may not have been sufficient.
There also seems to be a problem with the hairs not being allowed to be independently examined. In these times a challenge during the case- and an appeal- would surely follow.
Absent modern forensics, Ross would have neither been convicted NOR subsequently pardoned for this crime.
Some people would say that the application of modern forensics to this case proves that even the “current best approach” to law enforcement led to innocent people being hanged, so we need to err on the side of caution.
Others would say that the application of modern forensics prevents innocent people from being hanged and we should feel more confident executing convicted criminals.
I support the death penalty myself, although I would prefer it be restricted to 100% conclusive cases. Like, say, your John Wayne Gacys and Ted Bundys. I don’t know what evidence was used to convict Colin Campbell Ross, but I’d wager it was not 100% conclusive even for that time. Like not caught in the act or what have you.
I glazed over halfway through myself, it’s not just you.
Anyway, not to be a killjoy here, but is the Australian criminal justice system so overstaffed/overbudgeted that it can go dig up a case this old and do all this stuff to pardon a guy who has been dead for 86 years? I mean yes it’s all a very nice story for the families involved, but where I live, with the system as thinly stretched as it already is, I’d be pretty pissed if I found out that this was how they were spending their resources.
