Really horrible crimes? If someone shoots my wife during a robbery and kills her I'd call that a really horrible crime. People who kill others in cases of robbery, which are the majority of folks on death row, didn't make any mistakes. They're just bad people.
Marc
Oldscratch: you have a point, and there may well be an arguement that as the DP is sometimes misused, it should be gotten rid of. But the same thing could be said of Clemency by Govenors, who release those who should not have been.
I would have to think very hard if it was a choice between the Texas/Bush style, or no DP at all- which would I choose?
There is a possibilty of innocents dying either way, either a nutcase killing again, or a prisoner executed for political reasons. I lean towards the first only because the innocents dying there are often children, and the innocent dying in the other are adults. However, i would probably let the “people” decide.
But, since we have an open forum here, I can argue my method of few executions only for the very worst offenders. It may not always be what is practiced, but I feel it is the only moral choice, the only way we can reduce innocent deaths to the smallest #.
Danielinthewolvesden,
Yeah, you’re right. That’s what I get for posting too fast. In any case, that’s four a year, not one a decade. But again, how many innocent people do you think have been executed for murder in the U.S. since the death penalty was re-instituted? Do you consider it acceptable for that many to be executed?
Wendell, since the figure was 400 for the entire 20th century, and I know a very large number of “innocents” were “legally lynched” in the South, pre WWII, I did a reasonable estimate of how many per decade since then, ie 10 per decade or 1 per year.
No number is acceptable, but for instance they KNOW there will be a certain # of auto daeths because of X, and they cans reduce X by spending so much. They do cost and risk analysis for everything, and one of those is human lives. If they didn’t, cars would cost 100K each, weigh 4 tons, have a top speed of 25mph, and not only would you be req’d to buckle up, but also to waer a helmet & a nomex suit. There would be no commercial passenger aviation. Every day we risk our lives. Nothing can be 100% certain or safe.
You are correct, I misread that paragraph. But my point is the same. One is too many, especially if you happen to be that one.
And Mavpace, what the fuck is wrong with you? You sick bastard.
[Moderator Hat: ON]
Cool it, Spooje. You want to insult him, go to the Pit.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]
I apologize.
I don’t understand how you can justify the state murdering innocent people by saying “But innocent people die this way all the time.” Does that make it ok?
The car manufacturers are NOT sentencing people to death. The State is.
I have to go now, more when I get back. 
RickG:
I can’t speak for anyone but myself here (i.e., this is not necessarily an “Orthodox Jewish official” position, but my own opinion): I do support the concept that for the ultimate crime, it is necessary to have the ultimate punishment. Are there ways the current system could be improved? I’m sure it could. I definitely favor having a higher standard of proof for death than for a lesser punishment.
However, most of my comments in this thread were about people who point out the flaws in the current system and then assume that a certain percentage of death-row inmates must therefore be innocent, seem to forget that somehow, a prosecutor managed to convince a jury of the murderer’s peers that this presumably innocent man had in fact murdered someone.
As you said, with a Sanhedrin, in a Torah-run Jewish state, there were many quite strict requirements that had to be followed, and the death penalty was rare. However, the commandment from the seven Noahide laws that governs murder merely requires that a system of justice be arranged and administered fairly. It definitely mandates the death penalty for a murderer. So strictly from a Torah point of view, there is nothing wrong with a Gentile nation having a death-penalty system such as the one in force in America today.
Chaim Mattis Keller
When a car company, such as GM, sells a vehicle, they are not doing so with the intent of killing their customers. If that was the case, they would run out of customers and go out of business. If innocent people die, it is a tragedy. But it’s not the car company’s fault.
However, when ANYONE is receives the DP especially INNOCENT people, it’s more than a trajedy. It’s not an accident. It’s something that could have been avoided, and was done with real intent.
Even if the parellel between “accidents happen every day” and “innocents die due to the DP” there is one key question. Is it ok for anybody to die, regardless of how it happens? If the person who dies in a car accident somehow better than the innocent one who dies on the chair? Is car victim’s life more precious? I don’t think so. In a perfect world nobody would ever be murdered. And in a semi-perfect world, the state would not take part in any of the killing.
**
Forgive me if I’m worng. But, isn’t clemency used to commute the death sentance bu, not to free the prisoner? Also is there any case of a Governer freeing a prisoner, and that prisoner going on to commit more crimes?
**
What about life imprisonment without parole.
It seems the only moral choice, the only way we can reduce innocent deats to the sallest # is to eliminate the death penalty and simply lock people up for life. That way, if they prove their innocence at some later point, they can be freed. They are not in danger of being killed for a crime they didn’t commit.
Sure you may say, sounds good, but that will never happen. There will always be parole for murderers and there will always be people who go out and kill again.
Yes there will be, just as there are now. However, a system that locks people up for life without parole is much more realistic than one that only kills the truly bad. The system as it exists now is to rife with errors. It can never function as you would have it.
On a realted note here is someone who, while maybe not innocent, should definetely not be executed. Gary Graham, you can read more about him here.
The most disgusting thing about the Death Penalty currently is how the state and feds are trying to speed up executions by restricting appeals. Currently, in Texas, if I’m convicted of a murder, and 33 days later evidence of my innocence pops up. The court can not review it. WHAT THE HELL IS UP WITH THAT? Propenents of the death penalty in Government have shown repeatedly that they don’t care if people are guillty or innocent, they just want to send out a message. Don’t mess with us or we will kill you.
Allow me to quote directly from the Chicago Tribune series of Sunday and Monday:
You really can’t assume that just because a jury has found someone guilty in a capital case that the victim was properly defended, and that guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt, warranting the sentence handed down.
I myself unconditionally support life without parole. If the jails stopped being stuffed full of non-violent drug offenders (at a 13-to-1 Black/White ratio, as the Washington Post has suggested), the money spent on financing the prison-building boom could be used for social programs and education, and even help for people who represent a potential threat to society but haven’t done anything yet.
Olentzero:
I’m sorry, but I disagree. A suspect is innocent until proven guilty. However, once he has been proven guilty by the usual due process, it is to be assumed that he was guilty. If you’re not willing to assume that (in the absence of obvious racism), then you’re practically undermining our entire justice system.
I understand that some of the convictions might seem to be flawed. However, does the fact that a guy’s attorney was no Johnnie Cochran necessarily mean that the prosecution’s case wasn’t properly proven? Does the fact that no proof or witnesses were brought during the sentencing phase mean that during the trial, his guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Does the fact that many of these cases included proof that some consider unreliable mean that these cases didn’t also include proof that most people would consider reliable and that the prosecutors were merely putting icing on the cake?
I haven’t read the entirety of the article you’re referring to; I’m only going on the summary you provided. However, it seems obvious to me that a) the article seems to be going out of its way to highlight the peoples’ possible innocence…does it mention why jurors found them guilty? and b) that those accusing Governor Bush of putting innocent people to death have zero proof of these peoples’ innocence, only reasons to doubt their guilt. That’s accusing the Governor of murder based on a lower standard of proof than they’re willing to use accuse these convicted murderers of murder.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Good Point CMK. Olent’s article states selective items that suggest an injustice, but they do discuss any of the evidence that would suggest guilt.
For example, in the trials where there was a visual analysis of a hair sample, there may have also been DNA evidence that was conclusively culpatory.
A trial may include eyewitness accounts that are exculpatory,… but also have a video of the perp hacking people to death and signing his name in blood next to a full set of fingerprints, punctuated with a semen sample.
ANd if I understand Olent’s implied view, When a person is concvivted of murder and sentenced to death, it is not the 12 juror’s fault, nor is it the judges fault, notr is it that of teh prosecutor, attorneys or law enforcement. Rather, we are to believe that GWB is the one responsible for making a bad decision.
So does that mean we should get rid of appeals? Once a jury finds someone guilty, for better or for worse, they are guilty? Ok, I see how that makes sense. I mean, it’s obvious that people never, ever make mistakes. Juries are always correct and Judges are always impartial and just. And justice is always, always blind.
I don’t think so.
Far be it from me to put words in Olentzero’s mouth, but I think that is exactly what he is trying to do. Or more precisely point out that our justice department has already underminded itself by being untrustworthy.
Now, I’m not going to make the mistake of saying that anyone in Texas is necesarily guilty. I will say that their guilt was improperly proven, and that they weren’t given enough chance to prove their innocence. to note a quote from my earlier link
I will also state that there are innocent people on death row currently. I don’t think anyone can dispute that fact.
**Also from Chaim
**
Not nesecarilly, but they raise enough questions that the person should not be executed. The facts of the trial should be evaluated. Right now those facts are not being properly evaluated in Texas. And you are missing the point of the sentancing phase. Sure guily might have been proven during the trial, however the jury still has to decide wheter the person convicted will live or die. Presenting no evidence during sentancing is pretty bad for your client. The supreme courts have pretty clearly shown over the years that if the trial was tainted in even a small way, they want the entire trial to be redone or thrown out. This is the only way to ensure fair trials in America. If a cop say “Sure, I faked evidence, but the perp is still guillty” should they still rot in jail?
If ether of you had bothered to read the article you could have seen examples of real injustice. For those to lazy to click on a link and read an article before commenting, I have placed the relevent text below.
Now. Does anyone actually think that man should be executed? Is having people like that killed an acceptable biproduct of the death penalty.
Your quote here is interesting, but please allow me to highlight specific quotes at the end:
Note: the courts had seen all these issues on appeal. For some reason they didn’t think these issues warranted second-guessing the lower court. So now Governor Bush is at fault not just for not second-guessing one court, but for not second-guessing two?
Might. Might. Somehow, they weren’t certain that all this stuff would have changed their minds. Perhaps there was other convincing evidence?
“I don’t know.” “Would have had a harder time believing”…not “would not have believed.” See above.
Once again, not “certainly would have had a different conclusion,” but “would have weighed on us.”
In other words, both an appeals court and the jurors, when exposed to all these facts the article mentions, either did not think they were relevant, or were, at best, unsure as to whether or not their minds would have been changed.
But somehow, Governor Bush is called a murderer of innocents for not overturning the earlier jury and court decisions.
Chaim Mattis Keller
**
I’ve never called GWBush a murderer of innocents. I believe that he is not performing his moral duty by placing a stop on all executions in Texas until the unresolved issues can be worked out.
**
This just shows that there are serious problems with the way the death penalty is handled in Texas. They need to put a stop to executions until they can get their system in order.
**
Right but, that means that they wouldn’t have been without reasonable doubt. You must convict someone beyond reasonable doubt.
/b]
You seem to be missing the point. He was not given a fair trial. Sentancing someone to death without a fair trial is cruel and unusual punishment and against the law. You didn’t answer the question either. Do you think he should have been killed, knowing the irregularities in the case?
I appreciate hearing about a court case with all of the weak evidence gleaned from the trial. But I would sincerely like to know what evidence there was that led 12 people to unanimously convict. The article makes it sound like the prosecuter said “he is a dirtbag and we think he did it” and the jurors simply bought it.
Care to shed any light on the other side of the story?