Juries decide whether there’s reasonable doubt, Svinlesha. You or I might find reasonable doubt where the jury had none, but that’s just our opinion. Even appellate courts are extremely deferential to the factual decisions made by juries–as long as there is sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable jury to conclude that there was no reasonable doubt, the jury’s verdict will be upheld.
However, that’s all beside the point I was making. Rmat asked for proof that we’ve executed people who were actually innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted. “Reasonable doubt” will get you a verdict of “not guilty,” but that’s not the same thing as proving someone is innocent.
“increasingly conservative”? Alas, in my fatuous self-absorption I seem to have missed that. But it should be clear, shouldn’t it, even to a nattering nabob like myself? Given the thunderous mandate that the Right recieved in the late election… Oh. No. Not quite. The Lukewarm Liberal Tweedledum actually got more votes that the Lukewarm Conservative Tweedledummer. If you want to count the Nader vote as being Left of Center, the conservatives got rather a thumping, popular vote wise.
My fuzzy-thinking mentality tends to fixate on these irrelvancies. I beseech your enlightenment, precisely where do you percieve this “increasingly conservative political climate?”
I see an ancien regime that has shot its bolt, that looks on in horror as power slips through its palsied grasp like so much sand. We are, in fact, overcoming. Before we were assailed as radical, atheistic, goddessless and immoral. Now you wish to convince me that we are irrelevant.
But those pesky numbers. Rather hard to brush away, don’t you think? Or don’t you?
Not after you’ve been convicted by a trier of fact, ist isn’t. Nor should it be, lest appeals become little more than automatic retrials. See Jackson v. Virginia,443 U.S. 307 (1979).
Well, not too difficult my Oh So Pompous friend. I agree with you that the popular vote went to Gore. No worries there.
However, there is far more to the equation that the recent botched (on both sides) presidential election.
Note: For ease of use I will lightly use the Republican party as ‘conservative’ and the Democratic party as ‘liberal’. It doesn’t map out that easily in real life but hey, what can I say?
Of the governors, 29 are Republican, 19 are Democratic, 1 is independent and 1 (God help us) hails from the Minnesota Reform Party (or whatever it’s calling itself now). Previous to 1995 Republicans had not held a majority of state houses since 1970 when it was 32-18.
So I think it’s a bit premature to hold a wake for the Republican party given their gains at the state level and their maintaining their hold on the House of Representatives (even if it’s slim it’s still there)
And how, exactly, would you define the conservative angle as having been an ‘ancien regime that has shot its bolt’ when the White House has been in the hands of an enormously popular Democrat for the last 8 years? I’d be interested in hearing you define that.
Lastly, if anything indicates the weakness of the national-level Democratic party it would be Gore’s inability to capitalize on the popularity of President Clinton to march into the White House. Anecdotally, I know that we in the bullpen were giving Gore 4-1 odds over the field in 1999. Even with impeachment we didn’t see how he could fail to win. Yet what we had predicted would be a walk for him turned into an electoral loss.
Oh, and as an aside, never once have I called you a ‘fuzzy thinker’. Nor have I tried to persuade you that the liberal point of view is ‘irrelevant’. I have said, and continue to maintain, that your approach to matters political is naive and will, in the end, lead to your personal irrelevance. Um, like you and I aren’t in the first place.
[cheapshot] Well, “goodbye” leaps to mind. [/cheapshot]
Don’t go there. I have lived among these wild-eyed Lutherans for many years now, you are ill advised to provoke them. I bear you no ill will, wouldn’t like to see you publicly savaged on Prairie Home Companion.
Whats with all the cites? Did you think I’d challenge your headcount? I have every confidence that you can count, John-Boy. Isn’t the issue. Or is it the rhetorical device of resoundingly proving a point not in contention? Way too subtle.
But it will be quite the party, don’t you think? I’ll save you a seat, I wouldn’t want you to miss it. No, really, don’t thank me, no trouble at all.
This is a chestnut. I have tried to unravel its thread of thought, but it is too many for me, like trying to disentangle a clusterfuck made up of enthusiastic earthworms. I am defeated, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Gore’s refusal to bend a knee and beg assistance must have been inspired by the same macabre spirit that whispered into Napolean’s ear that it was time to punish Russia. I’ve heard it said that both men were the only men in the country who could lose to the other. And, point of fact, they did.
The extreme right is on life support, primarily cash. Moderate, sensible Republicans are restless, disinclined to parrot the sour views of the Lotts and the Armeys. The barbarians are at the gates, picnicing. No need to storm the barricades, content ourselves with cucumber sandwhiches as we listen for another withered enemy topple from his perch. “Splat!” “What was that?” “Newt Gangrene - buh bye!”
[cheapshot] Well, “goodbye” leaps to mind. [/cheapshot]
Don’t go there. I have lived among these wild-eyed Lutherans for many years now, you are ill advised to provoke them. I bear you no ill will, wouldn’t like to see you publicly savaged on Prairie Home Companion.
Whats with all the cites? Did you think I’d challenge your headcount? I have every confidence that you can count, John-Boy. Isn’t the issue. Or is it the rhetorical device of resoundingly proving a point not in contention? Way too subtle.
But it will be quite the party, don’t you think? I’ll save you a seat, I wouldn’t want you to miss it. No, really, don’t thank me, no trouble at all.
This is a chestnut. I have tried to unravel its thread of thought, but it is too many for me, like trying to disentangle a clusterfuck made up of enthusiastic earthworms. I am defeated, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Gore’s refusal to bend a knee and beg assistance must have been inspired by the same macabre spirit that whispered into Napolean’s ear that it was time to punish Russia. I’ve heard it said that both men were the only men in the country who could lose to the other. And, point of fact, they did.
The extreme right is on life support, primarily cash. Moderate, sensible Republicans are restless, disinclined to parrot the sour views of the Lotts and the Armeys. The barbarians are at the gates, picnicing. No need to storm the barricades, content ourselves with cucumber sandwiches as we listen for another withered enemy to topple from his perch. “Splat!” “Who was that?” “Newt Gangrene - buh bye!”
See you at the party. Bring your kids.
(Oh, and thanks for the clarification: not “fuzzy-thinking”, merely “naive”. I am much comforted.)
One, for double posting. That is just soooooo AOL!
Second, for lengthy digression from OP to dialogue. Should have let him have the last word. Just couldn’t do it.
Sorry. I will seek a dark place to perform the Tasmanian Ritual of Self-Abasement, accompanied by a chorus of bitter virgins, intoning dirges of woe and humiliation.
To start with, I can see in hindsight that I was pretty quick to hop up on my Moral High Horse in that last post, so, well, I’ll get down now. Ahem.
::gets off MHH::
::saddles up to the bar::
::orders a sasparilli::
::takes long, deep swig::
Ahhh. That’s refreshing.
Now, then, I should know better than to get involved in a debate about the law, with lawyers. However, at the risk of appearing pig-headed:
Sure, agreed, although I don’t know if I share your apparent faith in jury decisions. Anway, maybe I didn’t express myself very clearly. I wasn’t referring to overturning any specific court decision; I simply meant that if there exists reasonable doubt as to someone’s guilt after a trial, that’s a pretty strong argument against the imposition of the death penalty. Or in other words, if you (or anyone else, for that matter) can convince me that there’s reasonable doubt of someone’s guilt after he has been tried and executed, then I think that’s a strong argument against the entire principle of state-imposed executions. You don’t have to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that he/she is innocent for me lend credence to your stance.
With regard to it “just being our opinion,” I would be inclined to agree if it was just our opinion; but what if it is the opinion of a very large number of people who, after the trial, avail themselves of the court records, review the evidence, and all agree that the defendant was innocent?
Naturally, undisputed proof of innocence would be an even stronger argument, but such proof might be very hard to come by in the real world, hence my willingness to except strong evidence of a reasonable doubt. When I cited Sacco and Venzetti as evidence that innocent men have been executed in the US after a “fair trial,” I certainly can’t say that I have proven my case. At best, I can only contend after reviewing the record that there is strong evidence that they were wrongfully executed, and that that in turn is good reason to question the death penalty.
Besides, my point was that first, Rmat asked for some evidence; when he got it, he reformulated his request and asked for proof, which, as you rightly point out, is a different sort of animal altogether.
Not being a lawyer, I wasn’t aware of that. I’m not sure it’s relevant to the discussion, however, since I might not have to meet the technical requirements of proof of innocence in a court of law to convince someone that a misscarriage of justice had occured.
You drive a hard bargain, sir; I doubt I can provide you with anything like that.
On the other hand, perhaps you can provide me with PROOF that our justice system, even with all of its reviews and so forth, is ABSOLUTELY and INCONTROVERTABLY infallible. That way we can both rest assured that no one ever has, or ever will, ride ole sparky home due to, for example, some sort of clerical error.
Again, I wasn’t referring to the specifics of any one trial, and I apologize for making it sound that way in my last post. At the risk of repeating myself, I meant that reasonable doubt of guilt is good reason for questioning the death penalty as a governmental policy.
I couldn’t help but notice, Rmat, that you didn’t respond to my example of innocents being executed, cited above. Does it not meet the standards of proof you require?
Finally:
elucidator:
You crack me up, dude. “Publicly savaged on Prarie Home Companion…clusterfuck made up of enthusiastic earthworms…” Yuk, yuk yuk.
Naturally, undisputed proof of innocence would be an even stronger argument, but such proof might be very hard to come by in the real world, hence my willingness to except strong evidence of a reasonable doubt. When I cited Sacco and Venzetti as evidence that innocent men have been executed in the US after a “fair trial,” I certainly can’t say that I have proven my case. At best, I can only contend after reviewing the record that there is strong evidence that they were wrongfully executed, and that that in turn is good reason to question the death penalty.
Besides, my point was that first, Rmat asked for some evidence; when he got it, he reformulated his request and asked for proof, which, as you rightly point out, is a different sort of animal altogether.
Not being a lawyer, I wasn’t aware of that. I’m not sure it’s relevant to the discussion, however, since I might not have to meet the technical requirements of proof of innocence in a court of law to convince someone that a misscarriage of justice had occured.
You drive a hard bargain, sir; I doubt I can provide you with anything like that.
On the other hand, perhaps you can provide me with PROOF that our justice system, even with all of its reviews and so forth, is ABSOLUTELY and INCONTROVERTABLY infallible. That way we can both rest assured that no one ever has, or ever will, ride ole sparky home due to, for example, some sort of clerical error.
Again, I wasn’t referring to the specifics of any one trial, and I apologize for making it sound that way in my last post. At the risk of repeating myself, I meant that reasonable doubt of guilt is good reason for questioning the death penalty as a governmental policy.
I couldn’t help but notice, Rmat, that you didn’t respond to my example of innocents being executed, cited above. Does it not meet the standards of proof you require?
**
[/QUOTE]
First of all, what makes you so sure I’m a lawyer? And what makes you so sure I’m a male? (And which of these two suggestions on your part hurts my feelings more?)
No historian either, I can’t comment on the specifics of Sacco and Vanzetti and the crime of which they were convicted, but I can assure that few if any of the safeguards I had in mind were in place in their day. E.g., right to trial counsel, right to counsel on appeal, right to automatic review by the state court of last resort, expansive availability of post-conviction relief from both state and federal courts. If someone wants to argue that current safeguards are inadequate, it behooves him (or her) to cite an instance of failure–and to make sure the instance identified arose under circumstances roughly approximating current conditions. Whatever the evidence of their guilt (or innocence) the Sacco and Vanzetti case (circa 1920s I think) is, as some might say, off-point.
I’m not sure why the proposition that persons ACCUSED are presumed innocent under our laws but persons CONVICTED are presumed guilty is not “relevant to the discussion,” but it it is directly responsive to the question (posed by Svinlesha, I think) along the lines of "Since when is anyone ever required to prove his (or her (ok, ok, ok, I’ll stop))
innocence?
Innocence, btw, is NOT a prerequisite to relief (and is, in fact, very rarely even invoked as a basis for a claim of relief). I was simply addressing the (erroneous) suggestion (made by a number of posters) that our system treats innocence as if it were IRRELEVANT to one’s entitlement to relief.
If reasonable doubts arise following conviction provide a “good reason for question the DP as matter of governmental policy,” they provide no less reason to question our entire criminal justice system as a matter of policy. You appear to demand perfection, and I afraid I can’t provide it. But, as I noted earlier, we entrust our government with a host of other “live and death” enterpises (pharmaceutical approval, air traffic control, highway design, to name just a few), and I have not heard anyone suggest that we abandon those efforts because perfection in THOSE areas is unattainable. Why would you demand the impossible ONLY when it comes to criminal justice?
I largely agree with you, Svinlesha. As a matter of fact, I completely agree with you that nobody should be executed if there’s a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt. Of course, that’s already precisely the way it’s supposed to work, since reasonable doubt = not guilty.
However, I do think that it matters who thinks there’s a reasonable doubt. Surely, we’re not going to let people off the hook just because some professional deconstructionist thinks moral certainty is a construct of the oppressive, Eurocentric power-mongers. Right now, the question is almost entirely in the hands of the jury, with trial judges and appellate courts having some power to review the jury’s decision. I would be happy to give judges the power to reduce death sentences (but not convictions) when they feel the evidence raises a legitimate possibility that the person might conceivably be innocent. I’d also happily expand the courts’ power to consider new evidence and order further post-conviction investigation, such as DNA and other forensic tests.
But just because Joe Bob Stephenson of the Montana Militia is convinced Timothy McVeigh was framed by the gubmint does not mean we can’t lethally inject that sumbitch till he’s good and dead.
Hey Rmat, any chance you could edit down the quotes a little bit more? We’re generally pretty good at keeping up with the discussion around here, so if you feel the need to quote before you respond, we appreciate it when you keep it short and to the point.
Elementary, my dear Watson! Your posts reveal a more than passing knowledge of the law; you refer to specific cases and are aware of various technicalities; and you even engage minty in esoteric discussions regarding the historical details of little-known court decisions. Therefore, you must be a lawyer (or, perhaps, a paralegal). Simplicity itself, really.
Well…shut my Sherlock. I do so apologize – sex actually being a rather difficult characteristic to determine without visual cues here in the depths of cyberspace. If it’s any consolation, I have on occassion been thought female by other posters, so I share your pain.
Regarding the rest of your reply, madame:
Perhaps not quite all of those things were available, but many were. You can reveiw the specifics yourself at the web site linked from the text above. If nothing else, it’s interesting reading and an important case; I could see something similiar happening today. In fact, the Mumia Jamal thang springs immediately to mind – not that I doubt his guilt, mind you. Just that there appear to me to be too many mitigating factors in his case to go forward with a death sentence, even under current law. Much of the severity of his sentence, I’ve heard it said, was due to the fact that the prosecution succeeded in introducing information concerning his political beliefs (Maoist) and background (former Black Tiger) into the sentencing hearing.
Yes, this is due to nothing more than misunderstanding and bad formulation on my part, as I tried to explain above. But even if we assume that a convicted person is guilty, which seems to me like a quite natural thing to do, if there arises after the trial a sense among others that there may actually be a shadow of doubt regarding his/her innocence (new evidence comes to light, for example) – must that evidence conclusively prove his/her innocence, or is it good enough that it raises substantial doubts? There may be a requirement of proof in court reviews of the case, and that may or may not be a good thing, but for the purposes of our discussion, I hold that just having serious doubts about the guilt of the accused/executed is a strong argument against – not in the specific case, perhaps, but in terms of general policy.
Uh-huh. And you trying to convince me that you ain’t a lawyer? Sure. Anyway, point not in contention by yours truly, and granted.
Most of the examples you cite refer to activities that would occur regardless of government intervention – people will continue to buy drugs when ill (and even when healthy :D), drive cars, travel by plane, and so forth. The point of governmental intervention in those cases is to prevent unnecessary deaths, and even if the gov’t fails to do this perfectly, I still think the effort is worthwhile.
However, the case we are discussing is one in which the gov’t does the opposite: it intrudes upon the life of an individual, and presuming him guilty of being not very nice, snuffs him. It takes an active role in the killing of another human being, and thus I argue that it must at the very least meet exceedingly stringent criteria in the exercise of that act. Unless, of course, you share the opinion of a certain Supreme Court Justice, who believes that the social value of the death penalty outweighs the cost of an occassional innocent life or two… minty green:
Oh. Okay.
Nevermind.
Ah, yes. The perils of democracy. You realize of course that such a deconstructionist might actually sit on a jury, messing everything up, like.
Interestingly, as a side note, a lady acquaintance of mine over here who also happens to share your professional propensities (i.e., she’s a lawyer) once told me that she would be scared shitless to be tried in America by a “jury of her peers,” and feels like her rights are much better served under the Swedish system of judicial review (cases are prevented to a panel of judges who, after deliberation, hand down a sentence). I could see that she had a certain point.
Ole Joe Bob’s a deconstructionist? Why, I knew we never could trust that commie bastard. Sting 'im up, I say!
Minty (and the others for whom she purports to speak) who think themselves to be flawlessly focused at every moment will forgive me if I have erred on the side of supplying excessive context when replying. Having read a number of posts, however, is which A says X, B then says Y, and X then returns to say to Y is not responsive to X, it struck me as the prudent thing to do. Indeed, one might even argue that this motif actually saves time and space–at least in the long run. And while generally pretty thick-skinned, I am somewhat baffled that minty thinks I am especially deserving of this criticism. By comparison to others, my penchant for quoting others(even if measured strictly by word count or frequency) is assuredly moderate.
Such changes will, however never satisfy many DP opponents, including the ones calling for a “moratorium” to “study” the death penalty. A moratorium is viewed as a prerequisite for an all-out ban on executions.
USA Today’s editorial board came up with this beaut yesterday: “…a moratorium…will allow investigating lawmakers and jurists to confirm what they already suspect (italics mine): The death penalty’s flaws are irremediable as well as intolerable.”
Nothing like an open-minded, honest appraisal of the issue, eh boys?
Actually, none of them were available as a matter of right.
Prior violent conduct (as opposed to mere belief in violence) is a perfectly valid “aggravating” circumstance–i.e., a factor that demonstrates the suitablility of a death sentence.
The law assigns lots of burdens in a variety of contexts, but it never requires that anything ever be proved “conclusively.” A number of people posting here lamented the law’s alleged insensitivity to innocence as a factor affecting entitlement to post-conviction relief. I explained that such an understanding was incorrect. You said that you personally never suffered from that misunderstanding and that the point is “not in contention.” Now I remember why I quote from earlier posts so much.
The criminal justice system, too, exists to address – and ultimately prevent – crime, including murder. And if we didn’t create a system to address the problem governmentally, we’d take of things by vigilantism. Even if our current criminal justice system fails to do its job perfectly, I think that the effort there is also “worthwhile.”
IMHO minty has it backwards. The real liberal objection to CT’s opinion is that he DID acknowledge 60 years of Commerce Clause interpretation, and he pointed to its impact – the eradication of the Tenth Amendment.
In which Shodan cites, again, the case of the lovely and talented Mr. Ed Wein.
Convicted and sentenced to die during the California governorship of Pat Brown, one of the last acts of Mr. Brown was to do what liberals would like to do - changed the sentence from death to life in prison with no parole. Then he left office, to be succeeded by a certain former actor who went on to figure greatly on the national stage.
What can be done by law can always be undone, however, (apart from the DP), and Mr. Wein’s sentence was amended a few years later to life in prison, which meant no more than it generally does, and he was paroled. He got a job in an electronics firm, married, and Pat Brown was wont to point to him as a good reason why the DP is such a lousy idea - here we have this reformed, tax-paying citizen making far more amends for his misdeeds than he ever could in the gas chamber.
Fast forward a few years. A sudden silence falls from near Pat Brown. Ed Wein is arrested, tried, and convicted of kidnap, rape - and murder.
So liberals, I leave it to you. Apparently even one wrongful execution is too much for us to tolerate a DP. Exactly how many wrongful murders by those with no right to live should we have to put up with if we eliminate the death penalty? One? Two? A hundred? A thousand?
Regards,
Shodan
*? This wasn’t a criticism – it was a polite request, hardly requiring the sort of response you’ve given it.
Secondly:
*To begin with, whether they were available “as a matter of right” ain’t really the issue – the question is whether or not they were available at all. Since you are, as you say, no historian, perhaps you would care to back up this claim with a cite? Let me help you along:
Right to trial counsel: If you mean, did they have a lawyer at their trial, the answer is: yes. His name was Fred Moore.
Right to counsel on appeal: If you mean, did they have a lawyer when they appealed their conviction, the answer is: yes. Two, in fact; their names were William G. Thompson Herbert B. Ehrmann (his assistant). The entire appeal process, by the way, took seven years.
Right to automatic review by the state court of last resort: If you mean, did they have the opportunity of reaching the state Supreme Court, the answer is: yes and no. The Supreme Court at the time would only hear appeals made on “point of law,” whatever that means, and refused to review the case.
Expansive availability of post-conviction relief from both state and federal courts: I’ll just quote from the web site linked above (have you even bothered to look at it yet?)
So the answer is: probably not. They did have a right to appeal for clemency, which they took advantage of, but which was denied. Anyway, as I contended before, “perhaps not all those things were available, but many were…”
*Being a Maoist or a Black Panther is not an example of “prior violent conduct.” In addition (correct me if I’m wrong), the state can seek the death penalty only in cases of premeditated murder. While I certainly believe that Mumia shot and killed the guy, I have a hard time believing that he had planned it in advance. Given that, a record of prior violence is hardly relevant.
*Not to sound dense, but I don’t know what this means.
Oh yeah, I remember now. That was the part in which admitted I might have been unclear, apologized, and agreed with you. Anyway, I’d like you to point out specifically where I wrote that I “never suffered from that missunderstanding…” I don’t seem to be able to find it, your penchant for extensive quoting notwithstanding. In point of fact, I freely admit that I might well have suffered from it, but I retracted my statement and reformulated it in order to be clearer.
And agreed with you.
Are you still arguing with me about that?
*Me too. I’m not advocating that we get rid of the justice system, in case you hadn’t noticed.
On the other hand, it seems to me to be quite a leap of logic to argue that banning the death penalty will necessarily lead to vigilantism.
Shodan:
Terrible story, and good argument for why some people should get life without parole, period. But mistakes such as the one you cite aren’t a very good argument for the death penalty, I’m afraid. I could just as easily argue that he should never have been paroled. That he shouldn’t have been returned to society seems clear now, in hindsight, but that he should have been put to death? Different kettle of fish, I fear.
Let’s see here, what exactly was it you said? Oh here it is:
“Hey Rmat, any chance you could edit down the quotes a little bit more? We’re generally pretty good at keeping up with the discussion around here, so if you feel the need to quote before you respond, we appreciate it when you keep it short and to the point.”
Oh, I’m sorry. All that expression of heart-felt courtesy somehow escaped me. And the “she” thing was a little bit of a running joke, but I’d need to quote some more stuff in order to explain it, so never mind.
Secondly:
*To begin with, whether they were available “as a matter of right” ain’t really the issue – the question is whether or not they were available at all. Since you are, as you say, no historian, perhaps you would care to back up this claim with a cite?
[/QUOTE]
I beg to differ. The safeguard to which I referred are SYSTEMIC in nature. The right to counsel isn’t worth very much if it is denied to indigents. In Sacco and Vanzetti’s day, poor people generally didn’t get lawyers; now they are GUARANTEED them. The right was established circa 1963 in Gideon v. Wainwright. The right to appellate counsel even later, Douglas v. California, I believe. Extensive post-conviction relief (which, btw, does not included clemency) evolved in fits and starts, but there was precious little of it in the 1920’s–at least nothing like the form and volume in which it exists today.
You’re wrong. There is no constitutional impediment to imposing the DP for non-premeditated murders, and a good many states do so–especially for certain murders that are deemed capital because they are committed in the course of certain felonies, such as rape, kidnapping, and arson.
*Not to sound dense, but I don’t know what this means.
Oh yeah, I remember now. That was the part in which admitted I might have been unclear, apologized, and agreed with you. Anyway, I’d like you to point out specifically where I wrote that I “never suffered from that missunderstanding…” I don’t seem to be able to find it, your penchant for extensive quoting notwithstanding. In point of fact, I freely admit that I might well have suffered from it, but I retracted my statement and reformulated it in order to be clearer.
And agreed with you.
Are you still arguing with me about that?
[/QUOTE]
Nope. Expressions of humility notwithstanding, you seem to be getting a pretty good handle on most of this stuff. No need to argue. And certainly not with someone as courteous as yourself.
*Me too. I’m not advocating that we get rid of the justice system, in case you hadn’t noticed.
On the other hand, it seems to me to be quite a leap of logic to argue that banning the death penalty will necessarily lead to vigilantism.
[/QUOTE]
It can’t be that I need to quote MORE, could it? I never said that suspending the DP would lead to vigilantism. I said vigilantism would fill the void of a criminal justice system, GENERALLY. You see, the broader point I had hoped to make was this: Perfection is not attainable in any human enterprise, be it judging criminal, designing off-ramps, or testing artificial heart valves. The criminal justice system is about a good as we can feasibly make it, and death penalty jurisprudence errs even further on the side of accuracy (which in large measure explains why the the system of capital adjudication in the country in so cumbersome as to not be terribly feasible any longer, at least some regions).
Ah, yes. Death as prophylactic, means of preventing murder. Executing murderers prevents them from committing murder. That point is unassailable. And when we do it, killing people is ok, cause we’re real careful. Well, pretty careful. Sort of.
But why stop there? How many murders might we prevent if we had executions for attempted murder. Same prinicple applies, after all. And, heck, long as we’re at it, negligent homicide, like drunkenly running a red light and killing someone, shouldn’t that be sternly prevented? After all, a drunk is likely to get drunk again, and there are cars all over the place. But not if they ride Ol’ Sparky!!
And now that we’ve gotten all warmed up, can we lynch a few of those suits who made a gazillion bucks selling tobacco to the public? After all, they’ll certainly do it again, won’t they? Give 'em the big needle, tell 'em Shodan sent ya!
