My point had been that S&V availed themselves of many of the legal services that are considered rights today (such as right to counsel, for example), even if they weren’t considered rights back then, and still fried. So, if they used them to no avail then, this would seem to me to argue against their efficacy as a guarentee against false conviction even today, regardless of their status as rights. Had S&V been denied right to counsel and then executed, I think you would have a stronger case.
But perhaps the question is whether or not they would have been put to death under today’s system, and your argument implies that they probably would not have, given the current set of systemic checks against false execution currently extant. Who knows? Perhaps you would be correct. They certainly didn’t seem to have access to appeal at the federal level, which seems to me to be a very important right and crucial to your position.
On the other hand, minty points out that higher courts are extremely reluctant to overturn jury decisions unless faced with really strong and fairly incontrovertable evidence of false conviction, so the right to a court of last appeal may not be as strong a protection as one would hope.
I stand corrected.
Still, once again, Jamal had not comitted rape, kidnapping, or arson. He happened to see a cop beating up his little brother and ran to his aid.
Ma’am.
? Seems like you’re still saying the same thing to me. If by “void in the justice system,” you mean lack of a death penalty, then you actually are arguing that suspending the DP leads to more vigilantism, or at the very least implying it. Why bring up vigilantism in the first place, otherwise?
Or, maybe I’m just busily missing the point again, an ability of which I have been granted no small skill, even at the risk of bragging.
“Errs even further on the side of accuracy?” Does this mean that you think the system is too careful, or leans too much towards a stringent review of the material? Anyway, if we can imagine a situation in which I, or god forbid you, were convicted and sentenced to death on false grounds, I’m sure we would very much hope that such an erroneous system was in place, don’t ya think?
Depends on the Court. Some courts will seize on any pretext to VACATE a death sentence. Consider, for example, the miniscule number of executions allowed to go forward in the area covered by the Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals.
That’s Jamal’s version. The jury evidently concluded otherwise, “defense-of-others” being a completely exonerating doctrine in every jurisdiction I know of, including, presumably, Pennsylvania.
I don’t and that’s not what I said. As to why I brought up vigilantism at all, I’ve now explained that twice.
I certainly don’t think it’s “too careful” in its actual performance. If it could be perfect, I’d obvioulsy prefer that. I know it can’t be, but I’d still like it to be as near to perfect as anyone can feasibly make it. But making review “stringent” for the sake of stringency alone does little to guarantee accuracy: Depending on the case, of course, redundant rounds of review by multiple decisionmakers can grows LESS “acccurate” with each successive phase; this is the case for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the failing human memories of percipient witnesses to the event under examination. We do it anyway. Why? Because as a society we want to be a fair as imaginable, even though we must surely realize that such behavior on our part sometimes borders on the dysfunctional.
Actually, from a purely selfish standpoint, I’d be much more interested in having an “erroneous system in place” if I were guilty. And no doubt, this is also the prevailing view among current inhabitants of death row throughout the nation.
He did get life without parole. Part of my point was that, in law, there is no period. Good old Willie Horton was serving life in prison with no parole when he got out, too. The Birdman of Alcatraz was serving life when he committed his second murder as well.
And why are mistakes in executing the innocent (one example of a wrongfully executed person in America in the last fifty years, please - from anyone) relevant, but mistakes that lead to the murder of the innocent “a different kettle of fish”? Wrongfully dead is still dead, whether killed by lethal injection or murdered. Isn’t the idea to reduce as far as possible the number of wrongfully dead? Thus if we kill one innocent person in a million murderers, and thereby prevent at least two future murders, don’t we come out ahead? Yes, I know we should work to prevent both. But we cannot reduce the number of innocent deaths caused by miscarriages of justice (convicting the innocent or acquitting the guilty who re-offend) to zero. Ever.
And elucidator writes:
Thank you!
Actually, excruciatingly careful would be a better term. Hence those whose sentences are overturned on appeal because of DNA. The appeals process works pretty well.
Of course, if you listen to liberals, they would ask the state to square the circle. Prove to those for whom no proof is sufficient that people who they want to live should die.
OK, how about this question? Suppose you have a person who is clearly, obviously, unmistakeably guilty of murder in the first degree. DNA, witnesses, physical evidence, whatever you like.
Should we execute that person?
Say yes, and I would call you a moderate on the death penalty (what fun). Say no, and we see that all this talk about the execution of the innocent is just a smokescreen. Liberals don’t oppose the death penalty because they think innocents get executed. They claim that people are innocent so as to drum up opposition to the death penalty.
And would I support the execution of attempted murderers, and in some cases of drunk driving? Yes, and in some other crimes as well.
I would be glad to consider it, if I even knew anything about it.
Actually, Jamal had quite a few different versions – well, technically, a couple of different versions, really. At any rate, it would appear that having pulled the cop off his brother, they (Jamal and the cop) wound up in a shooting match. While “defense-of-others” might be an exoneratingy doctrine, I doesn’t help much if you happen to be a rather well-known left-wing gadfly and black activist, former member of the Panthers, and you stand over a stricken white police officer and empty your clip into his face. Ahem.
I’m not sure anymore what your trying to get at with your reference to vigilantism, if not that without a justice system we would have more of it, which I of course agree with and would never dream of arguing against in the first place, this thread having turned into, as far as I can tell, a discussion about the pros and cons of the death penalty, not the pros and cons of a justice system, but never mind, I’ll let the issue drop if you will.
Such dysfunctionality might be avoided, of course, if we didn’t have a death penalty in the first place; I’m not surprised that the moral requirements placed on a civil society that simultaneously supports something so barbaric lead to some rather neurotic behavior. Of course, we can take Shodan’s much more pragmatic/utilitarian approach, but I must admit that I’m somewhat uncomfortable with it as well.
I sincerely doubt that.
Shodan:
Rather than take it point-by-point, I’ll just try to summerize my position, and respond to yours, for the sake of clarity (and brevity).
I’ll admit I’m rather left of center; in fact, I’m really way left of center. Still, I would prefer that you respond to me as an individual rather than slap some sort of blanket label of “liberal” on me, if you don’t mind. I sincerely doubt I’m liberal in your rather stereotyped version of what a liberal is.
Regarding the DP, I’m actually fundamentally uncertain of it. I used to toe the party line, of course, and strongly oppose it. But a few years ago I saw a documentary about the execution of a murderer; they interviewed the family members of the victim, and I saw how still, a decade after the crime, their lives had been shattered by the crime they had innocently suffered. They wanted the murderer to die for his crime, and it…well, let’s just say that I could understand at an emotional level why they felt that way. And I also understood that I’ve never been in their shoes, or lost a family member to some sort of senseless violence, and it gave me pause. I honestly don’t know how I would feel if someone close to me was murdered, for example; I might change my spots real fast. Ever since then, I’ve been a bit uncertain about the whole issue, even if I’m fundamentally of the moral (or intellectual) conviction that the state should not have the right to execute it’s citizens.
Anyway, you can perhaps see why I don’t think that arguments appealing to moral reasoning have all that much weight, although they are important to think about as well. Regarding your arguments in favor of the DP, I must honestly state that you seem to be missing my point on a lot of the issues. For one thing, you may well take such a utilitarian stance regarding the execution of an occasional innocent, but I for one would sure as hell not like to be the one who actually took the life of an innocent man in a state-sanctioned execution; in the end, I’d be unable to differentiate between myself and any other person who murders innocents (to the extent that there are innocents, naturally).
Regarding the point as a whole, I could easily respond to your “smokescreen” argument by pointing out that the danger of killing an innocent only adds weight to my stance; it is one in a series of arguments about why we shouldn’t have the DP. It is a good argument, worth considering; another is that the DP is conceivably immoral by humanist or even christian standards. Against that we must consider the suffering caused by such crimes. Murder doesn’t just end the life of a single individual, I’ve learned: it can affect whole families, forever. That’s also worth considering in this debate, I think.
Sorry if I come off sounding so wishy-washy; I just don’t have a simple answer anymore. I still oppose the DP, somewhere in my deep, but I’m no longer as sure of my convictions as I once was.
Svinlesha, while I disagree with you on the subject of the death penalty, I appreciate your willingness to recognize the impact of murder on victims’ families.
I, too, would like to thank all who participated in this discussion. Although the thread occasionally took some unfortunate detours, focus and civility alike were quickly restored. As one who prefers discussions that chellenge my own views rather than necessarily reinforce them, I found the debate here stimulating and enlightening. This is an exceedingly difficult topic, and it was refreshing to see to it handled with barely a trace of hysteria. I hope one day to continue the dialogue, if only so we can turn to the argument AGAINST the DP that I (for what that’s worth) find most persuasive.
Svinlesha First of all, it is not and was not my intention to insult you by characterizing your position as ‘liberal’. I apologize if that is how it sounded to you.
As to the rest of my post, my point was that the OP seemed to take it for granted that the elimination of the DP and its replacement by life in prison without parole would automatically reduce the number of wrongful deaths. My counter-example was meant to show that this is not the case, and that the non-imposition of the death penalty can cause the death of the innocent just as surely as if we had executed an innocent man. On the one hand, you have those who die because we are so reluctant to impose death on those who (in my view) deserve it. On the other hand, we have lots of discussion of those who are wrongfully executed, but no examples as clear cut as Ed Wien or Jack Abbott (or Charles Kemp or Henry Lee Lucas or Arthur Shawcross - all murderers who went on to kill again) of genuinely innocent victims of a wrongful execution.
As to the utiliarian argument that it is better than one innocent die to save two innocents, I do not see how it can be avoided. The justice system in America can be improved, but never perfected. Whether we execute or not, innocents will die, either from wrongful convictions that manage to find their way thru the years of appeals and despite the advances of science, or because people are allowed to live who are dangerous. (If Roger Coleman is the one I am thinking of, didn’t DNA testing prove his guilt before he was executed? I have a meeting shortly and cannot do the search. I will see if I can check back later.)
At any rate, consensus seems to be that this thread is itself done with its appeals and ready for its end. So be it.
I think we have some fundamental disagreements, but I was never insulted by you. (Luckily, I’m a bit more thick-skinned than that, having spent quite some time now in GD.) It would be interesting to discuss the question further, but I’m a bit busy with other debates at the moment. Perhaps, another time?
Manhattan, my conservative friend… if you ever give up moderating message boards, you’ve got a serious future waiting as a political campaign strategist.
Solving emotional issues with practicality, what a concept.
Now, can you come up with another “historic compromise”…about ABORTION??? Heh, heh, good luck.
Let’s start a club dedicated to solving thorny political issues through compromise and mutual benefit. Call it the “Problem-Solvers Club.”
Well, I could find a Charles Coleman, Roger K. Coleman, and Coleman Gray who were all executed, but not the one I am thinking of. Anybody remember his name? I remember reading about him in “Reader’s Digest” and a couple of other articles. He killed (IIRC) his sister-in-law, was on the verge of execution, and there was a big stink because the evidence was circumstantial only. I believe his pant legs were wet from wading thru a stream to get to her house and kill her, and I thought the motive was rape.
Anyway, he claimed innocence and was about to become another railroaded innocent. Then they did DNA testing and found that he did in fact rape her at least. I thought he had been executed.
I used http://www.agitator.com, which is a list (possibly partial) of everyone who has been executed in the US since 1976. If anyone has a guaranteed complete list, I would be grateful, as I might recognize the name of the executed if I saw it. Sorry, senior moments are more common with me than they used to be, and…
The cases overturned by DNA evidence are the cases of persons lucky enough to attract the attention necessary to pull in some serious legal counsel, lawyers whose careers are impaired by the presence of a conscience. The appeals process is a stacked deck, as it requires an admission of stupidity/culpability from the very system appealed to. On occasion, prosecutors have moved briskly to bring DNA evidence to bear on cases they have “won”. As you might well imagine, this is the exception rather than the rule.
Thankfully, you have clarified the above so that it is clear that you did not mean that liberals are impervious to reason and proof. Yes. Quite.
Oh, those sneaky liberals! Luckily you are at hand to unmask their hidden agenda, thier persistent and perfidious insistence on justice and compassion. Of course, this should not be taken as a denigration of liberals as such. You have clarified that.
(Niggling point of fact: it is not a “claim” that the innocent have been condemned, it is a fact, as recent events have borne out.)
Ye Cats and Little Fishes! Good God, man, I was kidding! This statement flies off the edge of rationality! As I sit in stunned wonder, I have to ask: What are these other crimes for which you support the death penalty?
No, wait, perhaps I don’t want to know. I’m sufficiently creeped out until CNN comes on.
Stacked it is, but not in the way you assert. Anti-DP is alive and strong among the American judiciary, and especially at the federal level, where virutally every state DP judgment eventually gets reviewed. The federal judiciary, of course, is not “the very system” whose judgments are under review, and the federal judiciary is notoriously inhospitable to state criminal judgments in general, and state DP judgments in particular. In some regions of this country, the federal judiciary has imposed a veritable moratorium on the death penalty.
Ma’am.