and finally…
thanks casdave for your research. (of course, with me, you’re preaching to the choir)
Hmmmmm no one mentioned the Salem witch trials where 19 innocents (assuming that one believes they really weren’t witches) and a dog were executed.
Aaah, if we want a little fun how about when the good burghers of Hartlepool(UK) hung an unfortunate monkey that had been forced ashore when a Spanish galleon sank.
Even to this day the residents of that town are still known by the derogatory term of ‘monkey hangers’ which is meant to insult their intellects.
part of the problem with the question is the framework.
Certainly, from a historical perspective, many innocent people have been executed. Where do we draw that line of “recent” history, tho’ is problematical. I suspect that if iampuna brings up the Salem withces, Joan of Arc, etc, the response will be a variant on the tried and true rebuttal of “yea, but…”
And, too, I suspect, pointing out the victims of the Nazi war machine will not count in that debate.
So, if the framework is “recent, adjudicated people executed then found guilty”, then the other problems occur.
We certainly have evidence that in the US, even with it’s emphasis on a ‘Fair trial’ there are quite a few folks who’ve been released from death row.
It is, as I’ve stated before, very difficult to prove that you DIDN’T do something. For example, DNA results could show that some one WAS at a scene or DID engage in sexual activity with another person, but the LACK of DNA results do NOT prove that they didn’t.
And, once the person has been executed, most investigations stop. So, the best we can do at this point is point out cases like the Saccho and Vanzetti, the numbers of folks released from death row, and the ever increasing numbers of laws limiting appeals. (many of the folks released from Death Row have been there for 10+ years - these new laws have as their central aim, the ‘streamlining’ of the appeals process so that folks would be executed within something like a five year time line).
[QUOTE]
I’d like to point out that once a person has been convicted, the presumption of innocence has been overcome. The burden does shift to the convict to show either that new evidence exists which raises a substantial probability of innocence – and that this evidence is truly new, unknown and not reasonably knowable through exercise of due diligence before now.
[/QUOTE}
This is true when dealing with a particular convict looking to overturn his conviction. But the issue is whether the death penalty is good social policy. I believe it is proper to make the state carry the burden in showing that they are not executing innocent people in pursuit of the policy. So, the burden is on those who want to impose an irreversible sentence. Those in favor of the death penatly can argue it’s a good policy, but when an opponent shows evidence that casts reasonable doubt and raises questions about whether the policy is fatally flawed, so to speak, the burden shifts to death penalty advocates to rebut the evidence.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Zoff *
**
Perhaps in theory. However, when engaged in these debates, we do run into the folks who want proof, not just that the conviction was wrong, but the person was completely innocent. And that’s very difficult to prove to any degree. Consider many of the real cases involved. You have a guy on death row for the rape and murder of some one. You prove that the DNA wasn’t his. So what? says the other side, “that just proves some one else was involved too”. And, keep in mind, that in the world of debate and even debate of public policy, minute details of each case are not available.
On a related issue, a guy on death row is currently being considered for the Nobel Peace Prize.:
Gansta Prize?
I understand what you’re saying wring, and I agree. My arguments are more directed to helping iampunha in his debate. I think it’s important when engaging in debate to confront the issue of burden-shifting.
In my experience, the request for proof of innocence is usually one of many fallback arguments used when strong evidence is given that innocent people have been executed.