Would you agree that it would acceptable to execute people who are guilty?
Consider the case of Roger Coleman. If anything is certain in life, it is that he was guilty. That argument against the death penalty is gone.
Does that change anything, at least in his case?
Regards,
Shodan
Pro-death penalty here. The possibility of executing innocents slows down my desire for ‘swift justice’ but it doesn’t eliminate my conviction that some people just need to be put down like mad dogs. Demand exacting levels of proof, keep the appeals process going as long as necessary, restrain & punish prosecutorial excesses- but do not take the ultimate penalty off the table.
The few that claim that, yeah, the system used to be broken but now is acceptable, are usually talking out of both sides of their mouth. I mean, wasn’t the system even BETTER in the old days when we could administer frontier justice without all this namby pamby liberal bedwetting about minutiae such as innocence. Amirite?
The Illinois study a few years ago convinced me that the judicial system is so rife with error, even when all the apparently-proper procedures are followed, that it is essentially impossible for there not to be executions of innocents under it. So, while I still think there’s a place in morality for the death penalty, the significant chance of error makes me oppose it on practical terms anyway. Additional anecdotal evidence only confirms it, even (or especially) when someone like the governor of Texas tries to suppress official conclusions about a particular example.
That also means there’s a broader issue with the, well, accuracy of the judicial system itself, and by inference in every criminal case, not just capital ones. Standards of procedure and evidence just can’t be followed in a non-murder case as completely as they are when death is on the line. The Illinois study looked only at capital-punishment cases, but they’re only a small minority of overall convictions. How many more people are imprisoned for other crimes they did not commit, but did not get any sort of independent review because they aren’t on death row? Let’s fix that. We need to.
I won’t be watching 14 days in May, but I did chase down some of the appellate court cases that reviewed the case. As with a vast majority of these kinds of things, it isn’t nearly as cut and dried as it has been presented here.
For example, his confession was actually tape recorded and played for the jury. There was also another verbal confession given to a fellow inmate. I could find no evidence that he had claimed at trial or even the first round of appeals that the confession was compelled, not even on the tape recording.
A woman identified him at trial as the person who attempted to steal and rape from her before he fled and shot the police officer. While she failed to identify him immediately after the fact (Saturday), she did so the very next day. “Perhaps the most compelling reason for the admission of the testimony concerning the crime committed upon Miss Franklin was that the appellant attacked her credibility because she failed to positively identify him on Saturday afternoon, after the attack upon her at 2:17 that morning, stating that she needed more time because she was in a state of shock and was confused due to the viciousness of the beating on her head and body as well as the attempt upon her life and safety. Appellant contended that it was inconsistent for Miss Franklin to fail to positively identify him on Saturday afternoon and then positively identify him the next day, Sunday. It is noted that appellant attacked the credibility of the identification made by Miss Franklin and elicited a great many of the details concerning the crimes committed upon her in explanation of why she was in a state of shock, being a woman over seventy years of age, requiring medical treatment on Saturday, which explained her failure to positively identify appellant the day of the homicide as opposed to her positive identification the following day.”
Finally, the investigating police officers actually found the murdered police officer’s weapon because of Johnson told them where it was. "Appellant was placed under arrest and returned to the Leake County Sheriff’s Office where he was again advised of his rights and a statement taken from him. This statement, in which appellant admitted killing Officer Trest after the break-in at Miss Franklin’s home, was admitted into evidence and also led to the recovery of Officer Trest’s pistol. "
The case is Johnson v. State, 416 So. 2d 383.
Now, I have no interest whatsoever in debating the merits of this case, whether jailhouse confessions are worthless, eyewitness identification problems, or any of the myriad of things that can be used to attack a conviction. I am simply pointing out that the conclusion that Mr. Johnson is innocent is by no means an open and shut case.
So they are willing to accept and continue causing the deaths of innocent people?
Where is the justice in that? That’s just crazy.
For that matter, where is the vengeance? To me, vengeance is against the Person Who Did It, not some poor bastard who happened to get grabbed. Even when I was pro death (long long ago), I still had serious “problems” with the idea of the wrong guy getting it. What is the matter with people, who are literally willing to kill the innocent?
[quote=“Hamlet, post:25, topic:549471”]
Do defendants have to prove their innocence in the U.S.? Over here it’s up to the prosecution to prove them guilty ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.
There have been quite a few cases over here of people (who would likely have been executed if capital punishment had not been abolished) being exonerated, often after many years.
Nice trick. When faced with facts that may not fit your earlier assertions, simply dodge the issue with a irrelevant reference to a truth. Interesting technique. Not exactly convincing in the least, but heck, it’s worth a shot.
mascaroni’s point is valid and relevant: if a case is “by no means open and shut,” we can’t possibly countenance an execution.
I can’t recall asserting his innocence, you don’t seem to be asserting his conviction was safe.
My answer was sarcastic. I’m english. It’s what we do…
Take a UK case…
The ‘Birmingham Six’ were convicted of setting the bombs which resulted in the deaths of 21 people in 1974. The convictions were largely as a result of flawed “expert evidence”. I can’t find a cite, but IIRC the presiding Judge said at sentencing words to the effect of: “If ever there was a case for capital punishment, this was it.”
Lord Denning, then Master Of The Rolls later said that if the Birmingham Six had been hanged “we shouldn’t have had all these campaigns to get them released”.
:smack: I’m sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying.
The ONLY time I would support the death penalty is if we actually found Bin Laden, or someone of his calibur. (Like in the Nuremberg trials, when people like Goering were sentenced to be hanged). And even then you BETTER have evidence. (Well, if we could have gotten Hitler, obviously he should have gotten the noose)
I just wanted to correct this, because Blagoevich is such a tool I’d hate to see him get credit for such a great act. It was George Ryan, a Republican, who commuted the death sentences and put a moratorium on the death penalty in Illinois.
For me, long before even these high profile cases of people on death row having been wrongfully convicted, perhaps the primary reason for my opposition to the death penalty is the idea of getting it so horribly wrong. I can’t actually say that I’m morally opposed to the death penalty on principle; there are some, many cases, in fact of people clearly committing horrific behavior that revokes their Earth privileges. However, they are not a worthwhile trade to me to see someone put to death by the state who was innocent, and letting the other assholes rot forever is pretty much suitable punishment anyway.
Ryan was shocked to see how many innocent and mentally incompetent people were being executed. Bush simply said, Texas has never executed an innocent man.
Instead of changing the death penalty, why not change the level of proof required? (yeah, I know…the legal system doesnt work that way…but theoretically, it could . )
The law recognizes many different levels of proof as acceptable, for different types of cases. (especially in civil law). For example. suing someone for slander—the requirements for proof-of-damages against a public figure is different than for a private citizen.
And , (I think)in criminal law, there are times when circumstantial evidence is admissable, and times when it is not.
So why not define a new level of proof for the death penalty? Instead of “Beyond a reasonable doubt” level of proof, how about an “absolutely NO reason to doubt that the bastard did it” level of proof.?
In this type of case, a guilty verdict would have be based on hard, phyiscally exisiting proof only…No verbal evidence, no eye witnesses , no confessions extracted in tiny windowless rooms, etc would be considered sufficient for a guilty verdict. Only video cameras of people caught in the act, DNA evidence, fingerprints, etc…And it would even be possible to create a government “Death Panel”* of 12 judges,experts in death penalty law, who would be required to review every case . Only if all 12 agree with the 12 jurors would the death penalty be carried out, otherwise it automatically reverts to life imprisonment.
Also, I would love to see a study comparing the numbers:
of innocent convicts killed by execution, versus the number of innocent people killed by parolled convicts for whom execution had been considered, but not imposed.
*(hey, this is one death panel that Sarah Palin would love 
)
To be more realistic, Ryan was looking for some badly needed positive press while battling the corruption charges that have him currently in prison.
Hentor, thanks for the correction. Hamlet, does that fact alter in any way that there were people on death row that should not have been there? Does that fact have any relevance whatsoever to the injustice of the death penalty in the United States?
Simultaneously believing the government is woefully incompetent and that innocent people are never executed could lead to cognitive dissonance. But probably not.
Yes, I love how so many who strongly support the death penalty simultaneously hold the view that government, in general, is grossly incompetent, evil and should butt the fuck out of our lives. 
Oh, ok, so we can’t trust them to build roads or make laws or oversee corporations but we CAN trust them to KILL US. :dubious:
No, my stance is not changed, since I oppose the death penalty already. One of the main reasons IS the fact that innocent people have been erroneously executed (and many more freed from death row through DNA evidence who would have been put to death otherwise).
But even if it is absolutely certain that someone committed the crime, I STILL don’t consider it ethically or logically right.
There is no solid evidence that is acts as a deterrent.
By killing, even the worst “monsters” among ourselves, we are stooping to the level we claim to deplore.
The act of intentionally killing fellow human beings in cold blood (as opposed to say, self defense) devalues human life and desensitizes us to killing. It appeals to our lower natures, our desire for revenge, our voyeristic tendencies.
And yes, it deprives us of the chance to study some of the most baffling and interesting individuals and grow in our understanding of human psychology, the roots of aberrant behavior and how to prevent and/or treat such conditions.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/1857.php
States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates
Regarding people killed by parolees/those not executed and using that as an argument in favor of the DP, if we had actual “life” sentences, this would not happen.
And if our prisons were not overpopulated with people there for other offenses (non-violent DRUG USE/SALE/POSSESSION, say) we’d have more than enough room to incarcerate murderers, rapists, pedophiles, and other violent offenders and NOT have to release them due to overcrowding. :mad:
There is simply no getting around the fact that drug laws in this country are at the root of this particular issue, particularly the imposition of mandatory minimum sentencing for drug related offenses which removed the leeway of judges and juries to apply judgement in sentencing.
But just the fact that so many inmates are incarcerated for drug crimes that it often comes down to releasing those at high risk of violence instead.
Polly Klass’s killer, a violent offender, was released due to prison overcrowding.
As was a guy Texas Monthly reported on quite a few yrs back (cover story entitled “Monster”…sorry, tried to locate a link but couldn’t) who kidnapped, tortured and killed several teens. Shortly after his release, he kidnappped, raped, tortured and murdered a female college student from a car wash about 2 blocks from our house in Austin at the time. (1990-1?)
Given the mandatory minimums being imposed on non-violent drug offenders, when the courts ruled Texas (and California, in the former case) ruled that prison overcrowding had to be remedied, there was no one else they COULD release to meet the required numbers (so many were there on MM drug charges).
I don’t accept that this situation is inevitable (“might as well execute them, since the system will let them go eventually to kill again”). We have the power to change the system (legalize/decriminalize drugs, shift to treatment and house arrest models for most drug offenses, impose actual life sentences for the most heinous crimes, etc…)