Oh, please. Even one of the prosecutors, who is now a judge, admitted that the arson evidence was “undeniably flawed” and bases his opinion that Willingham would still be convicted of the murder of his children, who apparently died in a fire that wasn’t even set, on the following “evidence”:
Willingham was an abusive dick and didn’t want to be a father.
Willingham was not sufficiently injured in the fire.
Willingham did not sufficiently attempt to rescue his children.
Willingham refused a polygraph, which would not have been admissible in court.
Willingham was not just a dick to his wife, but a dick to animals, too, just like other sociopaths.
Oops, lost my internet connection and somehow posted prematurely. That last post should have continued:
Willingham only wanted one daughter to die.
Willingham had an extra fridge that blocked the back door for an indeterminate amount of time.
Oh, and for good measure, Willingham rejected a plea bargain vehemently maintaining his innocence. Of course, only the truly guilty maintain their innocence.
Not the least of the many problems with Mr. Jackson’s theory on the convictability of Willingham in spite of the flawed arson “evidence” is that the jury will never have the opportunity to hear a case of murder based upon something other than arson. The man is dead now. You can’t unring that bell.
It’s probably just me, but I find it far more sinister that someone could take a life as a public duty, than because they were enraged or bat-shit crazy.
That Pierrepoint family were probably sicker than some of the people they executed.
Yeah, it is true that historically long prison terms are an aberration. From my understanding of history is that up until the 19th it was extremely atypical for anyone to spend a lengthy period of time incarcerated by the state. Essentially some of the only cases of very lengthy terms of “confinement” that I’m aware of are the cases of European nobles who would be held sometimes for decades while their captors were waiting for a ransom payment. However, it must be understood that this was mostly a “matter of honor.” In almost all of these situations of which I am aware, the nobles were “confined” in name only. They generally had full freedom of movement (they weren’t locked in a room); they could travel quite a bit, and they were being held by other nobles who treated them like guests and not like prisoners.
We could always give prisoners the option to euthanize themselves. In essence punishment shouldn’t extend beyond the grave, and if someone wishes to end their life I can’t see any purpose to forcing them to stay alive just out of some desire that they serve as many years of their life sentence as possible.
Well, here’s the thing: you’re sitting at a computer when you typed that. You aren’t being walked down a hall to be strapped onto a table where you’ll then be but to death. You aren’t facing anything like that.
Many people have extremely productive lives in prison. In fact, the “23 hours a day in a cell” is extraordinarily atypical. Housing inmates in cells for 23 hours a day only happens to inmates in ultra-high security prisons (like Supermax facilities), or to prisoners who are in special segregation units. Typically in state prison systems these units are for criminals who are so violent or unruly they can’t be left in the general population, to prisoners who are gang leaders or rarely it is used for protective custody for inmates who have done things like broken a gang affiliation or et cetera and who would not be safe in general population.
The vast majority of people who receive life sentences in this country are not confined in their cell for 23 hours a day. They eat their meals in a cafeteria, communally, they get recreation time every day, and many of them work a job every day.
A life I’d want to live? No, but I don’t plan on getting sentenced to life, however it is still a life, and I think many of these guys can still find meaning in that life.
Generally speaking most prisoners can get into general population if they really want. I think the only ones who probably can’t are the Supermax prisoners who the Feds are unwilling to give that degree of freedom. But even Jeffrey Dahmer successfully appealed to prison administrators to be placed in general population (he was in segregation at first because of his notoriety.)
I hear a lot of people say “I’d rather die than spend the rest of my life in prison.” I don’t think most of those people realize what keeps most life sentence guys going. People with life sentences often (if they’re lucky) have families that will come to visit them regularly. They get to read from the prison library, they have some sort of occupation, they can further their education et cetera.
However, this sort of sentiment isn’t uncommon. Going into World War II, American soldiers being trained over in the States would often speak with bravado about how they’d rather be left to die on the battlefield if they were seriously wounded than be carried back and spend the rest of their lives as cripples. Often times G.I.s would say these things to medics, telling them things like “don’t bring me back alive if I’m going to be crippled.”
What actually happened in combat? Well, according to a lot of interviews that medics have given to recent historical writers (guys like Stephen Ambrose) no matter how horrifically injured someone was they always wanted to live and they always wanted help. The truth of the matter is the human will to survive is extremely strong, it has to be and this only makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. Humans are the only species that can talk with flip about their demise but when the metal hits the meat and they’re actually facing it humans are like most animals in that they try to do anything they can to stay alive.
All that being said, I do agree that 23 hours a day of confinement eventually causes such a mental erosion that many people subjected to it long for death. However I think if you gave a death row inmate the choice between dropping their appeals and allowing themselves to be executed and being allowed to live in general population the overwhelming majority would choose general population to death. Death row is another story, because inmates on death row typically are confined 23 hours a day and they typically have to go through the mental anguish of many (sometimes dozens) of scheduled executions called off at the last minute.
With the imbecilic way we have of deterrence (increasing punishment times for non violent crimes) the death penalty has become the last line, a line we can’t cross
The possibility that they are innocent
Space (we are rapidly losing the ability to house criminals)
1 and 2 and 4 can be taken care of relatively simply. We need to find a happy medium with the way we deter crime. Lowering the imprisonment time (doesn’t work alone) will create more space, revenue, and the ability for those folks to reaquire status as a working class
When you lower the imprisonment time PRISON needs to be a bad place. A place no one wants to go, ever. Bread. Water. Work
No TV, No workout facilities. No free time.
With the lowered time imprisoned, this should be easy enough to maintain.
The death penalty should stay. It is still that last line of those who CANNOT be rehabilitated. It is still the penalty for those crimes so heinous that the perpetrator deserves death, not a chance to be forgiven. What are those crimes? I guess it would need to be discussed.
While I support the death penalty, my brother (who is anti-DP) suggested something that gave me pause. He posited: “Ok, you support the DP? How about we set up a system as follows: when re-election time comes around, place a check mark on the ballot on whether you support the DP or not. If you say you support it, you are given a number. Now, the next time a convicted person who was executed is later proven to be innocent, a random number is taken from the lottery and that person is summarily executed by the State.”
All this about people being innocent is not a reason at all, the death penalty should always be there for those caught in the act, who cannot be innocent. The Fort Hood shooter for instance.
I also know the first to die should be the insane as well who have killed, since they are the most dangerous to all other people. Instead of revenge, we should do that for public safety.
It should always be there for multiple killings too, as an incentive not to keep killing, make it mandatory for that. Right now additional deaths are often not punished at all, look at the 2 DC snipers for instance. Let the younger live because of his birthday??? What nonsense, he should be killed because he did more than one murder, period.
Same thing, give Gilmore a get out free card and see if he then will want to make that statement. I bet not. I really think it has to do with jail, actually.
First of all, I just don’t see how you can say innocence is not a major issue. As the death penalty is administered today, there are a shocking number of wrongful convictions–The overall rate is about 3% proven wrongful convictions. ( to date, about 4,000 death sentences, 139 exonerations). Further, any reasonable person would agree that this is probably an underestimate–since it is based on formal exonerations, and it is hard to believe that every factually innocent defendant has already been able to, or in fact, could possibly prove that they are factually innocent.
If you are arguing that we should limit the death penalty just to those who are “caught in the act,” that would certainly reduce the risk of wrongful conviction–but it’s not how the death penalty is today. So while innocence is a problem now, you could change the death penalty to make it less of a risk. ** but not zero.**
First, depending on what you mean by “caught in the act,” this change may not in fact lower the risk of wrongful conviction much–since many of those wrongfully sentenced to death were in fact “seen” by an eye-witness. For example (just picking those examples easiest to find)
These cases are also good examples of the second problem–that our legal system is just plain imperfect. Prosecutors and police sometimes lie (see third cite), sometimes force people to falsely confess (Home - Center on Wrongful Convictions), and sometimes the jury just gets it wrong. This second source of error is simply not fixed by your proposed reform.
To summarize–(1) people can be, by the commonsense definition, “caught in the act,” and yet be factually innocent. (2) sometimes, people the court determines to have been “caught in the act” were, factually, not.
Admittedly, there are ways to make the criminal justice system fairer–and they should be pursued. However, the only real way to avoid wrongful executions is to never execute anyone–since a system run by human beings will get it wrong some of the time.
Your argument is based on “facts” that are simply not true.
To use the example you picked–the younger sniper was sentenced to life in virginia for one murder, to six consecutive life sentences in maryland for six murders, and can still be prosecuted by several other jurisdictions (from wiki, CA and FL). It is just plain wrong that he was not punished for more than one murder.
I think a couple people are latching onto the thing about “are you saying its OK to have innocent people spend time in jail?” – I’m absolutely not saying this is OK. The question of whether/how we should compensate people for time wrongfully spent in jail is worthy of another thread, entirely. I’m trying to stick to the logic of the death penalty.
This is not what I’m arguing; I was trying to avoid a lengthy debate on burden of proof to keep things specific. I don’t believe I was being vague or misleading – “reality is complicated” surely sounds silly, but I just wanted to avoid getting sidetracked.
Of course, but, again, I’m trying to avoid a bloated debate. Similarly, the gist of my argument was that the COMBINATION of (a) the potential for uncertainty with (b) the finality of capital punishment was enough to suggest that we should not be engaging in it.
My argument wasn’t based on the punishment inflected (except in a sense of finality); defending the death penalty as more humane than a life spent in prison doesn’t render my argument (basically, that the inherent flaws in our legal system mean we execute innocents) moot. If we had a situation in which people who had been sentenced to life in prison without parole weren’t allowed to prove their innocence, I could make the same argument against life in prison.
And it appears that few can; in the US, there are frequently psychological tricks used to allow a disconnect for the executioners. Classic example would be the firing squad who are told that a given number of guns are loaded with blanks; I’ve read that current systems tend to feature triggering mechanisms (for lethal injection) consisting of multiple buttons, with only one being “live”. Few people want to be the one who pulls the trigger.\
I sure could. Make me an executioner and I would want to execute every working day doing just that. Not much different from destroying rabid dogs and such, and I would want to put in my full 8 hours doing as many prisoners as I could accommodate, knowing I was protecting the public. I’d be the most efficient government employee in history.