Perhaps I misunderstand your use of the word “test”, but the people that have been executed have been “tested” by having a jury convict them of crimes, having appellate courts uphold those convictions, having the executive branch not pardon or commute their sentences. Or are you positing that the criminal justice system re-try everyone they’ve convicted once more just to be really, really sure.
Yes, they are. Which does make it more difficult to prove innocence after having been convicted, and having those convictions upheld on appeal. It’s part of that finality of judgments thing
So, you think it is acceptable for the state to kill people innocent of the crime … why?
To bring about some nonexistent psychological state? Or for the sake of very small souled people (certainly not ‘the rest of us’)? Or because you stood in the corner when it was Benjie that stole the cookies?
Oh sure, that would be more persuasive. But you’re talking as if a wrongful execution is some kind of weird hypothetical requiring an alternate-universe thought experiment.
As has already been mentioned upthread, numerous death-row inmates have been exonerated with DNA evidence. What would have happened to those people if DNA had never been discovered? Is anyone seriously going to argue that nobody was ever wrongly convicted of murder prior to the advent of DNA evidence?
Governor Ryan cleared Illinois’s death row after the thirteenth death row inmate was exonerated since 1977. During that same period, 12 people were executed. Are we really supposed to believe that the exact same justice system completely fucked up 13 times, but got it 100 percent right the other 12 times? To me, that’s the bizarre hypothetical: the idea that everyone wrongly sent to death row is magically exonerated before their execution date.
Anyway, even if we had an absolutely clear-cut, indisputable case of someone being wrongly executed, I suspect that the pro-DP crowd would be unmoved. They’d just shrug and say, “Hey, it’s collateral damage. And the guy was probably guilty of something else anyway.”
So if it’s an “imperfect world” and we happen to execute innocent persons, would you be willing to be one of them?
So punishment is never about the criminal? Maybe you could explain prison systems have the word “corrections” in their names. Who are they correcting?
As for “closure,” it’s idiotic for state governments to burn through millions of dollars administering the death penalty in the hopes of making the victim’s family feel marginally better. Convicting killers, locking them up, and throwing away the key is enough. If people don’t think that’s enough “closure,” then they should talk to Nicole Brown Simpson’s family.
Yeah, and sometimes the “injustice” consists of murderers spending the rest of their lives in a 6’x9’ cell without any possibility of parole. Deal with it.
I’ve repeatedly said it is possible, and I will grant you that innocents have been subject to the death penalty in the US. I don’t know why you’ve reached your conclusion.
Nope, no one is.
It’s not magical, it’s the criminal justice system. With the heightened attention that death penalty cases receive, the numerous appeals/post conviction petitions, and commutations/pardons that accompany death penalty cases, it’s not magic, it’s how the system works.
I would imagine that they would point to the recidivism rate amongst murderers and point out that dead people have a zero recidivism rate, so, statistically speaking, the cost in lives of allowing a murderer to kill again is more than the cost in lives of making sure they never can.
I find that unpersuasive also.
Sure. So while we can’t say with utter certainty that we have executed an innocent man, we can certainly acknowledge the factors which suggest it is probable.
Lordy, it sounds so complicated.
I think Cameron Todd Willingham was factually innocent of the crimes he was executed for.
His conviction hinged largely on expert testimony that turned out to be based on junk science, but because it wasn’t debunked until after his execution, there was no reason for the appellate courts to do anything but uphold his conviction.
Now that’s the sort of thing that’s a problem whether the death penalty is involved or not. And I think the state laws have gotten better when it comes to preserving additional avenues for appeal for people who have exhausted their normal appeals. But I’m not prepared to conclude that wrongful convictions are anything but extraordinary. I’d rather condemn incompetent attorneys, lying witnesses, and hack experts than the process itself.
I think that’s where Hamlet is coming from. I’m against the death penalty, but not because I think the procedure is broken. That would imply it could be fixed and made acceptable.
“Probable” is going way to far, especially when we get down to the case by case determinations that justice requires.
Only for a valid cause. (And no, a Life of David Gale situation ain’t one of 'em.)
But given the choice, I’d imagine anyone would prefer execution over life w/o parole, when imprisoned for a crime you didn’t commit AND have exhausted all appeals & HBO documentaries. (Not that I’ve actually been there, mind you – but then again, neither have you.)
So you’re comfortable killing an innocent person based solely on what you imagine he or she might prefer. Interesting basis for decision making.
I wonder what the famous Buddha might have thought about that.
That was an inaccurate statement on my behalf that I made in haste while attempting to be pithy.
I shouldn’t have made it and apologize.
I was thinking of the Bahai for whom it is legal to kill because the Bahai are essentially “unpersons” in Iran.
Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians are recognized by Iranian law and so while they do face a dramatic amount of discrimination they aren’t persecuted the way the Bahai are.
I should have been more clear. While there are set punishments for a Muslim who murders a Muslim or a non-Muslim who murders a Muslim in Iran, there is no set punishment for a Muslim who murders a non-Muslim which basically leaves any such punishment up to the judge. This can mean the Judge can declare it’s not a recognized crime and therefore “no offense occurred”.
That said, usually, when a Muslim is convicted of such a crime(which is quite difficult for a number of reasons since IIRC, a non-Muslim isn’t allowed to testify against a Muslim and their testimony is considered less than that of a Muslim, they are given some punishment, though usually they can get away with just paying “blood money” to the family of the victim.
Here is relevant article on the treatment of religious minorities in Iran.
http://www.marinanemat.com/essay_minorities.pdf(warning PDF)
So yes, I overstated the case.
Why don’t you check for yourself? (Hint: Pay close attention to #3.)
So you interpret the third noble truth to mean that killing someone is a good thing because it releases him or her from the cycle of sorrow? Do I have that right?
No, you dummy. It’s about releasing yourself from your own cycle of sorrow and despair, by not getting all worked up about world problems that are literally unfixable, such as innocents being lead to the slaughter.
When you finally locate that Perfect World that you think exists, be sure to post directions to it on Facebook, ok? //rolleyes//
In other words, Americans have a death penalty simply because we get off on killing, as long as we can distance it from ourselves and make it look clean. Just like our wars, where we like to slaughter people right and left so long as we don’t have to see the blood and bodies. The death penalty isn’t about crime at all, it’s about killing for the sake of killing.
There isn’t nearly as much difference between the average American and a serial killer as we like to believe. The serial killer just does his own dirty work.
Actually, murder has one of the lowest recidivism rates.
How is it unfixable for me not to kill people?
Okay, let me beg your patience a bit further while I struggle to understand. According to the Third Noble Truth, it is possible to identify the cause of the cycle of suffering. Thus in order to be released from the cycle of sorrow, one is advised refrain from trying to change governmental policy that might be causing innocent people from being killed. Have I got it now?