First,Bricker’s thesis is that some innocent people have been convicted. To which I responded that this was certain. If you think that is “dodging” anything, well. you have a different definition from the rest of us.
Second, I have spent much of the thread asking which innocent people have been executed, and what evidence exists to overcome the fact that their guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt, and this establishment survived the years and years of appeals that sufficed to acquit the truly innocent?
“One hypothetical death that maybe might happen in the future, and which nobody can show - that outweighs three real ones anytime!”
It affects your argument that dead people cannot be exonerated. By “affect” I mean “disprove”.
The Coleman example shows how someone could be exonerated even after execution. Did you have any examples of someone who was actually exonerated by the same level of evidence that showed Coleman to have been as guilty as Cain?
You agree that some innocent people have been convicted and sentenced to death?
Great.
Now, what happened to those people?
I see six possible options (apart from “still in prison waiting for death:”)
(a) successful appeal/PCR based on ordinary errors at trial and a retrial that does not end is a death sentence;
(b) pardon/commutation by executive action;
(c) exoneration based on newly-discovered evidence;
(d) died in prison (but not executed)
(e) escaped;
(f) executed pursuant to sentence.
Though i do support the death penalty under certain circumstances, I must also admit when a death sentence is carried out with an absence of supporting evidence.
The classic example is the execution in Texas of Cameron Willingham. He was convicted of homicide by arson largely on a fire science theory about how fires behave. This led investigators to conclude that the fire was arson, rather than accidental.
What you haven’t responded to, or grappled with, are two things:
(1) That there is no judicial procedure for exonerating the dead. Therefore, your standard requiring a posthumous acquittal can never be satisfied, regardless of how many innocent people we kill. You have been pressed to confirm whether that is indeed your standard, but have (unless I’ve missed it), evaded answering whether it was.
(2) There is such a thing as strong evidence about the likely members of a set or group that nevertheless cannot tell you with certainty anything about individual elements or members of the group. Whether you think that evidence exists here we can debate, but you appear not even to accept the threshold premise that such a category of evidence exists.
I think that “What evidence do you have that someone is factually innocent” is a wonderful standard by which to decide whether or not to let the government kill that person. God bless 'Murica.
I will note that the prosecutor’s office who convicted him, the City of Corsicana, and the fire department involved, all dispute that his guilt was discredited.
Cite. And his ex-wife and a jailhouse informant both said he confessed to setting the fire. So it is not exactly a slam-dunk.
So…the people responsible for putting him in jail, his ex-wife and a “jailhouse informant” say he did it, despite all that expert testimony? Them’s mighty high standards you’ve got there. :rolleyes:
Of course such a category can exist. It forms much of the basis for my argument.
We know with absolute certainty that non-executed murderers present a danger to the public, and three examples have been established in the case of the Arkansas convicts. What makes my case stronger than yours is that we have established that the class of “murderers who kill after conviction” applies with clear certainty to those eight - it has already happened. There is no evidence whatever that the class of “people wrongly convicted of murder” applies to those eight. So my evidence tells us with certainty something about those eight - they present a danger to innocent lives.
So we don’t even need to debate anything - we know for a fact that murderers are dangerous, and we also know that killing them means that they are no longer dangerous.
So which would you rather talk about - evidence that cannot prove anything about any one individual, or evidence that does, and has?
That isn’t the standard. “Someone has been convicted beyond any reasonable doubt, the evidence of their guilt has survived years and decades of appeals on every possible point, there is essentially no chance of their being innocent and no one even pretends there is, and it has been established with 100% certainty that they present and have presented a continuing danger to the public.”
That’s the standard by which we should decide. The overwhelming majority of voters of all stripes recognize that. Funny that the SDMB can’t.
Shodan, If we lined these 8 guys up against a wall and gave you a loaded M-16, and ensured you would not have any legal trouble as a result, would you kill them yourself right now?
Yes. It did not involve a criminal procedure to exonerate a dead man. So if that’s to be your standard, Roger Coleman is not helpful to you.
Of course, if extra-legal investigation is your standard, then you have to consider those cases in which posthumously discovered evidence appears to exonerate a dead man, even if there is no court procedure to decide the matter. But you imply that you will not consider such evidence.
I don’t think you’ve yet clarified whether you require a judicial exoneration (which can’t exist), or you’d accept evidence outside of a court that proves innocence but just think no one has put forth such evidence.
Great! Progress!
Both, of course. Ignoring one and focusing on the other would be a really basic error in reasoning, and it’s why I think you’ve reached the wrong conclusion.
Many years ago, I noted that I could only find numbers for 1999; for some reason, there’s not a lot of data out there on “murders in prison - crime originally committed by murderer”. Note: I did find what appears to be a paper that might have some actual data, up to about 2014, but it’d cost me $20 just to read it. Bureau of Justice Statistics apparently doesn’t track it.
Anyway, in 1999, there were 8 homicides in Texas prisons. Of those, three were committed by capital murderers sentenced to life rather than death. So, a little less than 38%, which seems inordinately high, considering what a small part of the population such people are. And of course, that doesn’t include those who are beaten so badly that they need life-long care.
Shodan, it seems you and other death penalty advocates are arguing one of two things: either that the justice system has not, and will never, execute a factually innocent person; or that you feel it’s worth having a factually innocent person executed to keep the deterrence value of the death penalty in place. Which is it, or how would you modify my assumptions if incorrect?
I don’t know if something that specific is tracked, but on the whole death by homicide or accident in jails or prisons is less than 5% of all deaths in prisons. The leading causes of death being cancer and heart disease. (Table 1 and 13). Homicide in prison occurs, but is not very common. Depending on demographic and city, homicide rate in prison could be lower than outside of prison. I’m not sure if that supports any particular argument.