The death penalty (again)

[Blaster_Master]

@iiandyiiii

This argument only makes sense if you believe that you can only achieve justice (for certain crimes) with the death penalty. If you believe (like I do) that justice can be achieved without the death penalty, then my argument is perfectly consistent.

All you’re doing is stating a belief, you haven’t offered any argument to support it. Give me a definition for justice and give me your logic for how you arrive at your conclusion. I have given my definition and my logic to my conclusion. If you’re not willing or able to reciprocate or dispute any of my points, then this isn’t productive discussion.

[iiandyiiii]

All you’re doing is stating a belief, you haven’t offered any argument to support it. Give me a definition for justice and give me your logic for how you arrive at your conclusion. I have given my definition and my logic to my conclusion. If you’re not willing or able to reciprocate or dispute any of my points, then this isn’t productive discussion.

The question in my OP was about beliefs. My belief is that justice can be served with or without resorting to the death penalty. And I am unwilling to accept even a very small risk of executing an innocent person- so because I don’t believe that the death penalty “adds justice” to the system (though I don’t believe it “reduces justice” either, for certain crimes), I prefer to abandon the death penalty altogether.

I don’t think I’m stating any facts there- it’s all my beliefs.

[iiandyiiii]

On justice- true, pure, perfect justice is probably different for every individual (IMO- as all of this is). Some murderers might PREFER to be put to death- perhaps it is more just to imprison them for life (and vice versa). I believe that killing cruelly is worse than killing quickly- but at the extremes (for example, two serial killers- one kills cruelly and sadistically, one kills quickly and relatively painlessly) our system probably has to treat them the same. Even though, in some particular instances, it might be MORE just (because I don’t think justice is black and white- it’s possible to have a little or a lot of justice) to execute someone, I don’t believe that “extra little bit of justice” is worth the risk of executing an innocent person.

So- Blaster Master- that may be the main difference in our views of justice- I don’t see the penalties as either “JUST” or “NOT JUST”, I see shades of grey in them.

[Typo_Negative]

@Blaster_Master

Most people in favor of the death penalty argue that it’s a sign that the system of appeals is working in helping to minimize or eliminate the chance that an innocent person actually gets executed.

I do not wish to be offensive (and I do not know if you agree with sentiment), but the argument seems a little head-in-the-sand, if you know what I mean.

140 exonerated after being convicted and sentenced to death.

We know that exonerating a person on death row is a very difficult and costly process. Also, the appeals process is more for arguing constitutional and procedural errors rather than actual innocence.

We also know that government will not help the process of exonerating a convict. In fact, they will fight it every step of the way. In and of itself, that’s not always bad. I’m sure the loved ones of rightfully convicted people still believe in their innocence. But we have many examples of the government still fighting the exoneration after their case has fallen apart, or worse, even in the face of indisputable proof of actual innocence.

Does it stand to reason that the 140 people who were exonerated had a) means or loved ones with means to continue investigation and litigation and\or b) newly uncovered persuasive evidence of innocence?

Proof of innocence is a problem. Usually this means DNA. In the scheme of things, DNA testing is still fairly new. Lots of people convicted before testing was available. Most of the 17 exonerated by Innocence Project were due to DNA testing.

Luckily for these guys, the police still had the evidence to test. Sometimes the evidence is lost or mistakenly destroyed. In such cases, the death row inmate is shit out of luck.

**Chief Justice Rehnquist **

“Unless a criminal defendant can show bad faith, however, on the part of the police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute a denial of due process.”

How many of the people on Death Row do figure lack means and\or access to DNA testing. Without the possibility of DNA testing, I don’t think the Innocence Project will get involved.

Consider the case of Troy Davis:
http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/cases/usa-troy-davis

The case against him consisted entirely of witness testimony which contained inconsistencies even at the time of the trial. Since then, all but two of the state’s non-police witnesses from the trial have recanted or contradicted their testimony.

One of the two witnesses who has not recanted his testimony is Sylvester “Red” Coles — the principle alternative suspect, according to the defense, against whom there is new evidence implicating him as the gunman. Nine individuals have signed affidavits implicating Sylvester Coles

See the what the witnesses say now here:http://www.amnestyusa.org/sites/defa...affadavits.pdf

What relief can this man expect? There is no physical evidence tying him to the crime. IIRC correctly, even if all the witnesses recant, that still doen’t nessesarily get him off Death Row.

You think that we have not found proof that an innocent man has been executed means it hasn’t happened? I think not. Neither does Sandra Day O’Connor.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor publicly acknowledged shortly thereafter, in July, that it is possible innocent people are being executed in this country, and their inadequate access to quality defense lawyers is contributing to such injustices.