# Two arguments against the death penalty: one effective, one ineffective **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 13, 2015, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-arguments-against-the-death-penalty-one-effective-one-ineffective/725013 "2015-07-13T03:54:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![mr.jp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/48db29/32.png) [@mr.jp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mr.jp)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-arguments-against-the-death-penalty-one-effective-one-ineffective/725013/41 "2015-07-14T03:57:54Z")
As a non-US citizen I find the death penalty barbaric. However, at least you take it seriously. What I think is worse is your callous approach to solitary confinement. It is torture, way more widespread than death penalties, and overall the larger evil. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-arguments-against-the-death-penalty-one-effective-one-ineffective/725013/42 "2015-07-14T05:23:00Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > I think people are missing the point of this thread. It isn’t, _“Is the death penalty right or wrong?”_ > > It’s, \*"What is a convincing argument to persuade the general public (\*\*not \*_merely preaching to the choir?)"_ Ok. I’d recommend a 1-2 punch. Punch 1: The death penalty is FUBAR in this country so let’s have a moratorium. Punch 2: The death penalty is barbaric so let’s keep the moratorium. In most countries, abolition passed against majority opinion. (Cite: I read this in the Economist once.) But opinions shift once the moratorium is in place: you need a method of cementing that. Also see mr. jp’s non-US perspective. Full disclosure: I buy punch 1, but I don’t entirely buy punch 2. Except insofar as the US is on par with Iran, North Korea and China with respect to its enthusiasm for death penalty. I’m not a big fan of the human rights record of those 3 countries. (See? _Barbaric!_) ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-arguments-against-the-death-penalty-one-effective-one-ineffective/725013/43 "2015-07-14T06:46:40Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > People call abortion and gay marriage morally wrong don’t they? “It’s morally wrong” frequently is \*\*not \*\*an end-all settlement of a debate. The morality argument is generally weak IMO, no matter the issue. It’s an argument from authority. For that to be logically valid the person making the argument is impying that they are an expert on morality and there’s no room for debate. Even if that’s genuinely the case, “I’m right. You’re wrong. Behave the way I tell you” isn’t the most hearable or convincing case for most people. There’s room for the morality argument if it’s presented as a discussion asserting why a certain moral principle should be the standard. It’s a rational discussion about what the appropriate moral code should be. Down that line of attack “It’s immoral” is just the last step once the real convincing has already been done. Personally, I do consider someone attempting it as well on the way to an end all settlement to a debate with me. It doesn’t change my opinion. I just stop listening. Debate over. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-arguments-against-the-death-penalty-one-effective-one-ineffective/725013/44 "2015-07-14T06:56:09Z")
> [@DinoR](#): > > The morality argument is generally weak IMO, no matter the issue. It’s an argument from authority. For that to be logically valid the person making the argument is impying that they are an expert on morality and there’s no room for debate. Even if that’s genuinely the case, “I’m right. You’re wrong. Behave the way I tell you” isn’t the most hearable or convincing case for most people. There’s room for the morality argument if it’s presented as a discussion asserting why a certain moral principle should be the standard. It’s a rational discussion about what the appropriate moral code should be. Down that line of attack “It’s immoral” is just the last step once the real convincing has already been done. > > Personally, I do consider someone attempting it as well on the way to an end all settlement to a debate with me. It doesn’t change my opinion. I just stop listening. Debate over. Ok, but what about, don’t rape? don’t murder? do we really have to explain to people why you don’t rape and you don’t murder? aren’t there a handful of things we should just expect people to agree too/accept? ---
**Author:** ![Hiker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hiker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiker)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 9:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-arguments-against-the-death-penalty-one-effective-one-ineffective/725013/45 "2015-07-14T09:25:53Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Ok, but what about, don’t rape? don’t murder? do we really have to explain to people why you don’t rape and you don’t murder? aren’t there a handful of things we should just expect people to agree too/accept? If you want to make an argument based on morality, you must first establish an universally (or at least widely) accepted moral standard as the basis for your discussion. A good starting point could be what philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote in his “[Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwork_of_the_Metaphysic_of_Morals)” (1785): > [@](#): > > “I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law.” If you can get everyone in the discussion to agree that this is a valid principle, you can work from there. This will probably lead you to an agreement that murder is immoral (because murder being universally accepted would break down society). ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-arguments-against-the-death-penalty-one-effective-one-ineffective/725013/46 "2015-07-14T09:29:56Z")
> [@Hiker](#): > > If you want to make an argument based on morality, you must first establish an universally (or at least widely) accepted moral standard as the basis for your discussion. A good starting point could be what philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote in his “[Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwork_of_the_Metaphysic_of_Morals)” (1785): > If you can get everyone in the discussion to agree that this is a valid principle, you can work from there. This will probably lead you to an agreement that murder is immoral (because murder being universally accepted would break down society). that book is, quite literally, on my bookshelf, on the “to read” shelf… ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-arguments-against-the-death-penalty-one-effective-one-ineffective/725013/47 "2015-07-14T13:07:18Z")
> [@Hiker](#): > > Well, if you want to make a case for the death penalty, preventing further crimes seems like a reasonable argument. But would the death penalty really have prevented all those murders on your list? On that list I see mainly two groups of repeat killers: Those who escaped to kill again and those who have been paroled. Don’t forget the ones who killed in prison. > [@](#): > > The death penalty won’t effectively prevent the former, because, as you have mentioned, there is a lengthy appeals procedure. This takes years and would have given many (probably most) of the jailbreakers on your list the time to escape. You could argue that the death penalty still makes a jailbreak less likely. But improving on prison security would do that too. > The latter group - those who have been paroled - would have been kept from killing again by a life sentence without parole. So for these cases I do not see why it should have needed a death sentence for preventing the second murder. Similarly, all we need to do is improve the appeals process, and the objection that we might execute an innocent person disappears. So it cuts both ways. If we can make one process perfect, so that the risk drops to zero, then we can make another perfect, and that risk drops to zero. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Hiker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hiker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiker)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-arguments-against-the-death-penalty-one-effective-one-ineffective/725013/48 "2015-07-14T13:25:32Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Similarly, all we need to do is improve the appeals process, and the objection that we might execute an innocent person disappears. So it cuts both ways. > > If we can make one process perfect, so that the risk drops to zero, then we can make another perfect, and that risk drops to zero. Ok, I follow. So what you basically are saying is that the number of convicts that escape due to an imperfect prison system to kill again is likely to be greater than the number of innocent people that are executed due to an imperfect appeals system. I do not know, if that is true but I’ll admit that it may very well be. But can we really bring this down to a numbers game? Is it okay to kill five innocents by applying a policy that will prevent six other innocents from getting killed? I say it is not, because it makes a difference \*who \*does the killing. Imagine you are the representative of your nation during a hostage crisis. The hostage taker is holding six innocent people captive. He promises to set them free unharmed, if \*you \*agree to kill five other innocent people. Otherwise the hostages die. Even if you could somehow be sure that the hostage taker is as good as his word, you would not do it, right? Because for a state to actively kill an innocent person is much worse than failing to prevent a criminal from doing it. (Sorry for using an example that is a bit far fetched - I hope it illustrates the point.) ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-arguments-against-the-death-penalty-one-effective-one-ineffective/725013/49 "2015-07-14T13:49:47Z")
> [@Hiker](#): > > But can we really bring this down to a numbers game? Is it okay to kill five innocents by applying a policy that will prevent six other innocents from getting killed? I say it is not, because it makes a difference \*who \*does the killing. > > Imagine you are the representative of your nation during a hostage crisis. The hostage taker is holding six innocent people captive. He promises to set them free unharmed, if \*you \*agree to kill five other innocent people. Otherwise the hostages die. Even if you could somehow be sure that the hostage taker is as good as his word, you would not do it, right? Because for a state to actively kill an innocent person is much worse than failing to prevent a criminal from doing it. > > (Sorry for using an example that is a bit far fetched - I hope it illustrates the point.) It does illustrate it, but I don’t agree that it is better to let six innocent people die than to let five innocent people die. You said that it makes a difference who does the killing. Can you describe more precisely the harm being done when the state kills someone innocent, after every effort to ensure that the person is guilty, that outweighs the loss of an innocent life? And is it absolute, where one innocent execution outweighs a hundred other innocent lives? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-arguments-against-the-death-penalty-one-effective-one-ineffective/725013/50 "2015-07-14T14:35:15Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > You said that it makes a difference who does the killing. Can you describe more precisely the harm being done when the state kills someone innocent, _after every effort to ensure that the person is guilty_, that outweighs the loss of an innocent life? And is it absolute, where one innocent execution outweighs a hundred other innocent lives? (italics mine)But the State’s job is _not_ to ensure that every effort is made to ensure that the person that they have in custody is guilty. Their job is to make sure that the person that they have in custody is convicted. Their job is to fight against any and all evidence the defense puts forth in the defendant’s favor, to cast doubt in the jurors minds, and to get a verdict of “guilty”. They are not there to find the truth-They are there to find a high conviction rate. ---
**Author:** ![Hiker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hiker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiker)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-arguments-against-the-death-penalty-one-effective-one-ineffective/725013/51 "2015-07-14T14:38:16Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Can you describe more precisely the harm being done when the state kills someone innocent, after every effort to ensure that the person is guilty, that outweighs the loss of an innocent life? I am not sure if I can, but I’ll try: Your view of the state is a bit like that of a chicken farmer: If some of my chickens catch a deadly virus, it is best to kill them. I will try not to kill any of the healthy ones, but if I need to kill some of them in order to prevent the virus from infecting half of the stock, so be it. A reasonable decision. I’d like the state to be more like a mother. You cannot tell a mother to kill one of her children in order to save all the others. A mother will not kill her own child, because if she does, none of the others will ever look at her the same way. I know that a state cannot always be the mother. But it cannot always be the chicken farmer either. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-arguments-against-the-death-penalty-one-effective-one-ineffective/725013/52 "2015-07-14T15:57:37Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Someone (can’t recall who) once pointed out that opponents of the death penalty often use two arguments. One is highly effective, the other is highly _in_effective. > > The \*effective \*argument points out that innocent people have been executed before for crimes they didn’t commit. This argument is usually very persuasive - nobody wants to see innocent people wrongfully put to death. This appeal typically results in lessened support for capital punishment. > > The \*ineffective \*argument bemoans the physical pain that condemned murderers experience during the execution process. This argument almost invariably leads society to retort, “Well, what about the suffering of the murderer’s _victims_?” If anything, this argument tends to backfire, and \*increase \*support for the death penalty. Arguing that the death penalty should be abolished because it makes convicted murderers feel physical pain is an argument typically met with disdain. It’s not about being effective. People use different arguments because they’re opposed to DP for different reasons. I use the first “effective” argument because I don’t think the DP is wrong in itself, I just think its implementation is fatally flawed and leads to the execution of innocents. Others use the second “ineffective” argument because they believe the DP is inherently morally wrong. That’s the reason why they oppose it, hence that’s the argument they use. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-arguments-against-the-death-penalty-one-effective-one-ineffective/725013/53 "2015-07-14T16:18:01Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Can you describe more precisely the harm being done when the state kills someone innocent, […] that outweighs the loss of an innocent life? This question makes no sense to me. How avoiding the death of an innocent would justify killing another innocent? The state shouldn’t kill any innocent, period. That’s a job for criminals. > [@](#): > > after every effort to ensure that the person is guilty, The state doesn’t do that. Especially not in the American system, where it tries to demonstrate guilt and isn’t obligated to do the slighest effort to ascertain innocence. Jurors don’t do that, either. It seems pretty obvious to me that as far as DP is concerned, you’re better of if it’s blatantly obvious that you commited a not too awful crime (say, murdering your spouse in a fit of jealousy) than if you’re strongly suspect of having commited a really awful crime (say, rape-murder of a child). Also, being unsympathetic to the jurors for whatever reason weights more than an actual evidence. ---
**Author:** ![HumbleThinker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/5daacb/32.png) [@HumbleThinker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HumbleThinker)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-arguments-against-the-death-penalty-one-effective-one-ineffective/725013/54 "2015-07-14T16:20:22Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > This touches on another ineffective argument against the DP, which is that LWOP is worse than death and therefore a more severe punishment. So we should impose a sentence that involves more suffering rather than less.It would be, but one would have to come with actual examples of people who were [LIST=A] > [li]actually executed, and [\*]later exonerated.[/li][/LIST]Since there aren’t any clear cut examples of cases fulfilling both conditions, it is not a very effective argument. > > Regards, > Shodan George Stinney for a recent post humous exoneration. Timothy Evans, Mahmood Hussein Mattan, and Derek Bentley for some older examples. Also Johnny Garrett and Cameron Todd Willingham. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-arguments-against-the-death-penalty-one-effective-one-ineffective/725013/55 "2015-07-14T19:03:03Z")
> [@Construct](#): > > An even more effective conservative case for abolishing the death penalty would be how the high cost necessitates higher taxes. Sorry, but that argument is voided by immediate execution. As in the convicted is immediately removed from the courtroom and executed. Or maybe executed in the courtroom. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-arguments-against-the-death-penalty-one-effective-one-ineffective/725013/56 "2015-07-14T19:12:28Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > One more than the number of innocent people who die when the death penalty is not imposed. > > You have, at most, Willingham, whose death would have been prevented if we imposed LWOP instead. I have a list of [deaths](http://www.wesleylowe.com/repoff.html) that would have been prevented if we had imposed death instead. That list is meaningless. I bet I could come up with a list of people who murdered someone less than 24 hours after getting a speeding ticket. Should we then kill them too as a way to prevent murders? The death penalty fails on numerous counts. It doesn’t improve anyone’s safety and costs a fortune to implement. About the only thing it manages to do is satisfy some blood lust. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-arguments-against-the-death-penalty-one-effective-one-ineffective/725013/57 "2015-07-14T19:25:16Z")
> [@Hiker](#): > > Ok, I follow. So what you basically are saying is that the number of convicts that escape due to an imperfect prison system to kill again is likely to be greater than the number of innocent people that are executed due to an imperfect appeals system. I do not know, if that is true but I’ll admit that it may very well be. > > But can we really bring this down to a numbers game? Is it okay to kill five innocents by applying a policy that will prevent six other innocents from getting killed? I say it is not, because it makes a difference \*who \*does the killing. As it happens I’m all for utilitarian calculations. If I could be convinced that the death penalty saved a statistically significant number of lives, I would support it. That implies that to me a convicted murderer’s life is equivalent to a statistical life. That’s a big moral step. If there’s a miner or a child caught in a hole, society may spend six or seven figures to get them out even if the same funds could save more (statistical) lives if devoted to an EMT program. Strict utilitarians (I’m not sure they exist) would find that irrational. The argument you are responding to is probably not a utilitarian one though, as the death penalty fails on such grounds. That’s ok: all sorts of moral frameworks can weigh advantages and disadvantages. Personally, I put a pretty heavy weight on a guy who is put to death because of junk science. Others differ. I also advocate funding devoted to evaluating the accuracy of past death penalty decisions, largely because I dislike societal cowardice. I would not have a problem with comparing the number of people killed by escaped death row inmates to the number of innocent folk put to death. By way of fighting ignorance I’ll link to a 1990s study that concluded that wrongful conviction rates (all cases, not just murder) are conservatively estimated at about 1/2 of one percent. That produced about 10,000 victims per year. [http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/ronhuff.htm](http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/ronhuff.htm) ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-arguments-against-the-death-penalty-one-effective-one-ineffective/725013/58 "2015-07-14T19:51:58Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > There’s the fact that it’s morally wrong, always and everywhere, but I don’t really regard that as an _argument_, per se; more of a reason to stop bickering about it and just ban it already. That seems like an opinion, since one can just as easily choose a set of axioms, as have you, that logically leads to an opposite conclusion. My argument that I would employ against the death penalty is that it’s too much power to leave in the hands of the corrupt political class that make up the law enforcement, judiciary, and the other apparatus of government. That argument ought to be made in opposition of any form of state sanctioned, even implicit, ‘uncivilized’ punishments. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2015, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-arguments-against-the-death-penalty-one-effective-one-ineffective/725013/59 "2015-07-15T12:20:30Z")
> [@HumbleThinker](#): > > George Stinney for a recent post humous exoneration. Recent? He was executed in 1944. > [@](#): > > Timothy Evans, Mahmood Hussein Mattan, and Derek Bentley for some older examples. Also Johnny Garrett and Cameron Todd Willingham. We have already covered Willingham. Johnny Garrett was not exonerated AFAICT - the appeals court said > [@](#): > > The evidence against the accused was overwhelming. Garrett was seen running from the direction of the convent on the night of the murder. Prints found on the handle and blade of the kitchen knife recovered from under the victim’s bed and prints from the bed headboard matched Garrett’s. Pubic hairs recovered from the scene were determined to have the same individual characteristics as Garrett’s. The steak knife found in the driveway of the convent was of the same manufacture, design and make, and had the same degree of use as another steak knife recovered from Garrett’s residence. [Cite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Garrett). You and I have differing definitions of “exonerated”. As I said, simply repeating the defense case, using unsworn testimony and the unchallenged opinions decades after the fact, and after repeated appeals upholding the verdict, are not exoneration IMO. What I am looking for is something like what the Innocence Project does, where there is actual evidence of innocence. And preferably for an execution that happened more recently than the 1940s. The DP was reinstated in 1976. That is recent enough to consider it as the start of the modern era of executions, which is where we are now. Include DNA testing in your consideration; that is a powerful form of evidence. Do you have any actual cases of exoneration that fit those particulars? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![HumbleThinker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/5daacb/32.png) [@HumbleThinker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HumbleThinker)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-arguments-against-the-death-penalty-one-effective-one-ineffective/725013/60 "2015-07-16T13:27:51Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Recent? He was executed in 1944. > We have already covered Willingham. Johnny Garrett was not exonerated AFAICT - the appeals court said > [Cite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Garrett). > > You and I have differing definitions of “exonerated”. As I said, simply repeating the defense case, using unsworn testimony and the unchallenged opinions decades after the fact, and after repeated appeals upholding the verdict, are not exoneration IMO. > > What I am looking for is something like what the Innocence Project does, where there is actual evidence of innocence. And preferably for an execution that happened more recently than the 1940s. The DP was reinstated in 1976. That is recent enough to consider it as the start of the modern era of executions, which is where we are now. Include DNA testing in your consideration; that is a powerful form of evidence. > > Do you have any actual cases of exoneration that fit those particulars? > > Regards, > Shodan [Claude Jone](http://www.texasobserver.org/texas-observer-exclusive-dna-tests-undermine-evidence-in-texas-execution/) appears to have been executed in the modern era yet later exonerated based on DNA evidence. Jesse Tafero, while not exonerated, was likely innocent given that Walter Rhodes confessed to the murders. Not based on DNA like you were looking for, but another almost assuredly wrongful execution in the modern era. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-arguments-against-the-death-penalty-one-effective-one-ineffective/725013.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-arguments-against-the-death-penalty-one-effective-one-ineffective/725013.md?page=4)