You beat me to it. The 6.6% rearrest rate posted earlier in this thread is not valid.
But you should also have pointed out that there’s a difference between being rearrested, as opposed to charged, and finally convicted.
I would also have mentioned that the rearrest rate includes both nonnegligent and negligent manslaughter, not only homicides. Further, the data in your cite is based on the most violent convicts: those serving time in state prison. The data does not include convicts sentenced to jail terms or to probation.
If I could be so bold as to point to an earlier post of mine about recidivism rate for rapists, in the thread Castration as a punishment for rape, there’s a little more about breaking down the numbers.
A list of death penalty cases involving innocence, later overturned because of prosecutorial misbehavior or some other error at trial (includes case history):.
A database with over 300 cases (some old) of wrongfully incarcerated people, later released, many sentenced to death. List includes case summary and exonerating evidence/errors. Strangely enough, in 8 of those cases the victim was later found alive.
This is a good cite. It does not contain exhaustive evidence, but it seems a bit more nuetral, just the facts so to speak. It does contain the 2 cases I have been on about and a few others that they consider cases of "High Likelihood Innocence
". We can concentrate on one or all of those if you guys like. I would still like to withold judgement until we hear from the other side on at least one of the cases.
I am most curious to see why the final appeals of these men were denied. If they all rested on procedural reasons, then I am more inclined to believe that we have already executed inocent people. Right now, I am inclined to believe simply because of the huge number of death penalty convictions that have been overturned. The study I linked to earlier here had this to say:
There is a lot of good statistics in brief in the executive summary. But the important one for me is that the rate of prejudicial error over the 23 years studied 68%. That is “*courts found serious, reversible error in nearly 7 of every 10 of the thousands of capital sentences that were fully reviewed during the period.
*” Even if it can be shown that the cases we found are not instances of inocent people haveing been executed, it is simply a matter of time. The government is simply not properly motivated to “get it right”. which is why, BTW, I don’t think they should have a lot of the powers they have.
I should point out, that I would love to be proven wrong about this. I am very much a law and order sort of guy. I lose very little sympathy for people who break the law. I simply feel that the bar is not sufficiently high enough for the government to prove the necessity to kill people.
A good discussion, with excellent information from both sides - especially Hamlet and pervert.
I apologize for not returning to the thread earlier. A couple of quick points now -
This is a statistic that cuts both ways. Maybe it shows that there are errors in capital cases. Maybe it also shows that those sentences that survived all the way to execution contained no errors. Thus the executions were valid.
Your question as to what would constitute proof of innocence is a good one. My short hand answer would be something like “a smoking gun”. What I object to in many of the cites available from anti-DP sites are that they are a simple re-presentation of the case for the defense, which disregards or minimizes all evidence of guilt. If you only consider one side of any case, it is hard to evaluate the chances of factual innocence, which is really the only thing I am interested in.
Which is to say, I believe that people who actually committed murder should die. Another way of expressing this is to say that, even if the trial wasn’t perfect, if the guy did it, he should die. Therefore I tend to discount objections like “he should not be executed because the judge gave the wrong instructions to the jury during the sentencing phase”, or things like that. I also tend to discount arguments that say that a given felon ought not to be executed, although he is factually guilty but had extenuating circumstances. That is not what I am talking about - I tend to focus on factual innocence, or factual guilt. OJ, although acquited, is factually guilty. He should therefore, in my view, have been convicted and executed.
IANAL. And I am not qualified to speak (usually) to legal issues. But I am an amateur moralist, and I speak to those issues, qualified or not.
But Alien’s objection to the 6.6% of murderers who are rearrested -
while I understand his point, I don’t think it affects mine all that much. The end result of non-negligent manslaughter is a death. Thus it ought (in my opinion) be included in the statistics of “lives that could have been saved if the murderer were executed”. And I don’t think there are all that many convicts who are given probation for murder, so his last sentence doesn’t, I think, invalidate the point. Unless I misunderstood what Alien was saying.
Again, thanks for the cite. But as I mentioned earlier, my assertion was that no one has been shown to be factually innocent after execution, since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976. Porter was not executed.
No, and I think the question is a little silly.
No one is talking about eliminating the Bill of Rights. We are talking about executing people who are convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, after a fair trial where both sides have the chance to present evidence and challenge the evidence of the other side. Then, in the rare instance where the accused is sentenced to die, that sentence survives the years or decades of appeals challenging every single solitary nit it is possible for defense lawyers to pick, many or most of which have little or nothing to do with factual innocence.
I cannot find the cite online, but I read a reference in The National Review to a study published in Columbia Law Review. IIRC, that study found that between 1976-1993, 810 murderers who were not executed went on to commit 824 murders. That’s 824 innocent lives that were lost because we did not use the DP. To back up their case, the anti-DP side is going to have to come up with 825 wrongful executions during the same period to argue that overall, we would be better off without the DP.
So far, what we have seen is mostly lists of people who were released and weren’t executed. Thus they suffered little more injury than they would have if they had been sentenced to life in prison without parole. Therefore I contend that eliminating the death penalty would not have made all that much difference - unless you argue that anti-DP proponents would not have been nearly as interested in the innocence of someone in prison for life, and would not have pursued the appeals with the same vigor. IOW, if they are sentenced to death and innocent, the anti-DPs try to get them off (or, more commonly, tries to get them yet another trial, or get their sentence commuted). If they are in prison for life and innocent, they will rot there for the rest of their lives.
Another instance where it can be argued that the DP saves lives, by preventing a miscarriage of justice.
That wasn’t the assertion that I was adressing, though. I concede that nobody has been conclusively shown to have been wrongfully executed since 1976, but I disagree that it’s becuase the appelate system works perfectly. In Porter’s case, the system came close to failing him utterly, as well as the victim’s family. If the six undergrads haadn’t uncovered proof of his actual innocence of the crime, the truth would almost certainly never have come to light. We have a system that accepts demonstrable and repeated trial court error where wrongful guilt is found beyond a reasonable doubt because we believe the appellate system “works perfectly” and lacks the trial courts’ unquestionable flaws. I think flaws in the appellate system are apparent.
It is indeed a silly question. That’s the point. I’m trying to illustrate how the question is more complex that a simple arithmetic and cost/benefit analysis of what will be likely to save more lives in the long run. If that was the only factor, we actually would be well served do do away with some of the constitutional protections afforded the accused. If I can quote Sua Sponte from another thread,
If I understand your position, you feel that the benefits of the death penalty, namely reducing subsequent murders through recidivism, outweighs the cost of the possibility that we may execute someone when it hasn’t even been shown that there’s any risk of that happening yet. Our point of disagreement is that I believe there is presently such a risk, and that the costs of recidivism can be controlled through other means, such as imprisonment without parole or more informed and effective parole boards.
Most murderers are generally considered relatively low risks for recidivism, but then you have a situtaion like Kenneth McDuff. McDuff’s death sentence was commuted to life after Fuhrman v. Georgia, andshould have spent the rest of his life in prison. However, Texas didn’t, and still doesn’t, have a sentence of life without parole. The parole board who set McDuff free in 1989 was woefully misinformed as to the nature and extent of his crimes. The subsequent carnage led to a complete overhaul of the Texas parole system. Murderers who reoffend by murdering are not just a misapplication of the death penalty, they are also a failing of sentencing and parole boards in risk assesment.
(By the way–“rare instance where the accused is sentenced to die”? You ain’t from Texas, are ya, pardner? )
it’s not that “anti-DP” people aren’t interested, it’s that the nature of death penalty convictions invoke automatic appeals, paid for by taxpayers, that life sentences don’t. You illustrate exactly why yourself: very few death penalty appeals are claims of actual innocence of the crime itself. They’re generallly procedural and due process attacks on the conviction that are not colorable when the death penalty is not involved, because the entire purpose is an attempt to mitigate the death penalty to life in prison due to claimed constitutional error such that no reasonable jury would have sentenced the person to death, or some similar claim. With a sentence of life in prison, you’re already there; no appeal is necessary. Evidence of “actual innocence of the crime itself” is not an attack on the conviction, and appeals based on such evidence are treated much more permissively than attacks on the conviction.
As a matter of course, most people do not view life like poker chips. While we may concoct moral hypotheticals where the only thing that differs between two situations is the number of lives lost (though not easily), such a comparison, I think, does several injustices to sensibility. We have little pity for the guilty, but much compassion for the innocent. It is not so arbitrary a matter. Indeed, the very purpose of a state limited in power is because we value honest men over dishonest ones, and do not feel that it is an arbitrary choice whether five innocent men die so that ten guilty die, or no innocent men die enabling fifty guilty to go free. The entire premise of the justice system is to distinguish between guilt and innocence; it seems strange to ingore that stark difference in the end.
Ok, but I would disagree that the “system accepts demonstrable and repeated trial court error”. Since, after all, the appeals based on actual innocence cited by you and others were successful in avoiding a wrongful execution. See also my remarks as to the difference between a fair trial, and a perfect trial, and my remark that I was focussed primarily on issues of actual innocence and not procedural issues.
I guess I should also add that I am prepared to admit and to accept that, if we execute enough people, sooner or later we will execute an innocent. I see no hard evidence that this has happened to date, but as we agree, the system is not and cannot be made to be perfect.
Well, I would agree that we might consider doing away with some of the current protections of the accused. Some examples might be the alteration of the exclusionary rule, limits on the right of appeal, and possibly some others. But you are quite correct that I would justify these changes on the grounds that it would make it easier and faster to execute people, and that thus the chances of executing an innocent would go up. I am willing to take that chance, based on (as you state) my belief that overall, we would save innocent lives by executing a thousand guilty plus one innocent, if by so doing we could save a hundred innocents who would otherwise die.
As I mentioned earlier, I would agree that there is a risk of an innocent execution - low, but not zero. But you are right - I disagree that imprisonment without parole is as effective as the death penalty in eliminating miscarriages of justice where the guilty escape/go free/are furloughed/whatever and then re-offend.
Which is why I mentioned Willie Horton, the Birdman of Alcatraz, and Christopher Scarver. Willie Horton was serving life with no parole when he was furloughed. Scarver and Stroud both committed murders while in prison. I cited other instances of people escaping and thus posing a threat to the community that they would not be able to do if they were dead.
Correct. And those failures could be eliminated by execution, but are inherently present in a system that depends on life sentences. But just as we do not abandon life without parole if we encounter problems, we ought not to eliminate the death penalty, even if it has problems, providing those problems can be addressed.
I was makinga funny, but as long as we’re on it, that figure is misleading. The author appears to be saying that there were 560,000 murder convictions during that time, and only .06% of convicted murderers got the death penalty. That’s not exactly the case. There weren’t 560,000 murderers convicted between 1967 and 1996, there were an estimated 560,000 homicides commited overall. . That figure includes unsolved crimes, as well as homicides like intoxication manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, involuntary and voluntary manslaughter, and other crimes other than first degree murder. Additionally, the death penalty is not the legal penalty for certain crimes of first degree murder; in Texas, for example, certain other conditions must be present to elevate a crime from first degree murder to capital murder and thus have the dealth penalty available as an option. The percentage of people receiving the death penalty out of those convicted of intentional homicde, while still perhaps low, is significantly higher than the author states. The percentage of cases where the death penalty is available, sought by the prosecution, and imposed as a punishment is higher still.
The “Texas” joke comes from the fact that of those 358 executions from 1967-1996, 143 were from Texas. After 1996 we really kicked it into high gear, too, with another 310 from 1996 to present for a grand total of 453. We appear to have more than all other states combined, although since 1996 executions have risen sharply across the board. Between 1997-2003, 527 more people were executed in the U.S.
Likewise yours. You raise other interesting points, I’ll try to comment more later.
I find stories of innocent men being sentenced to jail absolutely sickening. No honest man should ever, ever, ever be punished for the actions of a dishonest man. I’d rather every criminal currently in jail be set free than have an innocent man suffer for another’s actions.
For that reason I cannot support the death penalty.
I guess I don’t entirely understand your objection. But I don’t think it affects my assertion much, so I will accept what you say without quibbling. What I meant was that compared with the overall number of murders and other kinds of wrongful killing, the number of executions is very, very low. During a period where there were a half million wrongful killings, there have been only about a thousand executions. Thus the chances of being executed for a murderer are slim at best, and the chance of being wrongfully executed approach zero as a limit.
I apologize. I tend to use “murder” as a synonym for “wrongful killing”. As I said, IANAL. But I do not think the death penalty ought to be considered only under the circumstances it is now thought appropriate.
Any mistake wasn’t necessarily yours; the author of the site substitutes the term “murder” for “homicide.” My objection to the figure is mostly that it included unsolved murders and non-capital homicide in the total when it figures the probability of recieving the death penalty for homicide. It’s sort of like saying “your odds of ever being President of the United States are low, because there are 6 billion people on the planet.” Yeah, they’re low, but they’re not that low, because that’s including a lot of non-Americans constitutionally ineligible to be the President. Similarly, if you tell a defendant facing charges for capital murder “your odds of recieving the death penalty are low, about .06%, because only one person is executed for every 1600 homicides” you’re significantly lowballing it because you’re including guys who committed non-capital crimes or who never get caught at all.
A better analogy (maybe, hopefully not a worse one): American casulaties were miniscule at Normandy invasion. Of the 16,100,000 U.S. armed forces personnel in World War II, only 135,000 were killed or wounded and missing, or .008%.
Well, yeah, but that’s including every single person that served between Dec. 1, 1941, and Dec. 31, 1946, regardless of theater of orperations or combative status. If you only include those who actually participated in the invasion, the casualty rate is much higher. Including people who didn’t even participate in the invasion is the same as including people who are never caught or who commit non-capital crimes in assessing the percentage of people who recieve capital punishment. Neither were ever at risk to begin with.
It has been informative and valuable to me as well. Thanks to all.
No, I’m afraid it does not. The problem is that the statistic stops at the execution, because that is when courts stop looking at cases. This is why I think the Jesse Tafero case is most useful for our puroposes. His wife was convicted on the same evidence and even sentenced to death. When she was freed there is a very good chance that he would have been as well, except that he was also dead. Unfortunately for a lively debate, his execution was also one of the cases in which the Florida electric chair malfunctioned and he was burned to death as much as electricuted. That means that his case is all over the anti death penalty cites and it is hard to find any evidence from the other side of the debate.
Ok, but would this have to be corroberated from a court or anything?
I agree entirely. A useful debate requires sound evidence, but from both sides. Either side of the case in isolation can sound very convincing. Darn lawyers.
I agree with this principle. Anyone who commits murder has forfieted his right to life and does not deserve for us to respect it.
Unfortunately, the trial in particular and the court system in general is the only system we have for finding the truth about any particular case. If the process used to arrive at the truth can be shown to be flawed in serious ways, then the turth thus found may also be flawed. Simple procedural errors are not sufficient. The apeals courts have to find what they call reversible error. Errors so severe that the decision should be reconsidered or even vacated. IANAL BTW.
I’m not sure what this means exactly. Are you saying that any and all causers of death should be executed? Would you not make execptions for manslaughter and so forth? Or are you talking about the “My mommy did not love me” sorts of extenuating circumstances? Those I can agree with you on.
Unfotunately, it is quite rare that we have enough evidence presented to the public to make such determinations. News media is interested in selling advertising. They do so by attracting the larges viewer / readership possible. They do this by playing up the sexiness of various stories. One of the objections I did not make to those complaining about Reagan’s funeral’s constant appearance on the news was that it simply replaced the Laci Perterson trial. Or the Koby Bryant trial. Both of wich are arguably much less significant than the funeral of a former president. The point I am making is that what passes for “factually innocent” right now in our society is very far from what you mean.
Me too. Perhaps we should start a club.
Right. but I think a few people have been shown to have been executed since then. We are just arguing over the evidence.
No, this is flawed lagic. Were those 810 murders originally sentenced to death? You can make the exact same argtument by mentioning that several thousand people were murdered in that time frame. We have to gird our loins to the fact that more draconian measures might have saved them. pravnik explained this better than I can a few posts ago.
I have tried to concentrate on lists of people actually executed who some contend were in fact not guilty, or their crime did not rise to the level needed for the death penalty. I have only mentioned studies of the death penalty in general because they are more scientific.
And anothe instance where it can be argued that our system of justice is seriously flawed. At least from the perspective of making sure the guilty party is the one punished.
Have you heard the commedy bit that goes “In my state we are limiting the apeals of persons sentenced to death in cases where two reliable eye witnesses actually saw the crime. When other states are trying to eliminate the death penalty, my state is putting in an express lane.” It is very funny. I can’t remember the comedian. He is one of the ones from Blue Collar Comedy Tour.
The James Adams case is another one of those where the “evidence” is not quite what your website wants you to believe. The information from the website you cited came from a study by Hugo Adam Bedau and Michael L. Radelet. Bedau and Radelet had reviewed the James Adams case and stated:
Seems pretty damning doesn’t it. Well, at least until you look at the actual facts.
The Stanford Law Review published a response to their “study”, which was authored by Stephen J. Markman and Paul G. Cassell, which can be found here. In that paper, they stated:
They do a far, far better job than I could at rebutting the false claims of innocence of James Adams. They discuss, complete with citations, what the witnesses actually said, and their lack of bias and how it was different from the spin Bedeau and Radelet put onto it. They also discuss the hair sample and other allegations Bedeau and Radelet make. They do a very good job of debunking his claims of innocence.
Tafero:
My very cursory review seems to indicate that, once again, there is some misinformation in your citations. Jacobs was released after she pleaded guilty to her role in the murders and served her time, another minor fact that was overlooked in your cite. She was never “exonerated” for her actions, rather she pled guilty to murder. It is important for you to know that as part of her plea agreement, Sonia Jacobs agreed, in court, to the factual basis for her plea:
The facts of the case show that on February 20, 1976, Trooper Black, and his friend Donald Irwin, a Canadian Constable on vacation, were on a routine patrol early in the morning. Black drove into a rest area along Interstate 95 and observed a Camero automobile in which Walter Rhodes and Jessie Tafero, Jacobs and her two children were sleeping. Trooper Black pulled beside the vehicle and approached the car to ask for identification. He saw a gun at Rhodes feet and confiscated the weapon. He returned to his patrol car to run a radio check on Rhodes and his gun. Black learned, from the radio check, that Rhodes was a convicted felon and returned to the car to question the other occupants. Trooper Black noticed a gun holster in the back seat and ordered everyone out of the vehicle. Tafero, sitting in the front passenger seat, was slow exiting the vehicle, so Black pulled Tafero out. The two struggled until Black, with Irwin’s assistance, subdued Tafero. While Irwin held Tafero against the patrol car, Black backed away and drew his firearm. Rhodes walked to the front of the car with his hands in the air. There were two or three shots, and he turned and saw Jacobs, still in the car, holding a nine-millimeter gun with both hands. Tafero escaped from Irwin’s grasp, ran to the car, grabbed the gun, and shot both Trooper Black and Constable Irwin.
Also, as a side note: even if you believe that Jacobs had nothing to do with the killing of two police officers, that does nothing to exonerate Tafero. Tafero was the one who singlehandedly killed the second police officer, in an effort to avoid being arrested for violating his parole and being a fugitive from justice.
As the federal court reviewing Tafero’s case stated:
Outstanding post, Hamlet. Thank you very much. Would you mind telling me how you found this information? When I searched on Tafero I could find nothing like this at all.
Tafero:
Let me see if I have this summarized right. Tafero was removed from the car and held over the hood of the patrol car. Rhodes was standing in front of the Camero with his hands raised. Jacobs fired the first shots for inside the Camero. Then Tafero escaped, took hold of a gun and killed the two officers. Did the officers fire any shots?
How many shots did the witnesses hear? Did they only hear the first couple? Both your and my accounts hint that only a few shots were fired. If this is the case, it looks more likely (to me) that Tafero was bent over the hood of the patrol car when those shots rang out.
Was there physical evidence that shots had been fired from inside the Camero? Did they leave holes, or did she fire through the window while holding the gun with both hands?
I understand that Jacobs was not cleared of all involvement. I don’t think any of the cases that have been brought up were of the type one normally thinks of when discussing the execution of innocnet people. That is, I don’t think any of those executed were completely unrelated to the crime.
4)Why was Jacobs offered freedom as opposed to continued jail time? If she was the one to shoot first, I assume that the gun she shot did not kill the officers?
5)I’m willing to accept an interpretation of evenst which assign all three (Rhodes, Jacobs, and Tafero) in close enough cooperation to the death of a police officer that they all three deserve the death penalty. However, this still leaves the question of why Tafero deserves it, but Jacobs did not. Did you find a reference to the commutation of her original death sentence?
Did either of the truckers see the whole exchange of fire? I remember seeing a suggestion that one of them may have missed any movement by Tafero back to the Camero. What were the patrolmen doing while Tafero was moving from the front of the patrol car to the back of the Camero?
In the facts that Jacobs agreed to in here plea agreement, did she mention anything about Tafero shooting any guns? Did she, for instance agree that Tafero had come from bent over the patrol car to the back of the Camero and taken the gun from her to shoot the officers? Or did she simply agree that Rhodes had testified to this?
Thanks again, for the excellent information. It is much appreciated.
A majority of the information came from the appellate decisions in the case: his original appeal to the Florida Supreme Court and his federal habeus petition. I also went over to The Florida Commission on Capital Cases for the information on Jacobs.
As to specific factual issues, I don’t have, nor could I find, a transcript of the trial, so all I can rely on is the court records. The Florida State Supreme Court stated:
I’m not sure. I don’t believe they did, but don’t quote me on that.
I believe the theory of the case was that, while Tafero was resisting the police officer, Jacobs shot at the officer from the rear of the Camaro. Then, Tafero got to the car, got the gun, and shot both officers, killing them both.
I don’t know. I don’t believe there was any concrete physical evidence that the original shot came from inside the Camaro, however, both of the truckers indicate that the shots came from the rear of the vehicle, and Jacobs, after her arrest, admitted to firing the first shots from the car.
Which still doesn’t change the fact that Tafero, while a fugitive, shot and killed two police officers in the line of duty.
The appellate records don’t have any indication about the specifics of the autopsy or the pathologist’s testimony.
Jacob’s death sentence was not commuted. Her conviction and sentence were overturned on appeal and, rather than conducting another trial, she pled guilty and was released shortly thereafter. You’d have to call the Dade County District Attorney’s Office to find out for sure why they let her plead, but I would imagine that after 16 years, witnesses may have been unavailable, memories deteriorated, and Rhodes was never a completely reliable witness.
I don’t know.
Basically, she agreed that the State would be able to prove her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Although when she was arrested, she admitted to the officer (who originally thought she was a hostage of Tafero) that she had fired the first shot from the car, and although she stated that “we had to” shot the officers, I don’t believe that she gave any statement to that effect at her guilty plea. I think it would be a safe bet that she would deny any involvement in the murder, and I believe her position would be that Rhodes was the only person to shoot the officers.
Not a problem. I only wish I could get all the testimony for us to peruse.
Once again, Hamlet, outstanding post. You are quickly becoming my favorite SDMBer.
I am still confused about a couple things. The Florida supreme court says that Rhodes testimony is coroberated by physical evidenc and the other eyewitnesses. However, I’m not sure those eyewitnesses nor the physical evidence contradicts Tafero’s testimony. We have good evidence that Jacobs shot the first few shots from the rear of the Comero. The physical evidence suggests that the fatal shots came from that area. But most of the eyewitness testimony agrees with the contention that Rhodes was at the front of the Camero with his hands up and Tafero was restrained at the patrol car*. This seems to suggest that the first shots were from Jacobs, and she does not seem to dispute this. However, this does not clear up the matter of who killed the officers. We know one of the trio did. But if the evidence as to this is insufficient to hold two of them for life in prison, how can it be said to be sufficient to kill Tafero? I guess this is the central issue in this case. If the original trial and evidence was not sufficient to sustain a life sentence for two of the three involved in the deaths, how can we say it was sufficient to sustain a death penalty for Tafero.
I suppose one could make the argument that pleading out Rhodes was a prosecutorial decision, and so it does not prove that a life sentence was unsustainable in his case. Meanwhile, Jacobs was not released until it would have been unwise to retry her. So, perhaps the evidence in the first trial is not proven insufficient for her either.
Did that make sense?
Did I confuse whether he was on the back or front? I’ve built up a picture of two cars along the highway, and if he was bent over the hood of the patorl car, he would have had a long way to go to get to the back of the Camero to do the fatal shooting. However, if the cars were along side each other, or if Tafero had been restrained at the back of the patorl car this changes considerably.
I don’t want to quibble because I don’t think it affects the discussion, but I wouldn’t necessarily say that people who were never caught “weren’t at risk” of execution.
My point was that, even if you commit a homicide in the US, the chances of being executed for it are slim. Therefore any deterrent effect would be correspondingly hard to detect. (And, to be fair, so would any increase in violence caused by the DP.) The very low chance of actually being executed is due to a number of factors, including not getting caught, plea bargaining down to some offense that does not carry the death penalty, and lots of other factors. But a thousand-to-one chance of actual execution (or any other probability of that order of magnitude) is long odds. Which is rather far from the bloodbath that DP opponents suggest.
Hamlet - your post is pure gold. Or maybe iron, as in “As iron sharpens iron, one man sharpens another (Proverbs 27:17)”. Exactly the sort of discussion I would wish for in trying to figure out the actual incidence of innocent executions. As I mentioned earlier, simply taking the ACLU’s word for the circumstances of the cases they trumpet as innocent leads to significant (in my view) difficulties.
I think this is the sort of thing that gets lumped together in discussions of wrongful executions. You asked:
In many or most instances, a murder has to possess special circumstances to qualify for the death penalty. A lot of anti-DP discussion focuses (as mentioned earlier) on reasons why a given convict, who is admittedly guilty of a homicide, ought to have had his sentence changed to life in prison. If the sentence is not changed, then sometimes DP opponents argue that this was a wrongful execution.
We see sort of a version of that in the Tafero-Jacobs discussion. Jacobs got off by pleading guilty and being sentenced to time served, whereas Tafero got the death penalty, therefore Tafero was wrongly executed. I disagree with this logic. In my view, Tafero and Jacobs ought to have been executed. The failure to do so in Jacobs’ case does not invalidate the execution of Tafero.
What I mean is that I am interested in arguments that “we got the wrong guy”. Much less so if the argument is “sure, he did it, but he should only get life in prison”.
Regards,
Shodan
PS - Again, an excellent, well-researched post, Hamlet. Thanks again for it.
)
Exactly the sort of discussion I would wish for in trying to figure out the actual incidence of innocent executions. As I mentioned earlier, simply taking the ACLU’s word for the circumstances of the cases they trumpet as innocent leads to significant (in my view) difficulties.