Capital Punishment for the Innocent

[BillCA]

As a child in elementary school, I recall a quote given in a civics lesson that made an impression on me.

It is better that ten guilty men go free than to imprison an innocent man.
--Benjamin Franklin

I've always thought that was a sound policy.

Until recently.

Our justice system needs a serious overhaul. I'm not talking radical changes to our rights. I'm talking about the methods and procedures. Personally, I think the worst decision I ever heard was a US Supreme Court decision regarding a wrongful conviction where the court said something to the effect that "innocence of a crime, in light of a fair and error-free trial, is not grounds for an appeal." Say what? Courts should be the one place in our system where truth is more important than the process. That a person who can be shown to be innocent is denied judicial review of the case --especially on the grounds that all of the "processes" were properly done -- strikes me as antipodal to the principles of this country.

As to Capital Punishment...
My personal belief is that capital punishment works best when the perpetrator is caught during the crime and in cases where there can be little doubt that the suspect committed the crime.

Especially in capital cases, I think the jury deserves to have all of its questions answered, even if that means bringing back a witness for questioning or re-testing a key piece of evidence.

Obtaining a conviction in our "free" society is much tougher than in many other countries -- and more expensive for the government. That is a good thing for it reduces the potential for abuse of powers. It does not guarantee perfection, however.

When it comes to a capital offense cases involving persons who are demonstrably mentally deficient or poorly educated, I think we owe it to them to be extra careful with their lives.

Sentencing someone to death should never be taken lightly. I know that if I had unanswered questions I'd be hard pressed to vote guilty. I don't want to live with doubts about it for the rest of my life.

 

[gvf]

Logic

delete

 

[gvf]

Logic

No, the logic in the post three above isn't logical. We're not talking about not giving out sentences, but about not giving out the one sentence that cannot be undone and ends in the death of innocents, and which is given out with full knowledge of that fact.

The stories I mentioned are from THE EXONERATED, and there are many more examples we read of daily. Nor are these "mistakes" in DNA, which even if collected and sampled wrong -- (as statistically close to impossible as you can get since the tests are done repeatedly under different labs) -- they would not point to another specific individual who, upon arrest, confesses - a frequent occurrence in these cases.

If you are willing to kill the innocent, then be for capital punishment. If you offer arguments that some of the guilty wish to die that has nothing to do with the innocent that don't. If you think the death of an innocent man is somehow justified by other victims of crime that the innocent didn't harm, we might as well pick you to go next as that would likewise help victims everywhere. There is no linkage between an innocent man and victims of guilty men. And there is a particular violent illogic in trying to link the former in some sort of allowable sacrifical expiation to the latter.

Allowing death-by-mistake is not a philosophical decision anyone is entitled to make unless you are the innocent one being killed and then only for your case; otherwise you have no business making your politics or philosophy deprive another innocent human being of his life.

 

[allenomics]

I feel the burden should be "beyond doubt," not simply "beyond reasonable doubt," in all capital punishment cases.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

No, the logic in the post three above isn't logical. We're not talking about not giving out sentences, but about not giving out the one sentence that cannot be undone and ends in the death of innocents, and which is given out with full knowledge of that fact.

I think that Applesanity is correct. The problem is not with the punishment, but the conviction process. Getting rid of the punishment does nothing to correct the process.

Capital punishment is not a philosophic issue.

Strange, by your statements and critique, you are treating capital punishment as a philosophic issue.

The execution was botched. It took repeated electric jolts over much time to finish the job and for him to finally die.

Just because multiple shocks had to be administered does not necessarily mean the execution was botched. It is not uncommon to need multiple shocks.

 

[SecDef]

The problem is not with the punishment, but the conviction process. Getting rid of the punishment does nothing to correct the process.

However, it does limit the damage done with a bad conviction. It allows for reversibility.

 

[RedneckFur]

Fear of the death penalty does nothing to stop criminals. A crackhead jonesing for his next fix doesent care if he dies for his actions. He's got to have his drug, and he's got to have it now. He'll worry about what he did after he's had his fix. Its well known, in medvial Europe, when every crime would get you hung, that the pick pockets would often flock to the hanging of a fellow pickpocket, just to take advantage of the crowd. Bring back burning at the stake if you like, but I doubt you'd see a significant decrease in crime because of it.

Too much of everything now has been injected with politics. The authorites are getting likely today to persue a shaky case just because they need to convict SOMEONE... Also, you have to take into consideration the poor who have no choice but the public defender of the day, and the milionaires who can put together a world class legal panel in a mater of hours. Even justice isnt fair.

I agree with the above poster... its better to free 10 guilty than to kill one innocent. Dont be so closed minded... One day it could be you, or somone you care dearly for who's in the hotseat for something they didnt do. It happens. Many people dream fondly of texas justice "tall tree and a short rope, and a trial that takes place over the judges lunch break".. but seriously, this crap just doesnt work.

We wouldnt have the over filled jails if we looked at the reasons for them. Keep out the illegal imagrants (its possible to do, even if its not very PC in washington) Legalise the soft drugs.. and you've probably lowered the prison population by 50%. There are legal drugs that do more harm than some of the soft illegal ones. I dont support the use of either, but i feel that the way we punish their use is very flawed.

And were i to be exacuted.. I'd take a firing line over lethal injection or the chair any day.

 

[massman]

capital punishment

Here's my take. If you take a life and it is indesputeable, ie video camera, then you deserve to have your life taken. Jails are too crowded, too violent, and too costly. Something has to be done to correct this cancer on society.

 

[applesanity]

However, it does limit the damage done with a bad conviction. It allows for reversibility.

I'm gonna quote myself, even if it's a bit egotistical.

I'm not going to give you my opinion of the death penalty. At least not yet. But this argument fails. It fails because it's not really what you're against. You're actually having problems with the justice system itself. The justice system isn't perfect. Tough luck.

What do you say to the guy who got life imprisonment, spent 50 years in jail, and was exonerated while on his deathbed?

That's the extreme logical end. But it doesn't matter how harsh or light a sentence is; a wrong conviction still sucks for the innocent party.

"but with the death penalty, there's no turning back."

Wrong again. Whether it's getting the needle, spending your lifetime in jail, or a weekend in a holding cell, there's never ever any turning back for the time you lost, while having to face the fact that out of all the people in the world, the justice system chose to fail you.

The death penalty is so very much a philosophic issue. This weak argument is merely a diversion.

At another extreme logical end, judges should stop handing out sentences all together, to prevent any and all wrong convictions.

 

[BillCA]

I feel the burden should be "beyond doubt," not simply "beyond reasonable doubt," in all capital punishment cases.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is as good as it gets.

Reasonable doubt asks us to use reason when evaluating doubts about the guilt or innocence in a case. A babysitter charged with a child homicide claiming 3 black-clad Ninja's burst through a window, strangled the baby and departed is not credible if no windows are broken. Nor would we believe rampaging-mutant-space-demons or other such fairy tales.

In Re: Validity of executions by our justice system

I think there are times when a convicted criminal needs to be executed. Specifically, I can think of two in CA who could serve as posterboys for capital punishment - Richard Allen Davis who killed Polly Klass and Lawrence Singleton who raped and tried to murder a 15 year old girl in 1978.

We can certainly argue which crimes should be capital crimes (e.g. treason, espionage, premeditated murder, multiple murders, torture, etc.) and what safeguards we impose to ensure innocents are not executed. But I also think there are people who deserve execution because their acts are so heinous that they have condemned themselves.

 

[applesanity]

My opinion on the Death Penalty. I wrote a really long, nice piece about it a a few years back. You are welcome to read this article on the death penalty (not safe for work - lots of swearing), but I'll summarize.

As cheesy as it may appear, this picture represents everything about how wrong the death penalty is. I think you all know who they are. Regardless of what you think of the man being sentenced to death, just pause for second and observe the reactions - reactions to the conclusion of a murder trial where the victims were a mother and her unborn baby boy.

It's the very fine, blurry line between justice and revenge. One is an assurance that your society is safe and recompensated for wrondoings. The other is just to get your kicks - to derive pleasure from the suffering of others. We don't have a word for it, but somehow, the Germans do: Schadenfreude.

Storing inmates wastes taxpayer mony - that could be the least wasteful thing our government does, what with day-in, day out pork barrel spending.

Locking up wrongly convicted innocents - again, that's not a criticism of the death penalty, it's a really bad diguise for criticism of the justice system itself.

killing people is wrong - we're sending our soldiers to kill and be killed in Iraq right now, or Normandy Beach, Iwo Jima, or Hue City. Our pioneer settling fore fathers killed a whole lot of Indians. Killing is a part of life.

It's a great deterrent - quote me a statistic, please. Maybe a great motivator to hide the evidence better.

Collateral damage for the greater good - oh my God, isn't that a bit... fascist?

I mentioned the German roots of this concept because both Nietzsche and Freud wrote lots... about the satisfaction we human beings get from vengeance. It's sickening. Too bad it's so engrained into our culture.

The righteous shall rejoice when he sees the vengeance.
- Psalm 58:10

And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me.
-Isaiah 66:24

In order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned... So that they may be urged the more to praise God... The saints in heaven know distinctly all that happens... to the damned.
- St. Thomas Aquinas

Locking up a repeat murdering rapist is to make sure society is safe from sexual attacks. Killing the rapist for your so-called "closure for loved ones" is a lie. You just want to see that bastard fry in his chair.

 

[SecDef]

Applesanity wrote:
"but with the death penalty, there's no turning back."

Wrong again. Whether it's getting the needle, spending your lifetime in jail, or a weekend in a holding cell, there's never ever any turning back for the time you lost, while having to face the fact that out of all the people in the world, the justice system chose to fail you.

I'm quoting you again so people can see it a third time.

You just compared execution with a weekend in a holding cell. And you are telling people their arguments fail?

 

[applesanity]

Yes I did make that comparison, in order to point out the extreme ends of making the argument of "turning back" part of the death penalty argument. The only difference is in the severity of punishment. A wrong conviction for anyone is still nothing more or less than a wrong conviction. It represents a failure of the justice system, not a failure of the death penalty.

You have to use extreme arguments, so that there's room for the reasonable argument - how do reverse a wrongly convicted man who has spent the last 50 years of his life in prison? You don't. While all his buddies were on the other side of those big barb-wire fences, they were getting married, getting divorced, raising kids, having affairs, getting drunk, travelling the world, going to the gun range, etc. The guy on inside is holding onto his soap.

"turning back" is a straw man argument.

And I am actually against the death penalty.

 

[SecDef]

Nope. You are not including the appeal process as part of the system.

Merely convicting [someone innocent] isn't a failure unto itself. It is merely the result of a trial and appeals with the current data. If there is enough to convict, then there is enough to convict.

If new evidence comes up, in order for the system to provide justice, there needs to be more than simply a corpse to go through the appeals process.

Your argument that "you'll never get those 5 minutes back, so it is a strawman argument" is only true to that extent that you are defining any deviation from a utopian view of justice as a failure. Utopian as in "if I committed a crime, then 5 minutes in jail is a travesty"

However, once you compare to a utopian ideal instead of reality, EVERYTHING fails.

If a suspect is held for questioning, yet is innocent, has the system failed? That is the track you seem to have set yourself on.

Aside: How come nobody has called out the thread title as inaccurate? The innocent never receive capital punishment, they are always found guilty first.

 

[gvf]

The Point

The Point of the title is that they're innocent, i.e., they didn't do it.

There will never be a perfect justice system, even if its functioning to the best. The justice system, even with the highest functioning possible, will always be composed of human beings: who are human: they will make mistakes at times, so will they fall into those personal motivations that are at odds with justice, scientific techniques will fail on occasion, and not all evidence will always be found. All this will be true and the system will always, even at its best , be only relatively free of errors, not absolutely, for that is impossible. Yet execution is absolute; and cannot be recalled even when it is found based in error. So the problem is the death penalty, for that the innocent never will be killed is impossible in a relative system, and that's what it is. If on top of that judicial procedures need overhauling then it's worse, there will be more errors. But saying that killing people is not the problem excuses the killing of the wrong persons, or puts the focus on some imaginary time when some imaginary fix will stop the errors, and takes it off the current innocent who are -- and will continue -- to die while we wait for the magic fix. Easy for you to say, you're not strapped to the gurney.

Even if that were possible - to fix everything so that all error would cease -- the proposition to keep going with the executions while we await this is a bit crazy: you don't kill people BEFORE you fix a system that sends the innocent to their death, you kill them AFTER....if you choose to kill to begin with. When was the last time you heard of a group of research MDs who -- discovering a faulty medical procedure that was killing people -- recommend: "Keep on truckin' and slice off some more lives while we ponder this out! Go for it!! Time's a wastin!"

Cut it whichever way you want: the only way to presently stop killing innocent people is to stop killing people. Or accept this as OK - and by doing so support the continuing death of the wrong people.

 

[RERICK]

applesanity,
Nice photo. I remember thinking when the verdict came that in this case, He was going to get what he deserved. The only thing that would make it complete would be to let the guy holding the paper throw the switch himself.

Judging from the smile I think he would enjoy it. I know I would.
Yeah its a hard line but thats how I feel. I guess I spent too much time watching convicted criminals play basketball all day and whine about how hard prison life is and petty poor me I was high when I did it and I'm sorry and WA WA WA . The only thing they were sorry about was getting caught.

 

[Abstract]

Except that there is no such thing as absolutely no doubt.

Juan, that's a totally absurd, naive statement.

 

[applesanity]

If a suspect is held for questioning, yet is innocent, has the system failed?

I would like to think that being suspected of a crime (and taken in for questioning), and being convicted of a crime are very different. The Justice system is "innocent until proven guilty" the burden is on the prosecutors to prove guilt, not for the defense to prove innocence. When you're sentenced to death, you have a few years to rot in prison before you get the chair. So the appeals process can do its thing.

I see no moral difference between exonerating an innocent man after he's already gotten the lethal injection, and an innocent man who's died of old age after serving a life sentence in prison. A wrong conviction is a wrong conviction. It's a failure of the justice system, not a failure of the punishment itself.

Crowds Cheer Verdict

He was going to get what he deserved.

The guy holding the paper is Laci Peterson's stepdad, Ron Grantski. What a sick, twisted person. Gloating and celebrating over the death of yet another human being, no mater how despicable. What if TFL members gloated after killing violent intruders in their homes? Killing is something you might one day have to do. But it's not something to derive pleasure from. Jesus Christ.

Reading over the post-jury news conference, we also learned that the jury convicted Scott Peterson because they hated the person he was, and not for any real evidence. Now that is a full blown criticism of the Justice system.

Killing Scott ain't gonna get neither your stepdaughter back, nor any real closure. Revenge is a sick, sick coping mechanism. Jesus is on my side for this issue.

 

[SecDef]

I see no moral difference between exonerating an innocent man after he's already gotten the lethal injection, and an innocent man who's died of old age after serving a life sentence in prison. A wrong conviction is a wrong conviction. It's a failure of the justice system, not a failure of the punishment itself.

No problem at all with that special case.

The punishment spectrum is not smooth. You go from a slap on the wrist to parole to 5 years to 20 years to life to life without parole. But execution stands alone.

 

[SteelJM1]

"If you put a man accused of murder to death who is innocent, then according to your own laws you are a murderer and should be put to death."

I forget who said this but i will find out the name at my earliest convinence.