Capital Punishment for the Innocent
- Thread starter gvf
- Start date
JuanCarlos
New member
As Redworm said, this seems like all the more reason to abolish the death penalty. If we can't guarantee innocent people aren't convicted, we probably shouldn't be killing people. We probably ought to go out of our way to make sure they don't kill and rape each other, as well...rather than treating it as a joke.
Nobody is saying we should hold ourselves to some impossible standard of never convicting any innocent people; some are just suggesting that because we admit that is an impossible standard perhaps we should take that into consideration when deciding how to treat our prisoners.
Ummmm... Rhenquist said this in support of the death penalty and was countering those who oppose it.
Because innocent people might be put to death isn't an argument against the death penalty its an argument for being as thorough as we can possibly be.
Any punishment whether its a year in prison or being executed can't be taken back. What do you do for someone who has spent the last 20 years in jail for a crime they didn't commit? You certianly can't give them back those 20 years. Should we not put people in prison either?
If a person gets a fair trial, then justice has been served. Because a jury is made up of humans there will always be the possibility of error. This does not mean that we should not have the death penalty.
It is a just and necessary punishment that has been around since civilization began and there is no reason why it shuold not be employed today.
Because innocent people might be put to death isn't an argument against the death penalty its an argument for being as thorough as we can possibly be.
Any punishment whether its a year in prison or being executed can't be taken back. What do you do for someone who has spent the last 20 years in jail for a crime they didn't commit? You certianly can't give them back those 20 years. Should we not put people in prison either?
If a person gets a fair trial, then justice has been served. Because a jury is made up of humans there will always be the possibility of error. This does not mean that we should not have the death penalty.
It is a just and necessary punishment that has been around since civilization began and there is no reason why it shuold not be employed today.
applesanity
New member
Then there's me, or the Sigmund Freud flavor - I think it's all about the revenge, and revenge is sick.
Innocent people get life sentences without parole as well. The justice system is imperfect.
Amen. I've been saying that in every post that I've made in this thread.
It doesn't matter what he said it in support of the bottom line remains that the comment supports the counter position just as well. The very fact that we can never be 100% perfectly thorough is the argument against the death penalty.
Yet if after twenty years it's discovered a person did not commit this crime, he can be let free. If after an execution it's discovered this person did not commit this crime, he's still DEAD. A man can be freed from wrongful imprisonment but he cannot be revived from the dead. Don't take it to the extreme and pretend that anyone is suggesting we shouldn't jail people at all; the simple fact is that execution is a step beyond any length of incarceration and it's irreversible. You may not be able to give that person back those twenty years but you can at least not take away the 20 after that.
Actually that's the very reason we should not have the death penalty. It's a perfect reason for it. It's a completely sound and logical reason for it and it's the only reason one would ever need.
Just because something has been done for a long time does NOT mean it's ok to practice today. There are many things that were done just a century ago that were both legal and socially acceptable that are horrendous today.
Yes, there is a reason why it should not be employed and it has been explained time after time. Like I said before:
I don't think there's a single individual on this forum that could say the risks are worth it after watching their sibling/parent/child/significant other go through an execution and later be pardoned when new evidence comes to light.
You are missing the point. Our justice system doesn't require perfection. As citizens we are not guaranteed perfection. We are guaranteed a fair trial. Thats it. If a man gets a fair trial, there isn't anything he can complain about. Add to that the decades of appeals and you have a system that falls over itself to try and make sure that we are killing the right person.
There's nothing extreme about it. I submit to you that for some people wasting away in prison for 20-30 years knowing you are innocent is worse than death.
If you are arguing that we shouldn't use the death penalty because there is a possibility that we might make a mistake, then your argument isn't really with the death penalty, its with the accuracy of our system. You can't give a man back his life nor can you give a man back 20 years.
You logic suggests that we should never imprison people. You can't get around this because the logical conclusion is that those who would have recieved life are going to rot in prison indefiniately. Either way you are depriving a person of his life and freedom, and you still have not removed the human error that is causing the "problem" in the first place.
No its really not. Its a reason for canning our justice system. You're prefectly willing to deprive innocent people of their life and liberty because you can turn around and say "oops my bad" but you're not willing to extend this to the death penalty. That is not logically consistent.
Thats called an appeal to emotion. You'll find it under the section marked logical fallacies.
And even then it can fail, yet more reason to ensure that when we punish someone we don't do something that can't be taken back if they're later discovered to be innocent.
I don't get to speak for innocents and prison and neither do you.
Exactly. But while you can't give a man back twenty years you can avoid taking the next 20 or 30 or 40 or 50.
No it doesn't. It suggests that we should never do something as irreversible as execution. A man can be released from prison and spend the rest of his life a free man. A man cannot come back to life.
And since that human error can never be entirely removed it's too much of a risk to allow the possibility of a single innocent man to be killed by the state. That may be acceptable to you but it's not acceptable to me.
No, I said nothing of canning the justice system. I am most certainly not ok with depriving innocent people of life and liberty but since the system can never be perfect it makes more sense to avoid doing something that can never be reversed. Once again, a man can be released from prison after decades of being in there and even if he dies the next day in the hospital he died a free man. Once you execute someone that's it. You can't take that back.
So? It's still true. Everyone on this forum commits logical fallacies during these and other arguments, don't pretend that my one comment nullifies my entire argument.
JuanCarlos
New member
Just what I was thinking. Not only can you give a man back the rest of his life (which you obviously can't do if you took it with a needle), but when you get down to it there is also at least the possibility of attempting to compensate him as well. I know that there is probably no amount of money that could truly compensate me for 20 years of my life in prison (especially the way we run our prisons now...then again, I don't agree with that either), but I won't say that huge stacks of money wouldn't at least help.
The only thing you can try to do to compensate somebody you execute is give them a nicer headstone.
Let it Bleed
New member
Capital punishment is necessary to obtain guilty pleas. The death penalty may not be a deterrent to crime, but it sure matters to defendants who face the possibility of execution. Ironically, even murderers are influenced by the specter of their own death.
The fact that defendants will invariably accept a negotiated plea with a sentence of life without parole (lwop) in exchange for the prosecution not seeking the death penalty clearly demonstrates the disparity between the two punishments. Likewise, some crimes are so heinous that lwop is an incommensurate punishment. Shouldn't just punishment be proportional to the varying levels of culpability? Those who do the most evil should receive the most severe punishment.
Maybe the parameters of what constitutes a capital crime should be more narrowly tailored and equitably applied. But without capital punishment, how can society appropriately respond to the Richard Specks, John Wayne Gacys, and Ted Bundys of this world?
Anecdotal evidence suggests that when a truly innocent person is convicted it is because of the illegal or unethical acts of others (i.e., perjury or prosecutorial misconduct). If someone uses the judicial system to commit an injustice, should the entire system be condemned or just the individual wrongdoers?
If someone wants to get you, they just might.
Beware the boogeyman.
The fact that defendants will invariably accept a negotiated plea with a sentence of life without parole (lwop) in exchange for the prosecution not seeking the death penalty clearly demonstrates the disparity between the two punishments. Likewise, some crimes are so heinous that lwop is an incommensurate punishment. Shouldn't just punishment be proportional to the varying levels of culpability? Those who do the most evil should receive the most severe punishment.
Maybe the parameters of what constitutes a capital crime should be more narrowly tailored and equitably applied. But without capital punishment, how can society appropriately respond to the Richard Specks, John Wayne Gacys, and Ted Bundys of this world?
Anecdotal evidence suggests that when a truly innocent person is convicted it is because of the illegal or unethical acts of others (i.e., perjury or prosecutorial misconduct). If someone uses the judicial system to commit an injustice, should the entire system be condemned or just the individual wrongdoers?
If someone wants to get you, they just might.
Beware the boogeyman.
Last edited:
Re; Guilty Pleas
It's necessary that 52% of the death row inmates in Illinois who were innocent should otherwise have died to draw confessions out of others, some of whom would also be innocent?
Draw your confessions out in other ways - what's the matter with you - would that reasoning satisfy you when you were being strapped down on your E-Day for a murder you didn't commit.
As to the 'fair trial" argument - no. It's been repeatedly stated that expectations of an error-producing process is the same expectation innocent people will die, so you don't kill people using it. Unless that's OK with you should one be your son. Tell him he got a fair trial and should be as satisfied as you are during your goodbye embrace on his E-Day.
The reality is that a fair trial often exists in your mind but nowhere else. A huge percentage of those convicted had anything but a fair trial but were victims of prosecutorial and other judicial misconduct (not included are a large portion of the Illinois innocent, nor similar lists from some other states, other years etc.)
In 2004, 6 people previously on Death Row awaiting execution were found innocent and freed.
1. Alan Gell, NC, sentenced to death in 1998. Granted new trial as prosecutors withheld evidence. Acquitted of the crime in his new trial and freed.
2. Gordon Steidl, IL, sentenced to death in 1987. Death Sentence overturned due to inadequate legal representation. IL decided not to retry him after reinvestigating the case and he was freed.
3. Laurence Adams, MA, sentenced to death in 1974. Conviction overturned due to the police withholding evidence. The state dropped the charges against him and he was freed.
4. Dan Bright, LA, sentenced to death in 1996. Conviction overturned after the state was found to have withheld evidence concerning their key witness. Charges were dropped and he was freed.
5. Ryan Matthews, LA,sentenced to death in 1999. A new DNA test excluded him. All charges against him were dropped and he was freed.
6. Ernest Ray Willis, TX, sentenced to death in 1987. Conviction overturned due to the state suppressing evidence and inadequate legal representation. A new arson specialist found no evidence of arson, all charges were dropped and he was freed.
66.6% of that group were intentional prosecutorial or police misconducts, 16% substandard legal representation. 83%: total unfair trials
It's necessary that 52% of the death row inmates in Illinois who were innocent should otherwise have died to draw confessions out of others, some of whom would also be innocent?
Draw your confessions out in other ways - what's the matter with you - would that reasoning satisfy you when you were being strapped down on your E-Day for a murder you didn't commit.
As to the 'fair trial" argument - no. It's been repeatedly stated that expectations of an error-producing process is the same expectation innocent people will die, so you don't kill people using it. Unless that's OK with you should one be your son. Tell him he got a fair trial and should be as satisfied as you are during your goodbye embrace on his E-Day.
The reality is that a fair trial often exists in your mind but nowhere else. A huge percentage of those convicted had anything but a fair trial but were victims of prosecutorial and other judicial misconduct (not included are a large portion of the Illinois innocent, nor similar lists from some other states, other years etc.)
In 2004, 6 people previously on Death Row awaiting execution were found innocent and freed.
1. Alan Gell, NC, sentenced to death in 1998. Granted new trial as prosecutors withheld evidence. Acquitted of the crime in his new trial and freed.
2. Gordon Steidl, IL, sentenced to death in 1987. Death Sentence overturned due to inadequate legal representation. IL decided not to retry him after reinvestigating the case and he was freed.
3. Laurence Adams, MA, sentenced to death in 1974. Conviction overturned due to the police withholding evidence. The state dropped the charges against him and he was freed.
4. Dan Bright, LA, sentenced to death in 1996. Conviction overturned after the state was found to have withheld evidence concerning their key witness. Charges were dropped and he was freed.
5. Ryan Matthews, LA,sentenced to death in 1999. A new DNA test excluded him. All charges against him were dropped and he was freed.
6. Ernest Ray Willis, TX, sentenced to death in 1987. Conviction overturned due to the state suppressing evidence and inadequate legal representation. A new arson specialist found no evidence of arson, all charges were dropped and he was freed.
66.6% of that group were intentional prosecutorial or police misconducts, 16% substandard legal representation. 83%: total unfair trials
Last edited:
JuanCarlos
New member
gvf, one mistake I think you're making is equating overturned convictions with innocence. Just because 20-30 years later the government decides they may not be able to make their case again doesn't mean the guy didn't do it. Not that there aren't innocent people on death row, but I suspect that 52% number is a tad high.
Once again, I'm talking about innocence in the "real" sense rather than the legal sense.
Once again, I'm talking about innocence in the "real" sense rather than the legal sense.
Well..
They were legally innocent of the convictions from their trials - many due to prosecutorial misconduct. If they were later retried and found guilty then they weren't innocent. Perhaps they were but there is no information I'm aware of that indicates that. It must have been pretty thorughly investigated, and that only becasuse some of those had the luck, press, whatever, to have sharp attorneys or attorneys from "joiner groups". (Of course many don't, and when they're dead, well....the courts don't hear appeals from the dead, nor do lawyers represent them) The admin of Illinois may have then taken over further investigations, (to their credit since that would be so unusual), or have been convinced of the private investigations' validity; whatever, executions have been suspended for the last 7 years.
In any case, the point is not that there are many rightful guilty verdicts, but there are a not insignificant number of wrongful ones. The one dosen't cancel out the other, and whether it's as bad as 52%- or that's really only 30% if there is infomation of subsequent trials, or elsewhere be it 5% or 10%, it's not an abstract risk but a real, continuing, intrinsic fact of execution - and hence unacceptable.
They were legally innocent of the convictions from their trials - many due to prosecutorial misconduct. If they were later retried and found guilty then they weren't innocent. Perhaps they were but there is no information I'm aware of that indicates that. It must have been pretty thorughly investigated, and that only becasuse some of those had the luck, press, whatever, to have sharp attorneys or attorneys from "joiner groups". (Of course many don't, and when they're dead, well....the courts don't hear appeals from the dead, nor do lawyers represent them) The admin of Illinois may have then taken over further investigations, (to their credit since that would be so unusual), or have been convinced of the private investigations' validity; whatever, executions have been suspended for the last 7 years.
In any case, the point is not that there are many rightful guilty verdicts, but there are a not insignificant number of wrongful ones. The one dosen't cancel out the other, and whether it's as bad as 52%- or that's really only 30% if there is infomation of subsequent trials, or elsewhere be it 5% or 10%, it's not an abstract risk but a real, continuing, intrinsic fact of execution - and hence unacceptable.
Last edited:
What a load of crap. Show me a parent who is happy their son is sentenced to death EVEN WHEN THEY KNOW HE'S GUILTY. We don't make policy based on emotion for a reason.
So that means 1) the system worked, and 2) your beef is with procedure and the people working in the system not with the ultimate penalty. I assume you are just as outraged with people who serve life sentences and are ultimately found innocent as well as those who are doing substantial hard time. The fact that you don't bother to mention this is somewhat telling.
How about a link to the source of this 52% claim you keep mentioning?
It is obviously flawed in that the suggestion is that because 12 were executed and 13 have been "released" there is a 52% error rate. The number should at least be based on how many were convicted of capital crimes not executed. The fact someone is siting such obviously distorted stats should raise a red flag on all of their assertions.
How about some links to your cut and paste stats and anecdotes.
In addition the reason there is such extensive appeals processes in capital cases is to relieve any doubt. The fact that the appeals process is working isn't a condemnation of capital punishment and the stats associated with the appeals process are irrelevant to the numbers of people who actually have the sentence imposed.
As for the "inadequate defense" claim in capital cases, this is the claim made in virtually every capital appeal. It doesn't matter if the defense counsel is the absolute best capital defense attorney in the world who spared no expense. Upon conviction of a capital offense that defense attorney will enter a brief siting why the defense he or she provided was inadequate...every single time. It is standard procedure.
applesanity
New member
This thread is clearly going in circles.
One side is saying that a wrong death penalty conviction is impractical because they can become irreversible.
The other side is saying that the justice system is imperfect and that a wrong death penalty conviction can be just as bad as a wrong a wrong life sentence conviction.
I'm still going to stand by what I said way earlier. Some of you aren't actually against the death penalty. You're just against the justice system.
One poster even equated revenge with justice and called any apparent difference just "semantics." Jesus Christ.
So, are you really, truly comfortable with the idea of state-sanctioned killings of human beings who have been rendered and confined to a status of no longer being a threat to society?
Nobody here has really talked about treason - just about the only crime spelled in detail in the constitution:
Not only is the crime explained, but the burden of proof as well. In the case of treason, I have no opinion yet on the death penalty. A serial murder kept behind bars is no longer a threat to society. But a treasoner in kept in any condition is still a threat to national security so long as that person is kept alive. That treasoner can whisper a few lines to the C/O, the C/O whispers a few lines to some guy on the outside, that guy mails a letter to a foreign government, etc. So, what's it gonna be with treasoners who have met the correct burden of proof? I support wiring their jaws shut and keeping them in a drugged up stuper, unable to communicate - but that violates 8th amendment.
We all here support the literal definition of the 2nd amendment. Don't go taking one part of the constitution literally, and another not so literally. Treason is properly spelled out here. Notice that it's the Congress, not a judge that sentences Jane Fonda. I mean, treasoners.
One side is saying that a wrong death penalty conviction is impractical because they can become irreversible.
The other side is saying that the justice system is imperfect and that a wrong death penalty conviction can be just as bad as a wrong a wrong life sentence conviction.
I'm still going to stand by what I said way earlier. Some of you aren't actually against the death penalty. You're just against the justice system.
One poster even equated revenge with justice and called any apparent difference just "semantics." Jesus Christ.
So, are you really, truly comfortable with the idea of state-sanctioned killings of human beings who have been rendered and confined to a status of no longer being a threat to society?
Nobody here has really talked about treason - just about the only crime spelled in detail in the constitution:
Not only is the crime explained, but the burden of proof as well. In the case of treason, I have no opinion yet on the death penalty. A serial murder kept behind bars is no longer a threat to society. But a treasoner in kept in any condition is still a threat to national security so long as that person is kept alive. That treasoner can whisper a few lines to the C/O, the C/O whispers a few lines to some guy on the outside, that guy mails a letter to a foreign government, etc. So, what's it gonna be with treasoners who have met the correct burden of proof? I support wiring their jaws shut and keeping them in a drugged up stuper, unable to communicate - but that violates 8th amendment.
We all here support the literal definition of the 2nd amendment. Don't go taking one part of the constitution literally, and another not so literally. Treason is properly spelled out here. Notice that it's the Congress, not a judge that sentences Jane Fonda. I mean, treasoners.
Let it Bleed
New member
I suppose "what's the matter with me" is that I had the audacity to disagree with you.
Second, my point had nothing to do with obtaining confessions. It was about plea negotiations. Incredibly you have to offer the defendant something to induce a plea. The prosecution agrees not to seek the death penalty in exchange for a guilty plea and a sentence of lwop.
If the harshest sentence a defendant could receive was lwop, there would be no incentive not to go to trial. In other situations, you allow a defendant to plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter even though they were indicted for murder.
This has nothing to do with trying to coerce an innocent man to plead guilty. If someone is indicted for a capital offense, then obviously the death penalty is a possibility. Allowing a defendant to plead to a lesser offense or receive a lesser sentence is an inducement that spares all the burden of a trial. Trials determine guilt. Offering an inducement to plead guilty in no way impairs a defendant's right or ability to vindicate himself at trial.
Additionally, I don't think I have indicated in any of my posts whether I support capital punishment or not. I simply presented a point that I considered relevant.
Intelligent discourse need not rely on emotional rants and opininated diatribes. While I do find such arguments entertaining and often humorous, they are rarely persuasive.
Last edited:
Let it Bleed
New member
sasquatch
I stand corrected.
Although it may be a new form of punishment we should consider - condemned to D.C. to forever listen to Congressional debates
I stand corrected.
Although it may be a new form of punishment we should consider - condemned to D.C. to forever listen to Congressional debates
No, I'm not against the justice system I simply recognize that it's imperfect and thus innocent people should not be put to death because of the errors of others.