Ok, why should *this* guy live?

[jdp]

We should have different burdens:

To convict; beyond a reasonable doubt.

If guilty, go to step 2:

To kill: beyond any doubt.

Here a confession wouldn't do unless it could be corroborated such that no doubt exists. Other examples include having the crime on video or DNA evidence.

But, to be fair, if it turns out that we ever do put an innocent person to death, then that person's prosecutor should be charged with manslaughter, at least.

That would do it!

And, the above should apply only to the class of crimes that represent acts against humanity (the violent serial killing body cutting type).

Human life is so sacred that we're obligated to kill those who take it from others perversely.

I am not sure you could ever meet that burden; DNA can be planted like any evidence and the prosecutor is just doing his job. It can be difficult to prove prosecutorial misconduct even if there is a mistaken conviction, and just because there was a mistaken conviction it doesn't mean there was misconduct.

 

[bpesta22]

I am not sure you could ever meet that burden; DNA can be planted like any evidence and the prosecutor is just doing his job. It can be difficult to prove prosecutorial misconduct even if there is a mistaken conviction, and just because there was a mistaken conviction it doesn't mean there was misconduct.

Concede that point; but I think there should be some punishment levied against prosecutors who presumably have to be instrumental in getting the innocent guy killed. In your hypothetical, clearly, the cop who planted should face some serious criminal charges-- that would seem like attempted murder?

Oh, and in my world view, the DP should be wholly humane-- nothing brutal like hanging, electric chair or shooting. Load em up with valium til they sleep. Then painlessly kill em with whatever poison might do that.

 

[jdp]

Concede that point; but I think there should be some punishment levied against prosecutors who presumably have to be instrumental in getting the innocent guy killed. In your hypothetical, clearly, the cop who planted should face some serious criminal charges-- that would seem like attempted murder?

Doesn't have to be a cop who planted it; perhaps the actual perpetrator did it; then what? And we already have laws that cover that kind of misconduct but there is a high degree of proof needed since the State, and their agents, often enjoy immunity.

 

[River]

I'm not trying to reason my opinions as politically correct by any means. They are after all just my opinions on it. I value yours as well. We (meaning most of the responses to my pro capital punishment posts) will have to disagree on the point of it being an important deterrent. Not only a deterrent, but the harshest punishment available - which should be used for the most heinous of crimes commited.

 

[Cactus Wren]

Ok, why should *this* guy live?

Because civilized societies do not practice human sacrifice.

 

[jdp]

I'm not trying to reason my opinions as politically correct by any means. They are after all just my opinions on it. I value yours as well. We (meaning most of the responses to my pro capital punishment posts) will have to disagree on the point of it being an important deterrent. Not only a deterrent, but the harshest punishment available - which should be used for the most heinous of crimes commited.

I realize these are just opinions but I am trying to figure out what leads you to that opinion since to my knowledge the notion that the death penalty is a deterrent does not seem possible considering the motivations for murder and does not really seem to be bared out in the statistics. My follow up questions to you were also for general consumption.

It seems to me that there are three motivations for murder: profit, compulsion, and passion. When someone murders for profit [drugs, money, and such] this is usually done by a professional and I don't believe they are thinking about the consequences since they likely believe they can't be caught and typically commit their crime in such a way that makes it difficult to prosecute it. I certainly don't believe that someone who murders out of compulsion, such as Charlie Manson or Jeffery Dahmer, is considering the consequences. And that guy who just caught his wife sleeping with another man (passion) is probably not thinking about the consequences. So it isn't clear to me that there is a motivation behind murder that changed because of the consequences.

Have we had innocent people on death row? Most certainly yes since there have been a number of high profile cases of exonerations. It should be noted that these exonerations are typically the result of efforts by death penalty opponents and not the state. Have we killed an innocent man? I don't think anyone knows yet but considering the fact that we know we've had innocent men on death row, how can one escape the possibility that such a tragedy might have already occurred?

 

[Alt+F4]

Have we killed an innocent man? I don't think anyone knows yet but considering the fact that we know we've had innocent men on death row, how can one escape the possibility that such a tragedy might have already occurred?

Or woman? I don't think there was much evidence against Mary Surratt who was hanged for her participation in the plot to assassinate President Lincoln.

 

[HansMustermann]

Have we killed an innocent man? I don't think anyone knows yet but considering the fact that we know we've had innocent men on death row, how can one escape the possibility that such a tragedy might have already occurred?

Yes, there have been people exonerated post-mortem. For example Cameron Todd Willingham, which I've mentioned a couple of times in this thread. Other probable innocents executed include:

-Carlos DeLuna, Texas, Conviction: 1983, Executed: 1989.

Evidence after his execution pointed at someone else as the probable killer.

- Ruben Cantu, Texas, Convicted: 1985, Executed: 1993.

Considered innocent after it turns out that the key witness was coaxed to the police to testify against him, and had to be showed Cantu's picture 3 times before he could actually point him out in a lineout.

- Larry Griffin, Missouri. Conviction: 1981, Executed: 1995.

Both a survivor of the shootout for which he was accused, and the first policemen on the scene actually said it wasn't him. Convicted and executed anyway. Based on that and new evidence pointing at someone else, he's considered one of the most categoric examples of an executed innocent.

- Joseph O'Dell, Virginia, Conviction: 1986, Executed: 1997

He actually asked repeatedly for a DNA analysis to prove his innocence, and it was denied. It was done only after his execution, and, what do you know, the blood wasn't his after all. Pretty clear case of innocent, for lack of other evidence against him.

- David Spence, Texas, Conviction: 1984, Executed: 1997

The police lieutenant who supervised the investigation and a detective involved were already convinced he's innocent before it even went to trial. All witnesses against him were inmates who had been promised favours in return for testifying against him. No physical evidence or anything else connected him to the murders.

- Leo Jones, Florida, Convicted: 1981, Executed: 1998.

The confession was extracted under torture, he later tried to recant it but it just earned him the dirt nap. Both cops who interrogated him were discharged from the police. New evidence points at someone else.

- Gary Graham, Texas, Convicted: 1981, Executed: 2000

One witness claimed to identify him after having seen him briefly from a distance and through a window. Two others who saw the killer up close said it was _not_ Graham. For some reason (incompetence? malice?) Graham's lawyer did not use either of them as witnesses. The jury never even knew those two witnesses existed.

So, yes, we _do_ know. It already happened.

 

[HansMustermann]

Which brings me to another point actually: don't let a horrible crime or a despisable defendant cloud your judgment.

All the cases listed above were accused of horrible crimes. Shooting a cop, rape and murder (same as for the dirtball in the OP), triple murder, etc. The same question could have been asked about them: would you let this scumbag live? What for?

It doesn't change the fact that they were, nevertheless, innocent.

 

[Rolfe]

[slightly OT and not meaning to start an argument]

It's interesting to see the numerous examples of wrongful convictions for murder being given here. We've had our share in Britain too, but at least (since the 1960s) it's been possible to make what reparations we could be releasing those wrongly convicted.

It happens. It happens everywhere. So how come every time anyone mentions that the evidence used to convict Abdelbaset al-Megrahi of the Pan Am 103 bombing was extraordinarily threadbare and the conviction would probably have been overturned on appeal, do we see a barrage of posters insisting that he must be guilty because the court said so, end of story?

Dammit, the forensics officer who produced the physical evidence used against Megrahi was the actual same guy as was implicated in some of the most high-profile wrongful convictions - for exaggerating, misrepresenting and possibly fabricating evidence. He left the forensics service (to become a chiropodist) under that cloud very shortly after working on the PA 103 evidence.

It seems to me that wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice are all possible and even accepted as likely until a case comes up where people are emotionally invested in the suspect's guilt. Then, of course, the judges must be right, don't argue.

Which brings me to another point actually: don't let a horrible crime or a despisable defendant cloud your judgment.

All the cases listed above were accused of horrible crimes. Shooting a cop, rape and murder (same as for the dirtball in the OP), triple murder, etc. The same question could have been asked about them: would you let this scumbag live? What for?

It doesn't change the fact that they were, nevertheless, innocent.

That's my exact point. The Pan Am 103 bombing was a horrendous crime. Absolutely appalling. It doesn't change the fact that the person convicted may well, nevertheless, have been innocent.

[/OT]

Rolfe.

 

[HansMustermann]

It seems to me that wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice are all possible and even accepted as likely until a case comes up where people are emotionally invested in the suspect's guilt. Then, of course, the judges must be right, don't argue.

Actually it seems to me like some people really only accept it as a theoretical possibility, something that could conceivably happen, but has never happened yet.

 

[HansMustermann]

And just to hammer a bit more on the... very debatable justice aspect, here are a few people executed without even being accused of being the murderer:

- Doyle Skillern, executed in 1985

Convicted and executed as accomplice of someone who killed an undercover cop. He was in the car outside when the murder happened. The actual murderer got only a life sentence, _with_ the possibility of parole. The driver guy got executed.

- Steven Hatch, executed in 1996

He and an accomplice broke into a home. When Hatch left the house and went to the car, his accomplice killed both parents. The actual murderer only got life, Hatch got executed.

- Robert Thompson, executed in 2009

He and an accomplice robbed a convenience store, and were attacked by a clerk who decided to play brave and shoot at them when they left the store. Thompson's accomplice shot back and killed him, and got life for his efforts. Thompson got executed.

 

[Rolfe]

Actually it seems to me like some people really only accept it as a theoretical possibility, something that could conceivably happen, but has never happened yet.

Well, it's certainly happened in Britain, because quite a lot of people have actually been released after their convictions were overturned.

The more tragic one is probably Sally Clarke, but the list is pretty long.

The Maguire Seven
The Birmingham Six
The Guildford Four
Donna Anthony
Angela Cannings

Those are just off the top of my head. The good part is most of these people were still alive to be released, when the errors were uncovered. The shocking part is that one law officer said in public that it was a pity the alleged terrorists (the first three entries above) hadn't been hung, because everybody would have forgotten about them if they'd been executed and it would have saved some very embarrassing revelations about police and forensics officer corruption.

(And yes, it was the same forensics lab that was implicated in the wrongful convictions of these 17 people that examined the Lockerbie bombing evidence.)

Rolfe.

 

[Alt+F4]

Because civilized societies do not practice human sacrifice.

Human sacrifice is about religion. How does it relate to the murderer in the OP?

 

[Morrigan]

It doesn't. It's just a cheap content-free one-liner.

And just to hammer a bit more on the... very debatable justice aspect, here are a few people executed without even being accused of being the murderer:
...

How the hell could something like that happen? Did they find out after the fact that they weren't the murderers but just accomplices, or what?

 

[GreyICE]

How the hell could something like that happen? Did they find out after the fact that they weren't the murderers but just accomplices, or what?

You assume that you can hand the state a weapon like 'the right to kill criminals' and have them use it as you wish in all cases, ever, no matter what.

As many people have said many times, it assumes a high degree of perfection from the government. Any degree of perfection is a tad unreasonable.

 

[HansMustermann]

It doesn't. It's just a cheap content-free one-liner.



How the hell could something like that happen? Did they find out after the fact that they weren't the murderers but just accomplices, or what?

While my legal-fu is rather weak, so the legal subtleties are probably way over my head, as far as I understand it was known all along who pulled the trigger and who was just the driver.

The problem, way I see it, is that an equally valid way of putting it is, basically, "these two guys robbed a store and shot the clerk" or in yet another case than the 3 I mentioned "these two guys shot and killed a police officer" (both had fired shots, but apparently not both aiming at the cop). From there, it's basically who has the better sob story or otherwise the the jury feels more pity for, gets life, the other gets to fry. Or in a few more cases both get to fry, even though only one of them is the actual murderer.

 

[AvalonXQ]

And just to hammer a bit more on the... very debatable justice aspect, here are a few people executed without even being accused of being the murderer:

It's called "felony murder". If you're committing a felony and someone dies, you murdered them, period.
Each of the people you described was correctly accused of being a murderer.

 

[Daide]

Now, I may be wrong but there's no option for being *super* sure that someone committed a crime. I wouldn't argue that someone who is guilty should be punished. If someone is guilty then there should be a punishment for that crime. We cannot create laws based on being really sure that person X is a scumbag but person Y may be innocent and therefore we only execute the former. I realize that we can never entirely make up for putting someone in jail for a good portion of their life but at least we have the option to try.

Also, I by no means would use the argument that life in prison costs less therefore we shouldn't use the death penalty. I would be opposed to the death penalty even if it cost more for the reasons above.

 

[HansMustermann]

It's called "felony murder". If you're committing a felony and someone dies, you murdered them, period.
Each of the people you described was correctly accused of being a murderer.

It does kind of make me wonder, though. The whole argument for killing someone so they don't kill again, kinda looks silly when applied to some people who hadn't actually killed anyone. Being the guy who's outside in the car when the actual killing happened, and had no say in it, doesn't exactly put me in a frame of mind that says "we should prevent him from killing again." There is no "again" if there isn't a first time to start with.

In other words, just because a silly legal definition can call one a murderer even if he didn't actually kill anyone, doesn't make it right.

And I dare say it's not exactly the definition of "murderer" most people have in mind when arguing about the death penalty, or even when you tell them "X is a murderer." If you told some Joe Random off the street that "X is a murderer" the vast majority would think "X killed someone", and not "X was involved in a lesser fellony where someone _else_ shot a clerk... in self-defense."