Illinois Abolishes the Death Penalty

[Lowpro]

Mattus, pick a case where we purposefully executed a known innocent man (before we executed him, I will not allow wordplay), that answers the question. No one wants an innocent man to die (other than those i assume that conspire to kill an innocent person if they exist at all)

 

[deepatrax]

Hypothetical question for deepatrax:

What is an acceptable ratio of guilty-to-innocent death row executions to still justify the death penalty? In other words, pick a ratio...

guilty inmates executed
---------------------------- = ???
innocent inmates executed

... that you might find acceptable. Would 10-to-1 be okay? 100-to-1? 1000-to-1? This, of course, assumes that we find out in hindsight whether or not the executed individual was actually innocent. I'm curious to know your response.

This question is open to any supporters of the current death penalty system, not just deepatrax.

I'm considering your question...

just looked up some numbers and trying to determine how this might reflect on it...if my numbers are off, let me know.

Current Death Row Inmates = 3,254
Executed since 1976 = 1,242 [1]
Exonerated since 1973 = 138 [2]

I'm unsure how many died on Death Row...through other causes such as suicide or murder by someone else.

Assuming the total number of Death Row inmates since 1973 is in the 3300 range, the exonerated = 4%.

how many of the 1242 executed were innocent? we'll never know.

4%? doubtful...likely to be much less since many of the exonerated were found so after a few short years and not after a long drawn out process before an execution would have occurred.

0%? doubtful also...we're human and mistakes are made.

1% = 12 people
2% = 24 people

is that acceptable...to use your term? of course not.

but is it acceptable to let the other 98% be a continued burden on Society? I don't think so either.

so let's have better police and prosecutor work to help make sure this number gets lowered and we aren't putting innocent people on death row.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Mattus, pick a case where we purposefully executed a known innocent man (before we executed him, I will not allow wordplay), that answers the question. No one wants an innocent man to die (other than those i assume that conspire to kill an innocent person if they exist at all)

Ironically, just such a case was outlined in the Tribune article in the OP. Here's the relevant section of the article...

... And while many people believe Illinois never executed an innocent man, others disagree. The 1995 execution of Girvies Davis for a downstate murder was long controversial and relied heavily on a disputed confession, one the police got when they took him out of jail in the middle of the night and, according to Davis, threatened him.

In fact, Davis confessed to numerous crimes that night and, authorities later acknowledged, many of the confessions were false, with other people later convicted of those crimes. On the other hand, Davis admitted to taking part in other crimes that led to the deaths of innocent people, though he insisted he never killed anybody himself.

One of Davis' attorneys once wrote in an essay in the Tribune that "nothing short of finding the real murderer would have saved Davis' life." So it is that the execution still haunts the lawyer, David Schwartz. He called the death penalty's end, nearly 16 years after Davis was put to death by lethal injection, "bittersweet."

"It bothers me when I hear people say that the state of Illinois never executed a person for a crime they did not commit," Schwartz said. "Because they did with Girvies Davis." ...

Now, the question I have for you is this: would this information have been enough to raise a reasonable doubt in your mind about this man's guilt? Would you, based upon this information, have been willing to give him a retrial? If there was a reasonable chance that this man was actually innocent, would you still have allowed him to stay on death row?

But, in case this isn't what you were looking for, try this: Cameron Todd Willingham

 

[Lowpro]

That's an interesting case. Have we proven the man's innocence yet?

Forgive me if I sound dodgy, but my question was quite clear and I didn't want to allow for wordplay. I asked if, by any other means than conspiracy, was a KNOWINGLY innocent man brought before and executed.

The first case is conspiratory, no knowledge of his innocence, though OBVIOUSLY it should be disputed. To answer your question, if a case is shady in ANY respect it probably shouldn't even be considered to use the death penalty.

But let me ask you the MY question: If a man is guilty of multiple capital crimes, the evidence being conclusive beyond a shadow of a doubt, including the rape and murder of a child, what difference does it make then if he dies or lives then? Why say he shouldn't die? The "...but what if we're wrong" crap doesn't mean anything here, the trial was perfect, no misinformation, no conspiracy, no problem.

If you want to abolish the death penalty, you must acknowledge that you would not allow for the execution of a 100% guilty person for a crime heinous enough to deserve the punishment. It can't be for fear of being wrong, that's a non-factor.

If we were wrong 100% of the time, that wouldn't change my stance that people who meet the criteria for execution shouldn't be executed, but OBVIOUSLY we should try NOT to be wrong. Cameron Todd Williamson obviously got screwed, that's for sure, and he's dead now.

I want to link this part of that wiki page:

An August 2009 Chicago Tribune investigative article concluded: "Over the past five years, the Willingham case has been reviewed by nine of the nation's top fire scientists—first for the Tribune, then for the Innocence Project, and now for the commission. All concluded that the original investigators relied on outdated theories and folklore to justify the determination of arson. The only other evidence of significance against Willingham was twice recanted testimony[1] by another inmate who testified that Willingham had confessed to him. Jailhouse snitches are viewed with skepticism in the justice system, so much so that some jurisdictions have restrictions against their use."

You need to understand something. I will be at the front of any march against the use of outdated methods, practices, anything that can possibly get the innocent man thrown on death row. This however also means that I am also at the front of any march to get the guilty man thrown on death row, so long as he or she meets the qualifications as such. By determining an innocent, you also determine a guilty party can exist. To demand the removal of the death penalty is to also say "I don't think guilty men should be executed"

That's all you have to say, you don't need to muddle around in this post-execution innocence bullcrap, and doing so is an attempted misdirection. Have you been watching too much "The Life of David Gale" ?

 

[deepatrax]

But, in case this isn't what you were looking for, try this: Cameron Todd Willingham

First I read about this case...very interesting.

In 1992, his family said he was innocent and the evidence said he was guilty

In 2009, his family said he was guilty and the evidence said he may have been innocent.

In 2010, his ex-wife said, "Todd murdered Amber, Karmon and Kameron. He burnt them. He admitted he burnt them to me, and he was convicted for his crime. That is the closest to justice that my daughters will ever get."

 

[Whiplash]

So allowing someone to be reformed just became conditional?

But then what really is the point of them being reformed at all? So they can be good little inmates and all get along and have a wonderful little society in the prison? It seems pointless. I wouldn't stop them from anything they wanted to do for themselves, but I would see little reason to spend money and time helping them to do more than adapt to, function in, and survive their prison terms. Not out of any disgust, or in a punitive manner. It's just a waste of time. Except maybe to someone religious, but I reject that.

However, I am against capital punishment anymore. Mostly because I feel that it's actually not as big of a punishment as a life sentence, especially for one that is young. I consider if I had done something at 30 years old that would put me in jail for life. Looking down the barrel of 30, 40, maybe even 50+ years of life in a prison. No hope of ever being free.

I may find the thought of death to be more appealing than that. I prefer the idea of them having to live with themselves, and their conscience (if they have one), day after day. Regretting what they did. Feeling the direct result of their actions. Day after day.

And the upside is, if they are innocent, it's a chance to eventually prove it and free them, rather than having them wrongfully executed.

Suicide is often called the cowards way out. I don't know why more people don't recognize that a death sentence is not necessarily the worst thing that someone can get. I sincerely believe some would relish it over many other options, even as mundane as simple prison existence till death, let alone things like torture, etc.

 

[Lowpro]

Whiplash with that logic, then people who demand Life Term Sentences are REAL bastards...

 

[JihadJane]

Can you find one comment by me where I said or even implied this??

no. you attributed this nonsense to me, then had an argument with yourself about it.

Not forcing the taxpayers to fund the housing, food, clothing and entertainment for an admitted killer for the rest of his life DOES NOT EQUATE TO increasing one's wealth!

If taxpayer money isn't spent on one thing...it WILL be spent on something else which hopefully is more beneficial to society...nobody is accumulating wealth in this scenario.

*facepalm*

Wealth is the ability to spend.