by StinkyPantz 75 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
""I'm not against it in principle, but since the US justice system has a little problem with executing innocent people, at the very least a national moratorium ought to be held on the practice. ""
Wow, no proof to back this up! And you won't find any.
PP: I change my statement from "wishful thinking" to pure si-fi! You are a nut!
The Guilty Are Being Executed
Red herrings from the anti-death-penalty squad By Robert Pambianco, Chief Policy Counsel for the Washington Legal FoundationThe media’s newfound intense obsession with the death penalty reached fever pitch this week with the scheduled execution of Gary Graham in Texas. The case has become a cause celebre for death-penalty opponents. They have made Graham the poster child for their efforts to undermine public support for capital punishment by raising the specter of innocent people being put to death.
Death-penalty opponents have conceded that they cannot win the argument about whether the death penalty is appropriate in certain circumstances. Despite their best efforts, the public remains convinced that some crimes are so heinous that no other punishment will suffice.
Hence, rather than arguing that capital punishment is immoral, death-penalty opponents have shifted to a utilitarian argument about fairness. Specifically, they have sought to convince people that capital punishment will lead to the execution of many innocents. From a public-relations standpoint, the new tactic makes sense.
Arguing that society must protect the innocent from execution sounds more reasonable than insisting that it is an inappropriate punishment for the most brutal crimes. Only diehard opponents of capital punishment and soft-on-crime types can sympathize with the guilty, whereas nobody wants to see an innocent man put to death.
Opponents of capital punishment certainly have had no trouble feeding the new spin to the media, but they may be wise to hold off popping the champagne corks. For starters, while there is some evidence that public support for capital punishment has slipped somewhat, it should not be given too much weight. Most likely, any change in public sentiment is a matter of decreased intensity, which — given the state of the economy, the perception that crime rates are down, and the public's general sense of satisfaction — is hardly surprising. After all, a content public is not a bloodthirsty public, and the American public is nothing if not content.
For all the media attention the issue has received, opposition to capital punishment remains the province of elite opinion. There is also a danger for death-penalty opponents in placing so much attention on the question of innocence. By focusing on innocence, opponents implicitly concede that it is acceptable to execute the guilty. That’s where they run into big trouble, because notwithstanding all the hysteria, in the overwhelming majority of death-penalty cases there is no credible issue of innocence. Most death-row appeals are not even based on claims of factual innocence (i.e., I didn't do it).
Moreover, the whole argument about innocence rests on the false premise that there is actually some evidence that innocent people are being executed.
Yet there is no such evidence: none. There is no proof of an innocent person's being executed since 1900. One will search in vain through news stories and editorials for mention of a single case of an innocent execution.
Unable to demonstrate that innocent people are being executed, the activists have zeroed in on cases where death sentences have been reversed. Of course, these people are alive. However, those opposed to capital punishment have adopted the truly bizarre position that proof that the judicial system bends over backward to ensure there are no wrongful executions is actually evidence that the system cannot work. The most recent manifestation of this logic was the production of a study purporting to show a 68 percent error rate in capital cases. This was presented as a shattering revelation. But such statistics reflect some well-established facts: first, that the courts are extremely cautious about executions, and those sentenced to death get more due-process protection than anyone else in the criminal-justice system.
Second, for years activist appellate judges blocked executions because of their personal opposition to the death penalty. Some may recall that a chief justice of the California Supreme Court was removed from office for reversing nearly every death sentence that came before her court.
The 68 percent statistic says nothing about the final determination of those cases, the actual guilt of the defendants, or even the ultimate outcome of the death sentences (which, in many cases, were upheld).
Indeed, the most notable thing about the study is that it fails to point to a single case of an innocent person who was executed. Similarly, the focus on DNA evidence presents a double-edged sword for death-penalty opponents.
If DNA evidence can be used to prove that the wrong man was convicted, then it can be used to remove any remaining doubt about a prisoner's guilt. Far from undermining confidence in capital punishment, DNA evidence will only help increase the certainty about the guilt of those sentenced to die. As most law students learn in evidence class, it is normally the job of the defense at a criminal trial to keep evidence away from the jury, since it usually bolsters the prosecution's case.
The innocence question that has been the subject of so much media attention is, then, a disingenuous publicity prop. For opponents of capital punishment, there is no such thing as a fair execution. They are opposed to capital punishment in all cases, regardless of the nature of the crime or the certainty of the evidence. Rather than indicating a more "sophisticated" discussion of capital punishment — as one civil libertarian recently suggested — the focus on innocence is a testament to the failure of the anti-death penalty movement and the moral bankruptcy of its arguments.
All the discussion about the case in Texas — like the larger debate over executing innocents — is a sideshow designed to divert public attention away from the real issue, which must always be: Are there some murders so heinous that imposing a penalty less than death would trivialize the crime and cheapen human life? On this, the answer remains: Yes.
This is the U.K. and in the last few days a man hanged in 1950 has been "pardoned". This is one of our British euphemisms for "He didn't do it". It seems the police "forgot" to present some evidence that would greatly have favoured the defence.
In another case recently a woman won her appeal against sentence for killing her two babies at least partly on the grounds that a medically eminent witness for the prosecution had failed to present evidence favourable to the defence.
More recently still a woman has been aquitted of the murder of three of her children. Quite right too but strange that the prosecution wheeled on some of the same discredited "experts".
If people are imprisoned at least there is the chance that mistakes can be addressed.
I know little of justice in the US but if no miscarriages of the death penalty have ever been found it sounds to me that no-one is looking very hard.
As an afterthought what effect does gun law in the US have on the murder rate? I understand it to be a hot potato.
BTW sheilaM what would you recomment as punishment for the two boys in question? These are hard matters which should trouble any of us. There is no known way to put things right nor to ease the grief of the victim's family.
As for the two boys who did this, we can only start from where we are.
cowhand; gun laws funnily enough don't seem to be the cause of the high death rates in the USA; in 1902 (or so), New York and London had similar gun laws, and in New York people killed each other 5 times more frequently. The same ratio holds true today.
The fact there is such a historic trend spoils arguments made by others that the mass media sensalisation of crime (in a period of falling crime) is driving Americans to become fearful.
However, other than being able to prove that Americans have killed and do kill each other five times more often thean Europeans, I don't have an answer WHY, and whenever I've asked why, I never get much of a reply...
ThiChi; I think you should know that the article you've posted is inaccurate;
Yet there is no such evidence: none. There is no proof of an innocent person's being executed since 1900. One will search in vain through news stories and editorials for mention of a single case of an innocent execution.
This seems to be contradicted by;
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engAMR510881998
Note the highlighted text taken from the above link;
How many of the approximately 7,000 prisoners executed in the USA in this century were innocent will never be known, but one prominent study claims that at least 23 innocent prisoners have been put to death between 1900 and 1984. For every six prisoners executed since the reinstatement of the death penalty in the USA, one innocent person was condemned to die and later exonerated. Equally blameless but less fortunate prisoners may still be awaiting execution --or have already gone to their deaths.
In recent years, Amnesty International has recorded numerous cases of prisoners who went to their deaths despite serious doubts over their guilt. The USA -- unlike several other countries including the United Kingdom and Russia -- has never admitted to executing an innocent person.
Refusing to admit innocent people have been executed is not that same as innocent people never having been executed.
Of course, if you are credulous enough to believe that the USA's justice system is perfect, you're probably credulous enough to believe that the government never lies to people...
Here's some more evidence of the knowledge that exists in the USA of the flawed nature of the system;
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty_facts_eng
Since 1973, 107 prisoners have been released from death row in the USA after evidence emerged of their innocence of the crimes for which they were sentenced to death. Some had come close to execution after spending many years under sentence of death. Recurring features in their cases include prosecutorial or police misconduct; the use of unreliable witness testimony, physical evidence, or confessions; and inadequate defence representation. Other US prisoners have gone to their deaths despite serious doubts over their guilt.
The then Governor of the US state of Illinois, George Ryan, declared a moratorium on executions in January 2000. His decision followed the exoneration of the 13th death row prisoner found to have been wrongfully convicted in the state since the USA resumed executions in 1977. During the same period, 12 other Illinois prisoners had been executed.
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty_developments_eng
USA (Maryland)
On 9 May Governor Parris Glendening announced a moratorium on executions pending the outcome of a study by the University of Maryland into the fairness of the state's death penalty, particularly with regard to racial and geographic bias. At the same time, the governor issued a stay of execution for Wesley Baker who was due to be put to death during the week of 13 May.
Maryland was the second US state to impose a moratorium on the death penalty in recent years (Illinois did so in January 2000).
UPDATE: In March 2003 the Maryland Senate rejected by one vote a bill to impose a moratorium until 2005, despite the University of Maryland study having found racial and geographic bias in capital sentencing. Governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr, who succeeded Governor Glendening, opposes a moratorium.
Stinky; I hope the above will show that the death penalty by definition will and has resulted in the death of innocents; I don't think you are in the least bit credulous.
Please realise that the death penalty is a cultural issue. If you were born in North Africa, you would probably have been circumcised, and think that your daughters should be circumcised too, to avoid being wanton sex maniacs no man would marry, and that female genital mutiulatrion was right.
Likewise, people growng up in a culture where the death penalty is common practise believe if there is no death penalty, there will be disasterous knock-on concequences, and that the death penalty is right.
Open you eyes to the fact that most countries in the world do not have the death penalty and do not have disasterous consequences.
Just 'cause that's the way it's been done doesn't mean there isn't a better way.
Can I ask Americans to look at this list;
AFGHANISTAN, ALGERIA, ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, BAHAMAS, BAHRAIN, BANGLADESH, BARBADOS, BELARUS, BELIZE, BENIN, BOTSWANA, BURUNDI, CAMEROON, CHAD, CHINA, COMOROS, CONGO (Democratic Republic), CUBA, DOMINICA, EGYPT, EQUATORIAL GUINEA, ERITREA, ETHIOPIA, GABON, GHANA, GUATEMALA, GUINEA, GUYANA, INDIA, INDONESIA, IRAN, IRAQ, JAMAICA, JAPAN, JORDAN, KAZAKSTAN, KENYA, KOREA (North), KOREA (South), KUWAIT, KYRGYZSTAN, LAOS, LEBANON, LESOTHO, LIBERIA, LIBYA, MALAWI, MALAYSIA, MAURITANIA, MONGOLIA, MOROCCO, MYANMAR, NIGERIA, OMAN, PAKISTAN, PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY, PHILIPPINES, QATAR, RWANDA, SAINT CHRISTOPHER & NEVIS, SAINT LUCIA, SAINT VINCENT & GRENADINES, SAUDI ARABIA, SIERRA LEONE, SINGAPORE, SOMALIA, SUDAN, SWAZILAND, SYRIA, TAIWAN, TAJIKISTAN, TANZANIA, THAILAND, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, TUNISIA, UGANDA, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UZBEKISTAN, VIET NAM, YEMEN, ZAMBIA, ZIMBABWE
... and then at this one;
ANDORRA, ANGOLA, AUSTRALIA, AUSTRIA, AZERBAIJAN, BELGIUM, BULGARIA, CAMBODIA, CANADA, CAPE VERDE, COLOMBIA, COSTA RICA, COTE D'IVOIRE, CROATIA, CYPRUS, CZECH REPUBLIC, DENMARK, DJIBOUTI, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, EAST TIMOR, ECUADOR, ESTONIA, FINLAND, FRANCE, GEORGIA, GERMANY, GUINEA-BISSAU, HAITI, HONDURAS, HUNGARY, ICELAND, IRELAND, ITALY, KIRIBATI, LIECHTENSTEIN, LITHUANIA, LUXEMBOURG, MACEDONIA (former Yugoslav Republic), MALTA, MARSHALL ISLANDS, MAURITIUS, MICRONESIA (Federated States), MOLDOVA, MONACO, MOZAMBIQUE, NAMIBIA, NEPAL, NETHERLANDS, NEW ZEALAND, NICARAGUA, NORWAY, PALAU, PANAMA, PARAGUAY, POLAND, PORTUGAL, ROMANIA, SAN MARINO, SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE, SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO, SEYCHELLES, SLOVAK REPUBLIC, SLOVENIA, SOLOMON ISLANDS, SOUTH AFRICA, SPAIN, SWEDEN, SWITZERLAND, TURKMENISTAN, TUVALU, UKRAINE, UNITED KINGDOM, URUGUAY, VANUATU, VATICAN CITY STATE, VENEZUELA, ALBANIA, ARGENTINA, BOLIVIA, BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA, BRAZIL, CHILE, COOK ISLANDS, EL SALVADOR, FIJI, GREECE, ISRAEL, LATVIA, MEXICO, PERU, TURKEY, ARMENIA, BHUTAN, BRUNEI DARUSSALAM, BURKINA FASO, CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC, CONGO (Republic), GAMBIA, GRENADA, MADAGASCAR, MALDIVES, MALI, NAURU, NIGER, PAPUA NEW GUINEA, RUSSIAN FEDERATION, SAMOA, SENEGAL, SRI LANKA, SURINAME, TOGO, TONGA.
How do they feel about appearing on the same list (countries with active death penalties), along with a ragtag bunch (including the axis of evil countries) with more than it's fair share of non-democratic and developing countries, plus a few with mad-men in charge, rather than the one of counrties with no active death penalty?
And how they feel about this quote;
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty_sentences_eng
In 2002, 81 per cent of all known executions took place in China, Iran and the USA. In China, limited and incomplete records available to Amnesty International at the end of the year indicated that at least 1,060 people were executed, but the true figure was believed to be much higher. At least 113 executions were carried out in Iran. Seventy-one people were executed in the USA.
How do they feel about the fact the USA executes people who were minors when they committed the crime, and executing mental incompetants?
First let me say, I've found all most of the above quite intriguing. A lot has been said, pro and con, about capital punishment. But I'm really curious about something. Maybe the Englishman would be willing to comment on this. Let's say someone, a total stranger, comes into my home, rapes my wife, then cuts her throat and she dies in a pool of her own blood. If capital punishment is not an appropriate course of action toward this individual, in this enlightened and civilized society, then, (1) just what is the appropriate course, and (2) why so?
If capital punishment is not an appropriate course of action toward this individual, in this enlightened and civilized society, then, (1) just what is the appropriate course, and (2) why so?
My question exactly. I think that we all really have no good opinion unless it happens to us. Someone murders someone in our family. What do you want? Nine times out of ten, death. I personally would go to jail for the rest of my life to avenge the death of my wife, etc.
ash
MYOHNSEPH & ashi;
First of all, you're not really considering the FACT that innocent people die as a result of judicial homocide. Whetehr innocent people die at the hands of criminals is not the point, unless you belive that two wrongs make a right.
If you want to ignore that fact, fine; personally, I think you're entitled to that opinion. I also wouldn't respect it unless you were willing to die for a crime you hadn't comitted.
Once again, the fact that criminals kill people when they have commited no crime is not the point. If killing is bad, killing is bad. QED.
Secondly, revenge and justice are two different things; I would, given the opportunity, love to wreak revenge on anyone who harmed me or mine. I would not kid myself this was justice; it would be revenge.
The legal system should not be about revenge.
Thirdly, you both seem to be ignoring what I pointed out to Stinky; you've been conditioned by living in a culture where people are killed by the judicial system.
Just as kids growing up in areas where human life is not worth that much are brutalised, so to it seems that perfectly wonderful reasonable caring gentle people are in favour of judicial homocide, because they are so enculturated. Perhaps the willing acceptance of people being put to death by court order is made worse by the high levels of interpersonal violence in American society; life is cheap, or at least, five times cheaper.
I get tired of giving Germany as an example; after WWII popular opinion supported the death penalty. The government abolished it. Now, 50 years later, the majority of Germans are against the death penalty, as they have grown up in a society where ALL killing is seen as wrong.
Of course, if you come from such a society where judicial homocide is seen by many as normal, it's not pleasent to think your attitude might just be enculturation rather than considered opinions. But you both ask "(1) just what is the appropriate course, and (2) why so".
Well, why not investigate what other countries do? Why not develop an informed opinion? I don;t live in the USA, I don;t see why I should tell you how to make the wheel - as you seem to be asking how to make the wheel; other methods of dealing with it are used by other countries, and they are normally used for good reason, and they do not result in murders running around in broad daylight - how can they when (for example) European murder rates are so much lower than American ones? If you really want to know, find out... I don;t want you to just have my opinion, I want you to engage with the issue and be sure that the opinion you have is actually one you REALLY feel, rather than one you lipsynch due to conditioning.
To all those who believe the DP should be oblished completely, PLEASE STATE what you believe should be done with this killer. ============================================================================================ A 2 1/2-year-old girl was kidnapped, raped, sodomized, tortured and mutilated with vise grips over six hours. Then she was strangled to death. Her assailant, Theodore Frank, according to court records and his own admissions, had already molested more than 100 children during a 20-year period.
Please give me one case where a person was executed and then exonerated. -- StinkyPantz
I haven't researched the matter in the context you present it, but I hope you don't believe – right along with George Bush – that every single person who’s been executed were in fact guilty. Maybe you heard what the governor of Illinois did a few months back – pardoning four death row inmates after determining they had been tortured into confessing crimes they did not commit and commuting the sentences of death row inmates. If such miscarriages of justice occur today when media scrutiny is at such a high level, it's not a stretch to think it happened a lot more frequently in the dark past of this country's segregated and racist history.
That's the only problem I have with capital punishment. If the evidence is irrefutable and every one involved – from clerks up to the jury and judge – are interested in true justice being done, then I say let the blade fall. Some people just need killing. Otherwise, I got serious problems with the practice.
_____________________
p.s. for ThiChi
Dude!, on page 2 of this thread, you made a post that was over 8,000 words in length and, if printed out, would have been more than 60 pages long. Do you really think a post of that kind is necessary or adds anything to the discussion? I know that cut and pasting is your forte, but I think it would be good if you thought about showing a bit more consideration of the discussions and present your own perspectives. Just a thought.
