Death Penalty

Remove all ads!

Actually Jesus has much more patience than I profess to have. He also has better answers than I have.

Further, Judgement is not immediately after death, but there is a period of time between mortal death and Resurrection. Then there is a millenium after that then comes Judgement. That's a lengthy period in which to repent and seek the Grace of God. If any of these are damned, then it is through their own sins and/or refusal to repent.

That seems to be lost--accountability of those handing down a death sentence. It should not be used lightly or automatically, but in the most extreme of cases, the guilty ought to be executed.

And with 15 to 20 years between sentence and execution, there's a good bet that they won't be proven innocent because they would be guilty. I refuse to believe that Police or judges or their attournies are that stupid.

 

Given the fact that every time a reporter turns up a story in which an individual who was executed was likely (in one or two cases that I mentioned it obviously would be a better word than likely) innocent that it never goes anywhere, I think the real reason we aren't posthoumously "proving" the innocence of people who were put to death is that we refuse to acknowledge the findings of organisations like the NAACP legal defense fund, individual reporters, and similar organizations as valid. The NAACP has turned up several cases in which the guilt of executed people is highly in question. Diligent reporters have also done so on many occasions. Besides, to prove that there is a problem with the death penalty, we don't need to "prove" that an innocent man was executed. We merely need to prove that there is sufficient doubt about the executed person's guilt, since we aren't "guilty until proven innocent" in the United States. Cases like Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Ruben Cantu, and Anthony Ray Hinton are real. No one questions the innocence of the Rosenbergs and the evidence of the innocence of Cantu and Hinton's innocence is beyond staggering. In the case of Hinton, it is so blatantly obvious that he couldn't have commited the crime that it isn't even funny. The forensics used to match the bullets to his gun also couldn't be reproduced when reaxamined by national forensics experts, but that doesn't even matter.....since he was 15 miles awayfrom the murder site 5 minutes before the murders took place . All one needs to do is examine his punch card from work for proof.

Innocents have been executed. The reason we aren't "finding" such cases is because we aren't listening to people who discover cases in which blatant proof of judicial error is found.

 

I'm starting to get a vibe of 'innocent people get executed sometimes - but so what, it's worth it' coming from the pro-death penalty side. Is this accurate? If so, I'll just totally withdraw here, because there's not much left to say if it's at that point...

 

If you've been convicted, yes you are "guilty until proven innocent"; because you've already been proven guilty.

Noone is a mighty big word. Unless you've questioned everyone in the world on this subject, I wouldn't use it, especially as an argument against someone for whom it isn't true (BTA).

Right, because noone could possibly have punched his card for him. After all, punching a card requires visual identification, fingerprints, and a retinal scan.

Saying it over and over and over again will not magically make it true. Believe me that I've tried that on a number of problems in my own life with no success. The frustrating thing is that you need proof, when your entire argument is based on not having any. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that noone's found it. To make it clear, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm not saying you're right. I'm just saying you've got no proof (and certainly no absolute "everyone knows"), and should not act as if you do.

 

isnt that always the US's attiude?
"300000 innocent people died in Iraq, but so what? it was for the better"


[Wow, that was off-topic and completely inappropriate for this thread and this forum. - dmc]

[ May 10, 2006, 19:11: Message edited by: dmc ]

 

That's just it, Fel. It has been proven that people have been wrongly executed. It's just that the results of investigations of journalists and groups like the NAACP on the subject have been discounted by those on the other side of the issue. If you never listen to anyone who presents proof, you can go on saying a thing has never been proven as long as you want to do so.....it won't change the fact that the "proof" is as plain as day if you look.

I understand why people who support the death penalty don't want to give any credence to the investigations done by biased journalists and organizations like the NAACP. The thing is.....supporters of the death penalty aren't going to fund posthumous investigations into the guilt or innocence of people who were put to death. It's kind of ironic....since pro-death penalty folks aren't funding investigations to prove the guilt of those executed, but then discount the findings of the NAACP and the Houston Chronicle as being biased. Here's the link to the work they did on Cantu's case. Judge for yourself whether or not you think this is a clear and well argued case or a politically driven, highly biased one. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3472872.html

[ May 10, 2006, 22:49: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Politically driven, no; biased, only slightly. True, AFAIK. But what gets me is the eye-witness. If he recanted, they could have appealed on those grounds. Moreno could have even taken his case to the governor to stop the execution. But that didn't happen. Why?

If there is proof, it can be used in court.

 

They did appeal, Fel. The appeals were denied. Unfortunately, they didn't know Moreno still lived in Texas. They thought he had gone back to Mexico, so they didn't go looking for him. It took a newspaper reporter to track him down. Whether this is an issue of incompetence or oversight, it still stands as an example of an innocent man executed.

 

No, it does not. All it proves is that he shouldn't have been convicted. He very well could have committed the crime. Regardless, he should not have been convicted, and most certainly not executed. Whether he was innocent matters not a whit to me; he should not have been put to death on faulty evidence.

I would also say that it does not surprise me that this happened in Texas, where the death penalty is not nearly so worried over as the other states that practice it. If it were not treated so cavalierly, things like this would not happen.

 

"innocent until proven guilty"

Ergo, he's innocent.

 

No, it only means that he should have been found 'not guilty', or acquitted, not that he was innocent of the crime. There is a very large difference there. One is legality, the other is reality. We do not know the reality with absolute certainty; the only person who could even be said to come close is dead now. And unfortunately his word cannot be wholly trusted given the self-interest inherent in the situation. Though we can be 99.99% (or 80% in my case) sure that he was innocent, there is always a possibility that we are 100% wrong. There could be every possible piece of evidence proving that someone did not commit a crime, and they still could have committed it.

People are not automatically innocent of a crime simply because it cannot be proven. All you have to do is look at mob bosses or other career criminals for that. The kind of people who make a living off of getting away with things.

 

But if they ARE proven Guilty, then they must be guilty. Either that or provable facts really don't mean what people think they should...

 

@Fel: Given that the witness (the only evidence they had) has stated that he lied about Cantu, I'd say that what we have here is slam dunk proof of innocence.

 

Not always, Fel - rules and standards of evidence can exclude matters that could otherwise sway a case. Hard proof may exist, but never make it to court. Typically, this favours the accused, but exculpatory evidence occasionally only sees the light of day after a sentence has been imposed or carried out.

Indeed - knowing < proving. However, if you're going to punish or imprison people through a formal process - much less execute them - you need that level of certainty.

Either that, or the evidence only supports a possible interpretation of events that the prosecution is advancing - rather than speaking for itself completely - and that interpretation is incorrect. Given that the prosecution team doesn't come to court with the presumption of innocence, it's hard to cling to the idea that the evidence speaks for itself, devoid of any measure of inference or interpretation.

 

Having been on a jury for a murder which did not entail the death sentence I can say that Jurors do consider the evidence very carefully. They do not take lightly their responsibility.

I can only imagine that a juror for a death sentence trial would be even more hesitant to convict.

I do think that innocent people get convicted. Witnesses are not reliable even when honest. It is not a perfect solution but does anyone have one?

Isn't there an expression: "Let the punishment fit the crime."?

 

was just pointing out that thats always the attitude, be it from a person or a country, as long as you get what you want, the others dont matter, be it one innocent or 300000 in a war.

and since were obviously debating the death penalty in the US i thought it best to use the US as an example.

 

@Drew:
Okay, you're still not getting my point. Innocent is different from "not guilty". Having no proof that points at someone's guilt does not make them innocent. Just "not guilty". Again, I will repeat: Innocence has to do with whether they committed the crime or not. Having no proof that they did does not make them innocent of the crime, it just means there's no proof. Only having proof to the contrary can start to prove someone's innocence. But thankfully, that is not what is required. All that is required is to be legally "not guilty", which is satisfied by there being no evidence of guilt. You can say that Cantu was not guilty of the crime, but you cannot say he was innocent. Yes, it's semantics, but given the large difference in connotation, it's important semantics.

@Nakia:

Yes, these things happen in Texas. But in other places which utilize the death penalty, there is a great burden of proof for the death penalty to even be available. Three eye-witnesses, or something like that. They make sure that they can prove beyond any possibility of false evidence that the person is guilty of a heinous crime before they even consider putting them to death.

 

@BTA: I don't care why Cantu was wrongly convicted. I care about the fact that Cantu was wrongly convicted at all and then executed for it. I certainly think more death isn't the answer. What if we try, convict, and execute Moreno for lying only to find out later that he was coerced and manipulated by the investigating officers after executing him. Indeed, the reporter dug up quite a bit of evidence leading to the assertion that he may have been coerced. I brought Cantu's case up because it has been argued that it has never been proven that an innocent man has been put to death. I'll even concede that on a technicality.......we all have different standards of "proof". Cantu, by the way, was actually the weakest case I listed regarding the level of "proof" of his innocence. The other cases I mentioned actually point even more strongly towards the conclusion that an innocent man was executed.

I will argue, however, that we have definitely come "close enough" to proving on several occasions that people have been wrongfully convicted and then executed. To some, this realisation isn't a deal breaker for the death penalty. In truth, I can respect that (although I wonder if folks who make such assertions would still feel that way sitting on death row after their last appeal was denied for a crime they didn't commit). I will respect a statement that occasionally killing an innocent when administering justice is acceptable, even though I disagree with it and feel that it goes against everything our legal system is supposed to stand for. I will not respect any statements to the effect that we aren't putting innocents to death with some degree of regularity, however. Because we are.

That's a gross over-generalisation, Fel. From what I've seen, if there is sufficient evidence to convict, there is sufficient evidence to execute.

[ May 12, 2006, 01:28: Message edited by: Drew ]