As tragic as this story is, what about those who are guilty of murder? Such people go on living in prison, leaving guards and other inmates at risk of being murdered by them...and some of them are murderered. Where's the outrage then? Exceptions do not negate the rule.
Need I remind Damian of the guy Norman Mailer crusaded for, Jack Abbott? He got out of prison only to murder someone else. Story here:
[External Link]
Three words, Richard: Life without parole.
Murderers should be segregated and treated like radioactive isotopes by prison guards; sure, it doesn't do much in the way of rehabilitation, but if they're never getting out, who cares?
If someone confessed, I am not sure that DNA evidence has "proved them innocent" - all the DNA evidence has done is to prove that at least one other person was involved in the crime, and perhaps eliminate evidence that was inaccurately used against the accused. Since you can't "prove a negative" there is no way to prove innocence.
Posted at 2007-05-23 10:01:22 [PermaLink]Further, wouldn't requiring DNA testing of all applicable evidence in capital cases negate this objection?
And even with "life without parole", there's still wrongful conviction, ruined lives, and (if we take Rick's suggestion) severe mental trauma from being treated "like radioactive isotopes" and kept in solitary confinement - which might itself count as "cruel and unusual punishment".
Rick M:
That's nice--complete segregation is far worse than the death penalty, and most anti-death penalty advocates would not accept total isolation anyway, so it's a moot point.
In the end, if you kill Man A for murdering Man B, he will not be around to kill Man C. And there are numerous stories of killers--who have nothing left to live for--killing guards and other inmates (inmates who are not there for murder).
A proper application of the death penalty--punishment, not a deterrent--would respect innocent life far more than locking some murderer up for the rest of their lives in isolation.
R. Romano; you've completely missed Damian's point.
Too many wrongful convictions. As much as I agree that the death penalty is fitting punishment, you can't ignore his #'s.
As to the conflicting evidence vs guilty pleas, how many lawyers have advised their clients to plead guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence (plea bargains)?
"Since you can't 'prove a negative' there is no way to prove innocence."
There are times you can prove a negative. For example, DNA prove that someone was not the rapist. Likewise being proven to have been in place A at a given time can prove that you were not in place B.
But there's also a big difference between a wrongful conviction and actually proving someone innocent, and I'm not clear from the piece that the author understands the difference.
Danin Van:
And you've missed mine -- far too many criminals, i.e., murderers, keep their lives, while innocent people lose theirs.
Amazingly, the same people who shill for anti-death penalty legislation are also lax when it comes to pro-life issues (no, I'm not saying Damien is, but take a gander at the anti-death penalty advocates, they are the who's who of the left).
Richard:
I'm sorry, but I cannot accept that executing innocent persons is simply a cost of doing business. Life without parole.
I would think that with the advent of DNA testing, that should make us MORE secure in using the death penalty. If DNA can verify whether someone is at guilt with more certainty than evidence that we had before, then this should be comfort to those people who are afraid of executing innocent people. After all, if DNA can exonerate, why can't DNA convict?
Posted at 2007-05-23 17:38:32 [PermaLink]"For example, DNA prove that someone was not the rapist"
No - that proves that the victim had sex with another man; that does not *necessarily* mean that they were not (also) raped by the accused.
"...being proven to have been in place A at a given time can prove that you were not in place B."
Yes - but in that case, you are proving the positive assertion that you were in location A - not the negative assertion that you were *not* in location B. We take it as a given that someone cannot be in two places at once, and so accept that you wee not a location B. Absent that positive evidence that you were somewhere else, it is difficult to prove that you weren't in any particular location and impossible using an after-the-fact sampling technique like DNA or fingerprints.
"No - that proves that the victim had sex with another man; that does not *necessarily* mean that they were not (also) raped by the accused."
It does if she states she was raped by only one man, which is usually the case. Or consider a paternity suit -- the DNA testing (or often even a simple blood test) can prove that the man is not the father.
"Yes - but in that case, you are proving the positive assertion that you were in location A - not the negative assertion that you were *not* in location B."
By proving A I have also proven B. That is proving a negative.
"Since you can't "prove a negative" there is no way to prove innocence."
And? As it turns out, you don't have to prove innocence. That is one of the most basic blocks of our justice system. Burden is on the crown. It strikes me that DNA evidence raises a reasonable doubt, especially if there is no other evidence (Witnesses, forensic, confession etc.) I'm a law and order guy, I spent 12 years in the RCMP, and really have no time for all the goofs that our system lets out, and some of the judges who are responsible. But the fact is that our laws call for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And unless we change that, it is what it is. If DNA evidence raises reasonable doubt, the it does. Find other evidence.
As for the confessions, it really isn't always that difficult to get someone to confess to something if they are feeling guilty about anything at all in their life, or if they are peripherally involved. I wasn't a particularly skilled interrogator, but I watched guys who were, and they could make me feel like I had committed a crime watching them. so the confession, while I'd say is reliable almost every time, it is still "almost".
Someone earlier said it best - we can't have wrongful executions as a cost of doing business. Lock 'em up, throw away the key.
"Someone earlier said it best - we can't have wrongful executions as a cost of doing business. Lock 'em up, throw away the key."
The problem is that this doesn't happen if you get rid of the death penalty. As soon as LIFE in prison (meaning, they die in prison) is the worst that can happen, this is the stick that that DAs have to wield in plea bargaining. If a murderer says that he'll plead guilty if they reduce the sentence to 15 years in prison (with the possibility of early release pending on good behavior), the DA can accept or take his/her chances with a trial.
As well, the relative notion of punishment drops a notch. Now that we aren't executing people, actual life in prison is reserved for only the harshest punishments. In Britain, the average "life sentence" lasts just under 12 years. In the Neatherlands, the killer of Pim Fortuyn, who is a political assasin, will spend less than 15 years in prison.
If we can use DNA to decrease the liklihood of false convictions, then things like the Innocence Project should actually be an argument for implementing the death penalty, not against it.
I'm not arguing against the death penalty - not yet. I've vacillated over the years on this one. And the fact that "life" means an indeterminate number of years, not life, is clearly a problem. But that doesn't negate the issue of sending the wrong people to their deaths on occasion. When you say that better DNA work is an argument FOR the penalty, it is - but only where there is clear DNA evidence linking the accused to the crime. If there isn't, and there is a chance that 15 years later we have a "Whoops! Too bad so sad." I'm not sure how we can take the risk. What's the argument to counteract that?
Posted at 2007-05-24 16:41:14 [PermaLink]The same argument for letting someone die in prison. Going to prison, particularly for the rest of your life, is horrible. Even if the inmates didn't do horrible things to you in prison, it is still a horrible place (as it should be).
But, as pointed out, DNA is not the end all. Eye witness testimony, finger prints, ballistics, financial data, locations of bodies (pig farms, anyone?) etc. are other pieces of evidence that can be relevant to a case. But letting a fear of mistakes paralyze you from meting out justice will make society as a whole suffer. We need good science, good DAs, good cops and good jurors.
As an analogy, people do react to medical treatments in a negative way. Some even die. Should be outlaw medical treatments that could cause someone's death (ie, penecilan)? Or, do we improve the process that said treatment is administered? As long as we have people running the system, mistakes will be made, but if we can keep refining things, improvements will be made along the way. This improvement with DNA testing is an argument to implement the death penalty, not to stop it.
The perfect is the enemy of the good. Eliminating capital punishment only means that some who undoubtedly deserve to die won't.
Perhaps we need to separate convictions from sentencing a little further. While "beyond a reasonable doubt" has a long and difficult to argue with pedigree for conviction, perhaps a higher standard is needed before a sentence of death can be given.