The only reason why there would be a better chance of reversing a wrongful conviction in a life imprisonment case than in a death penalty case is that there is more time for new evidence to turn up. Especially there is the opportunity for new and improved forensic techniques to be developed. There is also time for witnesses to recant their testimony or for new witnesses to turn up. Unfortunately there is the problem that the most urgent cases have first call on resources and death penalty cases are as urgent as they get. Thus life imprisonment cases are starved of resources and there is a good chance of wrongful convictions not being reversed, at least not for a very long time. The solution to this is not to impose the death penalty more frequently but to put more resources into appeals for life prisoners and to improve the appeals system.

As for the relative humanity of life imprisonment ant the death penalty, well, neither can be humane. I would reserve life without parole for the very worst cases. I fear that both the death penalty and life without parole are being used in cases were neither would be justified. Politicians and prosecutors have too much to gain from draconian penalties. While there are cases which deserve the death penalty I believe the price is too high.

With the death penalty you are in a bit of a cleft stick. To make it more humane you have to carry it out promptly. To not do so is, well, torture. But to carry it out promptly increases the risk of killing an innocent.

Sadism does not enter into the death penalty by intent but the ritualization leads to it creeping in. Ritualization, rehearsal and complicated preparation mean people spend a lot of time focused on killing. I would think that would be where it comes in. Also in some jurisdictions they insist that a person be conscious when the sentence is carried out and if he faints from terror they will make sure he is conscious when they kill him. How is this not sadistic? Also they try their utmost to stop someone committing suicide before they can kill them. They want the experience of killing. Yes they want to be the agents of justice. I would think that a decent person would be relieved when they are spared the necessity of carrying out such a loathsome task. If they don’t find it loathsome then there is something wrong with them.

But the important thing is to make the appeals system look at substance as well as procedure. Except in the most blatant cases it does not do so. As well, a game players idea of fairness creeps into the legal system. Both sides think they are entitled to a sporting chance of winning and both use the argument that the other side had their chance when trying to defend a result in their favour. They use this even when they are trying to maintain an injustice. Also what trust can be placed in secret deliberations. I see jury inscrutability as a corrupt idea. Yes, it can allow justified jury nullifications. It can also allow unjustified jury nullifications. And it facilitates the utter stuffing up of the appeals system since the criterion is not “Did the jury get it right?” but “Can we give a rationalization for the jury’s verdict?”.

#48 JohnJ

Putting someone in prison for life is condemning them to a slow, languishing death. Just because one refrains from putting a needle in someone’s arm does not make this less true.

Yeah, we should execute ‘em for humanitarian reasons and the sooner the better! :D

The state “ritualizes” the death penalty in order to emphasize the severity of the act. It would not be less cold-blooded to simply take the condemned into the woods. The state injects ritual for the exact opposite reason you suggest. This is evidenced by the fact that the removal of ritualism would make the act more sadistic, not less.

I make no claims about the perfection of the criminal justice system, and I fully support efforts to make it better. I simply do not agree that a blanket ban on the death penalty is more compassionate.

I agree with you about the impossibility of adequately compensating someone for a long period of wrongful imprisonment. Nevertheless there can be partial compensation. There can be no compensation at all for a wrongful execution.

I agree with you that complete certainty is too high a standard. That way lies paralysis. Nevertheless the standard required for the death penalty should be higher than that for imprisonment. What standard should apply and can the courts ever meet that standard? I would say that the risk of killing an innocent that you ate prepared to accept should not be any greater than the risk to your own life that you are prepared to accept. That is if you are prepared to contribute to lethal retribution you should be prepared to impose that same penalty on yourself if you bring about the death of an innocent person. Seems fair. So, no I don’t think courts can ever meet the required standard, especially not under the adversary system.

The appeal system only looks at certain issues. The legal system tries to act as if it can be much more certain in determining facts than it actually can. It will look at new evidence sometimes abeit reluctantly. It will look at errors in procedure. What it will not do is look at cases when the proper procedures were followed and it still got it wrong. It wants us to act as if this cannot happen. Finality is one of its values and finality is a lie.

The other and even stronger reason for opposing the death penalty is the sheer cold blooded horror of the act. #20 Judi gave a quote expressing this well. By ritualizing a killing the state tries to ease the consciences of the killers. In doing so it attacks morality. This is the sort of thing that even if justified should haunt those who do it. Sometime the right thing should not bring peace of mind. People support the death penalty as an act of outrage. What the judicial system delivers is an act of sadism and this will always be the case if you inject any element of ritual.

Ah–I’d forgotten about that bit of state-sponsored jury tampering. While the state should be allowed to let those who don’t want to sit on death-penalty cases recuse themselves (some such people may be unwilling to impose a penalty themselves, but have no objection to having someone else do it when appropriate), barring such people from juries serves to undermine a major aspect of the jury system: if ordinary people would view a particular punishment as cruel and unusual in a particular case, that’s prima facie evidence that it is. Incidentally, forbidding jurors from knowing the sentence for a crime is unconstitutional, for the same reason.

I would suggest, however, that in cases where the death penalty really would be appropriate, many jurors who oppose the death penalty might nonetheless find themselves willing to impose it.

Bet let’s assume you’re referring to someone who’s still alive. Leaving aside the fact that you can also free someone who’s been condemned to death while they’re still alive, I don’t think you can reasonably make the case that someone who has spent sixty years in prison can be adequately compensated. All you’re really advocating is condemning someone to a slow death in prison versus a slightly quicker death after spending twenty years on death row. Why shouldn’t there also be a “perfection” standard for sentencing people to life in prison?

There are lots of people who would choose to be executed over spending the rest of their lives in prison. A blanket ban on the death penalty is not compassionate.

The victims rarely get any restitution. It seems to me that truly making a person pay for their crime involves a penalty other than time in a cage.

You can compensate someone for wrongful imprisonment.

You cannot compensate someone who is dead.

—

I am not ideologically opposed to the death penalty, I simply take the position that there must be absolutely no possibility that you are executing the innocent.

#41 JohnJ

I understand your position now. I just disagree with you. I mean, I could play that game too; “If you’re going to put people in jail, you better be perfect.”

You don’t see a difference in putting someone in jail and executing them? I mean, there is an irreversibility factor involved, you know?

I you are going to put people to death, you damned well better be perfect.

Either they’ve been reformed -which is implied if not out right said and served their time, or their not and shouldn‘t be further punished. Simply by releasing them and then placing a bunch of laws further punishing them in an attempt to keep them away from children is hypocritical.

Yes, the government-controlled media serve the important priestly function of keeping the populace in a perpetual state of fear by menacing them with an endless series of hobgoblins, hence clamorous to be led to safety as Mencken famously wrote.

The system needs no “revamp.” It needs demolition.

But I have no faith in mankind, only human individuals.

#35 Hannah

Personally I get tired of government officials telling me that its safe now to release a pedophile, because they’ve been “reformed”.

Does that even happen?

Well when you have news reports everyday of kids being kidnapped/raped/having unspeakable things done to them, when there’s a wash of robberies, murders, stabbings ect. of course your going to have a fear reaction from the public.After all no one wants that to happen to themselves.

And the innocents/guilt issue does work both ways. How many times has a murderer/ rapist/ pedophile been released only to commit another crime? Personally I get tired of government officials telling me that its safe now to release a pedophile, because they’ve been “reformed”. But they want to keep a track on every aspect of the pedophiles life, make sure they don’t move with in so many feet of a school/park/church ect. Ether their reformed or there not. If they’re not – keep them in prison, if they are you shouldn’t need to keep punishing them.

Face it the whole system needs a revamp. Just like the rest of our government.

JohnJ
The appeals process is part of the judicial process. The reason why we have an appeals process is because we acknowledge that the trial process is imperfect.

Tell that to this guy. JEFFREY DESKOVIC I’m sure he’d agree with you that the appeals process works. Especially in DNA evidence.