A person is tried with murder, and convicted of that crime, and then punished with the death penalty. Later, new evidence arises that clears that person of the crime, and proves their absolute innocence in this matter.
In this case, is the society that punished the individual with death, guilty of murder itself, and if so, what punishment should be inflicted on society to punish it for it's crime...?
2007-02-09 16:26:17 · 14 answers · asked by antonywilkes 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
This has never happened and never will. If someone is put to death it's because that's what they deserve for the crime they committed. So take you liberal BS ideas and quit defending the guilty. The US needs to be like other countries in this aspect and once someone is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt fry'em
don't wait 6-8 years which is the norm for someone to be on death-row.
2007-02-09 16:35:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Great question. The poster who stated that this has never happened is dead wrong. There are countless numbers of people who have been proven innocent only after being convicted and sentenced to prison. This being the case, how can anyone believe that innocent people have not been murdered via state sanction. This is the reason I do not believe in the death penalty. The question you raise is a great one, because best believe that innocent people have already been executed, but we won't ever be made aware of it. Think about only 60 or 70 years ago, when people were lynched on suspicion alone? There is a case here in Georgia where a man spent over 20 years in prison for a rape that he did not commit. It's not a far stretch to imagine that there have been those who have been executed who should not have been. Do you really think that this government will readily admit that it killed the wrong person? That would make everyone really question the DP, as it should be questioned anyway. Also, it is not more expensive to keep inmates in prison for life. It costs more to place them on death row, because of the appeals process.
2007-02-09 16:43:12 · answer #2 · answered by lyquidskye 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The society that murdered the individual would then be like someone who accidently, through no fault of their own, caused the death of someone else. In no state is that called murder.
The state is not perfect and it does the best it can. It has to decide between a type I error, letting a guilty man go, and a type II error, possibly killing an innocent man. If you have the death penalty, sooner or later you will kill an innocent man. The opposite, letting anyone go if their is not absolute certainty of guilt, would lead to crooks getting away with whatever they want, which isn't great either.
2007-02-09 16:37:36 · answer #3 · answered by Ryan K 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Good question that is actually the one and only hang up I personally have with the death penalty.But most prisoner executions in the US are dragged for years through the court systems so by the time of execution there is a fraction of a chance that the person is innocent,then you have to weigh in which one costs the taxpayers more money the long legal process or just keeping the person in jail for the rest of his life.I would like to see those financial stats,Great Question though
2007-02-09 16:39:14 · answer #4 · answered by JOHN D 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The hypothetical situation you describe is pretty grim, and I don't know that it's ever happened, but for argument's sake let's say it could happen. I'll try to answer the question without taking one side or the other.
It isn't society that punishes the individual; it's a jury. The jury (at least in theory) doesn't impose any punishment indiscriminantly; they do so because they are asked to weigh evidence presented to them, and to make their decision based on that evidence.
I'm not a lawyer, but for the most part murder implies malice and intent; and I find it hard to believe that a jury would sentence someone to die out of pure hatred and disregard for life.
But to specifically address your question, put yourself in that hypothetical juror's position - would you want it on your conscience that an innocent person was put to death because of you? Of course not; no reasonable person wants that. That means there's no malice or intent, and that means there's no murder. That would just be a jury making the best decision they could based on the evidence they were given.
2007-02-09 16:34:35 · answer #5 · answered by tomorrowsconsonant 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Once a person is dead it hardly matters what punishment is inflicted upon the state.
The death penalty should only be used when DNA evidence links the person to the crime. Even then I'm not too sure.
2007-02-09 16:56:35 · answer #6 · answered by sean1201 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Rather than thinking about punishing people who carried out executions of innocent people (in our name) you might read about the immense psychological problems of executioners. One, Dow Hover, the man who carried out executions in the northeast, eventually committed suicide.
Over 120 innocent people have been released from death rows since 1976 with conclusive evidence of their innocence. That represents over 12% of the number of all executions. It i slikely that we have already executed an innocent person. Read about Calvin Willingham, Carlos deLuna, Gary Graham and Calvin Griffiths. Executed and very likely innocent.
DNA is available in less than 10% of all murders. It is not a miracle cure for wrongful death sentences.
In my opinion, since it is human nature to make mistakes, the death penalty should be replaced by life without parole. It is already available in 48 states and it means what it says.
2007-02-13 13:15:54 · answer #7 · answered by Susan S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The society is guilty of unintentional or negligent homicide, but probably not murder. Society is punished anytime a murderer is still on the loose. In this case the real killer could have been out killing more people.
2007-02-09 16:32:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't think any amount of money is enough, nor are any apologies either.
It's why I do not in most cases support the death penalty. Because at least if a person is imprisoned at least they can be freed and we can make an effort to make amends for what we have done. We can't do that if the state executes the person.
2007-02-09 16:33:21 · answer #9 · answered by some_guy_times_50 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
this is the situation that most people bring up to prove that the death penalty is wrong...it has valid aspects, but the chance that once a case is 'closed' someones going to open it again. and the 2 cases you saw on tv that got re-opened dont count, sorry
2007-02-09 17:21:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋