Solution to all legitimate objections to capital punishment?

Question

Make it applicable only to the SECOND conviction for a violent felony.

The ONLY legitimate objection is, it might not be him - somehow we might have convicted the wrong guy.

But what are the odds that the same innocent guy was wrongly convicted of two separate violent felonies?

I mean, I think this is mostly technical - when it's the wrong guy, the reason they thought he raped and strangled Suzy is because he was just let out of prison after serving six years for raping and trying unsuccessfully to strangle Sally, in which case, why it bothers you that he still fries, I don't know.

But fine, if you don't think that's how it works, then make it official - in addition to 3 strikes you're out, let's have 2 violent felonies and you're dead.

'kay?

Argle the odds that the same person would be wrongly convicted of two separate violent felonies are slimmer than the odds that I will win the megamillions tonight.

Answer 1

I disagree. If someone has done time for a violent felony, and then just happens to be in the general area of another violent crime...say, for instance, he can't afford to move out of the ghetto into the Hollywood Hills...and he's sitting in his house watching TV. Around the corner, somebody gets shot (hey, it's a bad neighborhood). Who do you think the cops will hunt down first?

And guess what? The more violent and heinous the crime, the greater the pressure (and the greater the career opportunity) on the cops and DA to come up with a perp. If they can convince a jury that Joe Schmo committed this crime - even if he didn't - then everybody (except Joe) wins. That's why we often see instances of tainted evidence, forced confessions, witnesses who are forced or coerced to lie, and all kinds of crooked goings-on, especially in death penalty cases. The prosecutors know that it's their ticket to powerful political positions, and/or high-paying private practice gigs.

It may not happen every day, but believe it - it happens. The death penalty exacerbates the problem, and makes the consequences far graver.

Answer 2

I take exception to you contention that "it might not be him-" is a legitimate objection to capital punishment. It has always been a factor, thus the appeals process. We must keep in mind a rather disturbing fact, that the legal process is not about finding the truth. The legal process is about dispensing justice. In other words, if you are found to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that does not necessarily gurantee that you are the actual the one who committed the crime. On the other hand, if you are found not guilty, that does not mean that you did not commit the crime.

It is all about the defense counsel and the prosecutor attempting to win a debate. So, with this in mind, let us revist the issue of capital punishment. The reality is that at least so far, the current system works quite well. While there have been several cases where the appeal process has proved the person did not commit the crime and he was subsequently released, there has never been a proven case of someone being executed and then found to not have committed the crime. I would argue that that only proves the point that the current system works as designed.

Nonetheless, a society must be willing to accept the fact that if it provides for capital punishment, there is always a chance, no matter how unlikely, that an innocent person will someday be put to death. While a tragic undesirable result, it is still far better than the alternative. The alternative is to allow people who have committed the most henious crime under the worst of possible conditions with aggrivating circumstances, be permitted to live and put other people at risk.

It is far more likely and has happened many, many times, that someone who should have been put to death ended up killing again. In essence this places society in a worse position. By failing to execute a guilty man we allowed him to execute an innocent one or ones.

I would rather err on the side of safety and accept the much smaller risk associated with wrongful conviction.


.

Answer 3

Check out the case of Juan Melendez who spent 18 years on Florida's death row for a murder he did not commit. He had served a prison term for a previous felony. If you google him you can find out about what happened to him.

48 states now have life without parole on the books. It means exactly what it says and costs far less than the death penalty. It may actually be a harsher punishment.

Answer 4

No. So what you're saying is the court system is so perfect it could never ever make a mistake twice?

Get a grip on reality.