The death penalty has provoked heated discussion since biblical times, and today the debate remains as controversial as ever. Is such a sentence ever justified? Capital punishment is an intensely emotional topic for everyone involved because it sits at the intersection of life, death and the very definition of the word 'justice.'
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
8
3
8
5
10
7
3
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Innocence on Death Row Rarer than Rabies
- From Josh Marquis
By Joshua Marquis - District Attorney, Media Commentator
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The trouble is that neither you nor anyone can verify this.
Mr. Marquis,
You say, "There is not a single case in the modern era of capital punishment (since 1976) where a person executed has turned out to be factually innocent." But what qualifies you to make this astounding assertion? Even if all people found guilty of capital crimes and actually executed made deathbed confessions, you couldn't make that claim. You can only claim that no one executed since 1976 has been legally exonerated after death, but even if that is true, it doesn't bear on the argument.
For despite our ideal of justice, our system for maintaining this ideal is flawed by definition and even the founding fathers knew that the system of justice they created knew that the goal is an approximate justice that approaches as closely to true, unattainable, perfect justice as possible.
My impression is that many trial attorneys tend to forget that whilst their goal is to make the most effective case they can, and the goal of the court is to provide a just result, the latter goal often simply cannot be achieved. But we maintain an official fiction that the results of the deliberations of our courts, from the most humble municipal traffic court of a small town to The Supreme Court of the United States of America, are true and just. This cannot always be guaranteed, of course, but we maintain the fiction nonetheless, for it's impossible, with current technology, to do better.
The trouble arises when we ignore this fact and define justice as the aggregate result of our judicial deliberations. By this definition, all executions are just, for the guilt of the executed is assured by this definition, no matter what the absolute truth.
When you claim that no innocent person has been executed since 1976, you are making this common error in logic. For you could only claim that no person not found innocent by the justice system has been executed since 1976, assuming that this is true, and not that no person actually innocent, but found guilty in error by the justice system, has been executed since 1976.
Our system of justice is not perfect; it makes errors. We must tolerate this, for nothing better is possible, but our government should not be killing people based upon the results of our justice system, for killing is irrevocable and such errors cannot be undone.
How can we, as a society, claim we value human life, on the one hand, and agree that we kill innocent people erroneously found guilty on the other?
- azz710
September 7, 2008 1:30PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Innocents Executed since 1976?
With the emotion and strong feelings and deeply held beliefs, particularly against capital punishment, it's opponents are quick to point to any mistake that has been made. There is no question that there have been some (about 30) people of the almost 9000 sentenced to death who were in fact innocent of that crime. They were released through the judicial process and one who may have been innocent died of natural causes while in prison.
But as to the claim that innocent people are being executed now, the closest abolitionists thought they had was Roger Coleman of Virginia, who was on the cover of TIME Magazine just before his execution in 1992 by the State of Virginia. He went to his death asserting his innocence, a claim echoed by many supporters, most notably Jim McCloskey from Centurion Ministries. In January 2006 departing Virginia Governor Mark Warner negotiated a deal whereby the last trace of DNA, in the hands of a defense expert who had been unwilling to give the evidence back to Virginia, was tested by a neutral DNA lab in Canda. The result; indisputable proof of Coleman's guilt. I strongly recommend the aricle "Burden of proof; Jim McCloskey desperately wanted to save Roger Coleman from the electric chair. Maybe a little too desperately" from the yhe Washington Post by Glenn Frankel published in May 2006.
Is it possible that someday it will be proved that an innocent person was in fact executed - yes.
- Josh Marquis
February 15, 2009 10:13PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.