Patterico's Pontifications

11/22/2005

An Innocent Person Executed?

Filed under: Crime — Patterico @ 12:12 pm



I can’t definitively say that this is the first example of a clearly innocent person having been executed in the United States — but it sure seems that way. At the very least, he shouldn’t have been convicted. This is why I have argued that no death sentence should be imposed unless the defendant’s guilt is proved beyond all possible doubt. As more cases like this crop up, more people will agree with me.

UPDATE: I have already written a post that responds to the complaint, raised in some of the comments, that my standard is unreasonably high. You can read it here.

73 Responses to “An Innocent Person Executed?”

  1. Until they start wrongfully executing white, middle class people from the suburbs, I wouldn’t count on your suggestion (with which I wholeheartedly agree) becoming the law.

    Geek, Esq. (5dd2be)

  2. Care to volunteer, Geek?

    Black Jack (ee9fe2)

  3. From the Houston Chronicle article:

    “Garza said he considered Cantu his best friend. Both struggled in school at South San Antonio High and spent their time on the streets. They bonded in some of the roughest teenage rites: hunting, playing video games, doing drugs, joining a gang and stealing cars.”

    Once again proving that, as I’ve said before, just because they might not have done the crime that landed them on death row does not mean that I’m all that sorry to see them gone.

    The real problem I have is that stuff like this threatens future executions.

    [You should be worried about that, but you also should not be complacent about a wrongful execution simply because the guy may have been a low-level criminal. We don’t execute people for stealing cars. — Patterico]

    Angry Clam (fa7fff)

  4. I have no problem of limiting executions to where guilt is not in question. But the anti-DP people won’t accept that.

    I’m very sorry that such a tragedy happened, but HELLO?

    Meanwhile, Cantu’s co-defendant, David Garza, recently signed a sworn affidavit saying he allowed his friend to be accused, even though Cantu wasn’t with him the night of the killing.

    Cantu was executed at age 26. He had long professed his innocence.

    “Part of me died when he died,” said Garza, who was 15 at the time of the murder. “You’ve got a 17-year-old who went to his grave for something he did not do. Texas murdered an innocent person.”

    This a**wipe waits 9 years and AFTER his “bud” is executed and TEXAS did it?

    Garza is obviously missing “the moral gene”. I wish we could sentence him to a vasectomy so he can’t reproduce.

    Darleen (f20213)

  5. Heck, they don’t execute them now anyway……except in Texas.

    Maybe Tookie…..MAYBE.

    Flap (a9c192)

  6. In most cases, a full, detailed, and corroborated confession would be enough for me to support the death penalty.

    Pigilito (320d03)

  7. I agree with Darleen. Who should we believe after ten years? Was the prosecutor that good? Was the jury that bad? I’m from Illinois and have seen first-hand the contortions death penalty opponents go through to save the scum’s lives. They will let a child-murderer go free rather than have him face the possibility of the death penalty. This story must be taken with a very large grain of salt. BTW, who is The Angry Clam?

    nk (32c481)

  8. Darleen wrote:

    I have no problem of limiting executions to where guilt is not in question. But the anti-DP people won’t accept that.

    Well, I’m one of those anti-death penalty people, but it seems to me that if someone is convicted under the standard of proof of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” your test has been met.

    Dana R. Pico (3e4784)

  9. Dana, beyond a reasonable doubt isn’t the highest standard of proof — there’s the standard used for the crime of treason, for example. That might be described as the “beyond all possible doubt” standard which Patterico favors for capital cases. I would take a DA’s recommendation on that issue pretty seriously, btw.

    TNugent (6128b4)

  10. “We don’t execute people for stealing cars.”

    I can have a policy disagreement about that, can’t I?

    I have a serious problem with Coker v. Georgia, where the Supreme Court categorically declared that the only capital crime could be murder, and struck down an execution for forcible rape.

    Angry Clam (fa7fff)

  11. Besides, I don’t like the fact that he got convicted of the wrong crime- people should, ideally, only be punished for crimes they commit.

    I’m just not going to lose any sleep over the matter, and bemoan the horrible miscarriage of justice, as some who only see the word “innocent” will invariably do.

    Angry Clam (fa7fff)

  12. This is why I have argued that no death sentence should be imposed unless the defendant’s guilt is proved beyond all possible doubt. As more cases like this crop up, more people will agree with me.

    Then you might as well just stick a fork in the idea of there being a death penalty. Proof beyond all possible doubt is an impossible standard. Even if it’s on videotape, maybe the video was forged. Tookie didn’t do it, either, remember? Nor did Mumia, nor did anyone else once “any possible doubt” becomes a get off death row free card.

    Xrlq (6c76c4)

  13. Patterico said:
    This is why I have argued that no death sentence should be imposed unless the defendant’s guilt is proved beyond all possible doubt.

    I might be missing something but isn’t the standard for all convictions “beyond a reasonable doubt”? What does “beyond all possible doubt” mean? It’s always possible that someone somewhere could doubt that the person is guilty. I don’t think that this is a standard that can be met. “Beyond all possible doubt” is in effect the same as never.

    Clay (d0c44b)

  14. In the absense of more evidence, I don’t believe the recantation either. It is far more plausible that Garza just wants to get back at the state and the prosecutor or that he has been influenced by anti-death-penalty activists.

    And unless “all possible doubt” is a legal term that I don’t understand, then it is impossible, even in principle, to prove something beyond all possible doubt. You can’t even prove mathematical theorems beyond all possible doubt because it is always possible to question the axioms or to say that there could be a problem with the proof but that human minds are just not capable of grasping it.

    Doc Rampage (47be8d)

  15. What’s your standard for “clearly” innocent?

    I’ll concede he’s “conceivably” innocent, like every other person convicted of a crime, including those who confess.

    As a few others have said, we shouldn’t put much faith in a schmuck who by his own account lied and got this guy executed then recants 20 years after trial and a dozen after the execution. Not impossible (for example, the guy who finally told the truth about Leo Frank after many decades) but hardly likely either.

    Attila (Pillage Idiot) (dfa1f1)

  16. Delayed truth is not of necessity truth beyond all possible doubt.

    Nanuk (6d7ef5)

  17. “We don’t execute people for stealing cars.”

    Of, and by itself, I whole-heartedly agree. Now, when tacked onto a existing 4 page rap sheet, then you get into the hardcore recividists – you know, the ones that the DOJ estimates is 6-7% of the population, but commits roughly 75% of the crimes.

    Yes, giving people a 2nd chance is all very nice, but do you give someone a seventh chance? A tenth? At what point do you look at all the felonies, all the appeals, all the lost dollars these wastes of oxygen are causing society and say “Ya know what champ? You are a poster child for that outdated concept that ‘rehabilitation works!’ ” then take them outside and shoot ’em.

    Bingo – crime “problem” is greatly reduced. But, the willpower and political costs of eliminating that 7% drain on society are too great for it to ever happen. Pity.

    Bob (74a29f)

  18. “Beyond all possible doubt” is a standard of perfection, which does not exist in human affairs. So you’re basically saying you’re against the death penalty, period. In the real world, we must weigh costs and benefits.

    By that reasoning, you should support Rep. Murtha’s call for an immediate pullout from Iraq, unless the military can guarantee beyond all possible doubt that no innocent civilians will ever be killed. But of course that too is an impossible standard.

    We do know for a fact that some number of murderers, if not executed, will re-offend. So you’re trading a small possibility of a mistake for a virtual certainty.

    Finally, if the death penalty were abolished there’s a possibility that some innocent people will spend the rest of their lives in prison, until the day they die. How can we tolerate that injustice?

    The Editors, American Federalist Journal (17fd00)

  19. “We don’t execute people for stealing cars.”

    But we did once hang people for stealing horses. I wonder how the PETA nitwits come down on the issue of horses vs cars. Who takes the fall?

    Black Jack (ee9fe2)

  20. Even if the murderer confessed, there have been cases in which someone confessed to a crime he didn’t commit, for some reason or other. Even a freely given confession does not necessarily meet the standard of guilty beyond any doubt.

    Dana R. Pico (a9eb8b)

  21. “By that reasoning, you should support Rep. Murtha’s call for an immediate pullout from Iraq, unless the military can guarantee beyond all possible doubt that no innocent civilians will ever be killed. But of course that too is an impossible standard.”

    War is not criminal law.

    actus (ebc508)

  22. I’m just not going to lose any sleep over the matter, and bemoan the horrible miscarriage of justice, as some who only see the word “innocent” will invariably do.

    So, I assume that you believe that prison rape and violence are similarly something that society shouldn’t worry about as well.

    After all, it’s not like we’re talking about human beings or anything here.

    Geek, Esq. (773dd3)

  23. “War is not criminal law” is a non sequitur.

    The Editors, American Federalist Journal (17fd00)

  24. “War is not criminal law” is a non sequitur.

    Thats the point. I’m wondering why you’re applying the standard of one to the other.

    actus (ebc508)

  25. actus,
    I’m applying the same moral reasoning to two different contexts. Since I wasn’t making a legal point, your statement has no bearing.

    The Editors, American Federalist Journal (17fd00)

  26. “So, I assume that you believe that prison rape and violence are similarly something that society shouldn’t worry about as well.

    “After all, it’s not like we’re talking about human beings or anything here.”

    No, I just have less of a problem with brutal punishment than most modern sensibilities. Ideally, I’d segregate lower end criminals and better police those because I don’t really see the need for some guy busted with a gram to be sodomized by his cellmates.

    However, if some guy is in for 25-life, I’m not overly bothered by violence against him on the inside, because, honestly, why should he expect the protection of the state when he’s done something to break the social contract to get in there in the first place?

    Angry Clam (a7c6b1)

  27. “I’m applying the same moral reasoning to two different contexts. Since I wasn’t making a legal point, your statement has no bearing.”

    But my point isn’t just formal/legal. We treat war and criminal law differently for reasons other than legality. We don’t apply the same moral rules to the two. But you want to for some reason.

    And it looks silly.

    actus (ebc508)

  28. I have updated the post with a link to a post that responds to many of the arguments raised here. Check above for the update.

    Patterico (948bb2)

  29. The guy is not “clearly innocent”. And even accepting the version in the Houston Chronicle article he knew who the guilty party was but preferred being executed to helping the authorities. So if the justice system failed in his case, he bears a large part of the responsibility. Sort of like “suicide by cop”.

    As for standard of proof any honest supporter of capital punishment should acknowlege that this will result in the occasional execution of an innocent. There is no such thing as “beyond all possible doubt”. Personally I don’t see the big deal about capital punishment, in my opinion life imprisonment without possibility of parole is crueler. I think the standard beyond reasonable doubt (which I would interpret as 95%+) is sufficient.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e)

  30. All human systems are capable of error. I doubt Mr. Cantu was the first man wrongly executed by the United States. I know that capital punishment has condemned innocent men before; in fact, I subscribe to a religion centered around one such instance.

    It is a tragedy. I hope we will try to implement some changes to prevent this scenario from repeating itself, but some risk will always remain.

    It doesn’t change the fact that death is often an appropriate penalty for the taking of innocent life, and that the state now holds and always has held that power.

    See Dubya (d2a16e)

  31. You know, there is, IMHO a HUGE difference between “innocent” and “innocent of this particular crime.

    He may be innocent of that particular crime. But I don’t believe that even the slimmest case can be made that he was “innocent”.

    Do we routinely execute people for stealing cars? No. Am I going to lose any sleep over the death of someone who was a victimizer, and who was going to remain a victimizer for so long as he lived?

    Not a chance.

    Greg D (dfbcf3)

  32. We already ask people if they are opposed to the death penalty during jury selection. This biases the jury toward the other end of the spectrum. Perhaps we also need to ask them if they would impose the death penalty if they minor doubts about guilt.

    By the way, eliminating the death penalty doesn’t do the trick either: being released after 20 years of a life sentence isn’t a lot of justice either. The real trick is to make police, prosecutors, etc, liable for gross irregularities and deprivation of rights that result in miscarriages of this sort.

    Whoever decided to prosecute that guy with the tainted “evidence” they used should be sued out of his socks and possibly imprisoned. You can say that you, the juror, wouldn’t convict unless you were certain, but if the evidence is bu****it and you think it genuine, that won’t help a bit.

    Kevin Murphy (9982dd)

  33. It doesn’t, really. What it does do is skate around the issue by rationalizing that “all possible doubt” doesn’t really mean all possible doubt, only all doubt actually entertained by the jury:

    My bottom line is this: I want jurors to feel absolutely confident that they won’t find out at some point down the road that someone else is really the killer.

    I have little doubt that at the time this guy’s jury rendered the verdict, and likely at the time of the execution as well, all 12 jurors did feel absolutely confident that they wouldn’t find out at some point down the road that someone else was really the killer. I can’t picture any jury sentencing a guy to death whose actual guilt they doubted, solely because they had convinced themselves at an intellectual level that their own doubts were unreasonable.

    Xrlq (6c76c4)

  34. Xrlq, if I am certain enough to vote to convict I am certain enough to vote for death particularly since a wrongful conviction is more likely to be overturned with a death sentence.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e)

  35. “All possible doubt?” Uh-uh. Due Process is enough and in death penalty cases we have both procedural and substantive due process.

    nk (2faefc)

  36. Isn’t carjacking a Federal DP offense? I seem to recall Bush I making it so.

    v-man (23db73)

  37. Finally, if the death penalty were abolished there’s a possibility that some innocent people will spend the rest of their lives in prison, until the day they die. How can we tolerate that injustice?

    At least a person in prison has a chance to prove their innocence. But a carried out death penalty makes it a relatively moot point.

    Tillman (1cf529)

  38. Tillman, a person in prison is not in a position to prove his innocence. His best bet is to get a new trial and I suspect this is a lot easier when sentenced to death.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e)

  39. Kill Them All

    Patterico is always fascinating to read… even when he’s dead wrong, as he is today. Under the title An Innocent Person Executed? [Post 1], Pat writes: I can’t definitively say that this is the first example of a clearly innocent…

    Big Lizards (fe7c9d)

  40. “Am I going to lose any sleep over the death of someone who was a victimizer, and who was going to remain a victimizer for so long as he lived?

    Not a chance. ”

    Well there goes proportionality i guess.

    actus (c9e62e)

  41. James, most people would much rather get a life sentance than a death sentence. To me, it is obvious why. So, put in that position, you would rather get a death sentence?

    Tillman (1cf529)

  42. p.s DNA has become very important lately James. There are people out there trying to use it to verify people’s innocence.

    Tillman (1cf529)

  43. actus,

    You ever been the victim of a violent crime?

    I don’t give a sh!t about “proportionality”, I want the crime to stop. That thug isn’t committing any more crimes. Good.

    Greg D (dfbcf3)

  44. “You ever been the victim of a violent crime?”

    Sure.

    “I don’t give a sh!t about “proportionality”,”

    That’s what figured out. And said goodbye to.

    actus (c9e62e)

  45. Tillman,

    “At least a person in prison has a chance to prove their innocence.”

    But some will not. Some will spend their entire lives in prison. My question was specific to them. We’re talking about probabilities here. If our standard is zero mistakes, how can we allow an innocent person to rot for his entire life in prison?

    Another question of justice – if the DP is abolished, how will society punish a prisoner serving LWOP who murders another prisoner, or a prison guard?

    actus,
    You seem to be on another wavelength; I give up.

    The Editors, American Federalist Journal (901828)

  46. Tillman, I think my choice between a life sentence and a death sentence would depend on which had better prison conditions. After all most death sentences are never actually carried out. I would be interested in knowing what fraction of death sentence prisoners are eventually released as compared to life without parole prisoners.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e)

  47. I agree with James B. Shearer that “any honest supporter of capital punishment should acknowlege that [the death penalty] will result in the occasional execution of an innocent”. Even knowing that, I support the death penalty as long as we meet a very high standard of proof – like Patterico suggests. We have to be as careful as possible since we know we might be wrong.

    In addition, I favor the option of life without parole (an option that became effective 9/1/05 in Texas), because I think LWOP will result in fewer juries choosing the death penalty during sentencing. It’s my belief that juries will impose the death penalty in only the most heinous cases with the clearest proof if they have the option of LWOP.

    For what it’s worth, I also favor prisons where inmates have to work hard in order to gain privileges like access to TVs, music, sports, etc. But as long as there are people like Kenneth Allen McDuff in this world, we need the death penalty.

    DRJ (15ed57)

  48. Does anyone doubt the guilt of Wayne Gacy? Ted Bundy?

    Hell, does anyone doubt the guilt of Tookie?

    I don’t know the particulars of the evidence presented to the jury in THIS case. What was the forensic evidence? What was the basis of appeals? What I’m reading is that this seems to hinge on Garza, whose credibility leaves a lot to be desired, is claiming he just let his friend that the rap for all these years.

    Personally, I am much more comfortable with circumstantial evidence (DNA, forensic, etc) than witnesses because witness testimony can be unreliable even in the most sincere, honest witness.

    An aside, DNA gets in the news when someone is exonerated, but it also solves cases. We have a cold case , now solved with a conviction which is in the death penalty phase – of a 9 y/o girl raped and murdered in 1992, perp (life-long career criminal) caught because of a federal dna database. No witnesses, just hard, cold evidence.

    I’ll be glad when the needle is slipped into that animal’s arm.

    Darleen (f20213)

  49. Another question of justice – if the DP is abolished, how will society punish a prisoner serving LWOP who murders another prisoner, or a prison guard?

    Already happens. They get sent back to the original courthouse for trial, new conviction, new sentence.

    Not that it makes much difference to some LWOPs. I remember one guy of ours — in Pelican Bay — who made a sport of trying to figure out ways to try and kill fellow prisoners and guards. He had to be brought to So. Cal to be tried for murdering a fellow prisoner and I occassionally stopped in during testimony and especially for closing arguments. This perp’s cleverness in shaping shivs out of anything was scary! IE he gathered threads from his Levi’s, stiffened them with kool-aid and stabbed a prisoner in the neck.

    The man was spooky. Very Manson-like demeanor. He finally GOT the DP after that last murder, but he still has something like tens years left on his automatic appeals.

    :::shudder:::

    Darleen (f20213)

  50. I’m always amazed by how exercised people get by the idea that an innocent person might have been put to death, yet no one seems to even pause at the idea that an innocent person could spend their life in prison.

    Shouldn’t we fix the problems in the system rather than eliminate the death penalty? If an innocent person can be convicted of any crime, no matter how trivial, then the system is broken.

    antimedia (ebaed4)

  51. antimedia, there are two types of errors convicting the innocent and acquitting the guilty. A sytem which never convicts the innocent is going to acquit an awful lot of the guilty. How many guilty men are you willing to free to avoid imprisoning an innocent man? My answer is 20.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e)

  52. CHP Murderers arraigned

    And Xrlq and Patterico and the Puppy Blender are debating the standard of certainty at which a jury should sentence someone to death.

    Naturally, as an absolute monarchist, I am in favor of public hangings and subsequent head postings on stakes at …

    Cardinal Martini (59ce3a)

  53. On beyond all doubt, there was the man who, while being filmed in court, escaped by overpowering his female guard, taking her gun, shooting the judge and several others, I believe and so forth. Now, rarely are crimes so well documented that there is no doubt that the accused did it but in this case, there was NO doubt that this man did it. He was, in fact, in court on a rape indictment before his rampage. I don’t remember if his filmed rampage resulted in any deaths but of doubt of his guilt there was none.

    Craig R. Harnon (42cb5a)

  54. antimedia, the problem is that, in this case, the systemic problems included but were not limited to purjured testimony. That’s tough to fix. The other problem, aparently, was that a witness was shown the accused photo three separate times before the witness IDed the accused. This is an error that IS fixable but with purjured testimony that might not have made much difference.

    Craig R. Harnon (42cb5a)

  55. Also, it isn’t that we aren’t exercized by the prospect of innocent people spending life in prison as opposed to being put to death. We are exercized by both, thank you very much.

    Craig R. Harnon (42cb5a)

  56. On beyond all doubt, there was the man who, while being filmed in court, escaped by overpowering his female guard, taking her gun, shooting the judge and several others, I believe and so forth. Now, rarely are crimes so well documented that there is no doubt that the accused did it but in this case, there was NO doubt that this man did it.

    Even that case wouldn’t survive the Patterico standard. Maybe the tape was forged. Maybe the fugitive they caught later wasn’t really him. Ridiculous, you say? Sure, but that’s what happens when “all possible doubt” replaces reasonable doubt.

    Xrlq (428dfd)

  57. You guys are asking the wrong question. In the Florida teacher sex case today, it was argued that the teacher was too hot to go to jail. “To place an attractive young woman in that kind of hell hole is like putting a piece of raw meat in with the lions.” Interesting point. The question here should be, “Is Tookie Williams too attractive to be executed?”

    Shredstar (398f0a)

  58. I once read an article in favor of the death penalty that claimed that only 7 innocent people have been executed since the death penalty started. To me, that was 7 reasons to be against the death penalty.
    If a person confesses and other people confer, or there is DNA evidence, I would be for it, but based on evidence from one eyewitness? No. never

    J.Doe (5af6c4)

  59. I know this is hardly legal or whatever, but how many of you watched Bones last night (on Fox). Similar kind of issues came up, except in this case, the excutee was guilty of everything (and more than) they initially thought he was.

    Overall, I largely agree with Clam. But I also sympathize with you Patterico, that we should be very careful about who we execute.

    Joel B. (568776)

  60. Just going to throw my .02 in her for the heck of it, but I think in general you have it right, Paterico.

    IMHO, the death penalty should generally be reserved for particularly heinous murders. Some would argue, “is there any other kind?” with considerable force, but I actually believe there is.

    Also, I believe judges should convince themselves that there is no real room for doubt, reasonable or even somewhat unreasonable, before applying the death penalty. But I don’t see how this could be codified into a meaningful standard.

    Ultimately, I think it is always going to be in the hands of the judge as to the applicability of the death penalty. I would like to believe judges always consider the awful consequences of accidentally executing an innocent.

    Glenn (02fe4f)

  61. Patterico, I agree with you. If we’re going to impose the death penalty, we need to have a standard that is beyond *unreasonable* doubts.

    The Illinois legislature took up this issue within the last year. The proposed legislation was opposed by prosecutors, who felt that it would make it too difficult to get a death sentence, *and* by death penalty opponents, who felt that it would increase public support for the death penalty.

    Strange bedfellows, eh? 🙂

    Bill Roper (7a3469)

  62. xrlq:

    Maybe the fugitive they caught later wasn’t really him.

    Inconveniently for the state, the man on tape’s identity would have to be established as the Defendant. A real drag, I know, but it’s for the victim’s family…you understand.

    Re: “Beyond all possible doubt”:

    First, I’m not sure that juries would respond to even further hairsplitting of quantums of proof. The most we can ask of them, it seems, is that they catch the headline issues and not get hijacked by the zealots in the group at deliberations.

    Second, it seems that most credible claims of innocence are based on new evidence or evidence that was originally excluded at trial. In such cases, raising the bar of certainty slightly is only going to view by a smidge the way the jury views the exact same (incomplete/defective) body of evidence. I realize those issues can be brought on appeal, but I think it’s the biggest problem, and is a wholly separate issue from the standard of proof at sentencing.

    biwah (f5ca22)

  63. correction:raising the bar of certainty slightly is only going to change by a smidge the way the jury views the exact same (incomplete/defective) body of evidence.

    Also, “quantums” should be “quanta”. I’m working on it.

    biwah (f5ca22)

  64. I am sceptical of Paterico’s absolute certainty standard for capital punishment cases. I think most jurors, when convicting and handing down sentences of death ARE absolutely certain, in their own minds at least, that the person is guilty. Likewise most prosecutors.

    Craig R. Harnon (245063)

  65. Is Fear of Executing the Innocent Driving Down Death Penalty Support?

    This appears to be the general worry underlying Patterico’s proposal, over on his blog almost two years ago, that we only allow executions when defendants are found guilty “beyond all possible doubt,” rather than merely “beyond reasonable doubt.” …

    Big Lizards (fe7c9d)

  66. Since my evangelical Christian brothers and sisters are so often found on the side favoring capital punishment, I have a simple suggestion:

    In I Kings 21, we have the story of Naboth, who was framed on a capital charge on orders of Queen Jezabel. Jezabel’s husband, King Ahab, was at least technically the court of final appeal in the case, but the fact of the false evidence was carefully concealed from Ahab until after his friend Naboth had been executed.

    By every appearance, due process had been followed: nevertheless, we are told that God Himlelf demanded the blood of Ahab (as well as that of Jezabel) for the blood of Naboth. Ahab died for the murder of Naboth.

    Perhaps this is an appropriate standard. If a jury and a trial judge actually feel that it is so very important that a convicted person be put to death, then let them swear their own very lives on the validity of that verdict, with the clear understanding that if the executed is later proved innocent, the lives of the judge and of each jury member will be forfeit – along with each judge in the appeals chain and the governor at time of execution.

    After all, if you are so certain of someone else’s guilt that you are willing to stake his or her life on that certainty, then you surely ought be willing to stake your own life on that certainty as well!

    Christian (acd13b)

  67. I’ll take that deal, Christian, if we’re allowed to execute people for every Biblical capital crime.

    Angry Clam (a7c6b1)

  68. I appologize for my English cause it is not my first language. I glanced over the comments here and I would like to offer my opinion. Firstly I believe that it is the case that in definition of punishment it is stated that punishment suppose to have some correctional function. When someone is dead his/her behavior is not corrected the person is dead. Neither from what I read it means that the society is diretered from crime in fact I read somewhere that there are more murders being committed at the US states that have capital punishment compare to the states that they do not have such punishment. This seems to impy that the diterent function of capital punishemnt fails. Secondly In Canada in 2004 there were 622 murders this in population of rughly 30 million people in USA with population of Rughtly 300 million people there were 16138 murders commited that year for US source is fbi for Canada some newspaper article dealing with crime in Canada. Canada does not have a death penalty. So perhaps the reassons for people committing horrible crimes is somewhere else such as availability of guns and great socioeconomic disperity. In my opinion sacrifyzing life of one innocent person is a greater damage than killing thausands of guilty one. Furthermore life in prison although cruel still offer a potential recourse that new evidence will be found and the innocent person can be set free and receive financial compensation but if someone is dead their life can not be brought back. If you think that it is tollerable if one innocent person gets executed and many other people who are guilty are executed as well ask yourself whether you would volunteer to be that innocent person, this is especially since it is said that death penalty is not a useful crime diterent. I guess I won’t change opinion of many of you, but at least I don’t stay silent at such unfortunate thing as death penalty. Look at o.j. Simpson’s case the dna matched yet he was set free if dna is not strong evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt I don’t know what else is. If Simpson was able to be granted verdict innocent based on notion that dna could have been fabricated where is the justice for the other people who were executed based on similar or the same evidence.

    zdenek (9d0ca9)

  69. Yeah – Roger Keith Coleman said he was innocent too.

    Too bad that the DNA just tested showed he was guilty as hell.

    Maybe this guy in Texas is as “innocent” as Roger Keith Coleman.

    That’s why he was executed – he committed the crime.

    End of story.

    Alexander Alt (3ef99e)

  70. look I just have to say, as in the bible “We must purge the evil from among us” I believe strongly in that and so i believe also in capital punishment

    Generation X? (ae7df7)

  71. what is this all about? i dont understand sorry i am a bit slow on the uptake

    violetisse (7b3045)

  72. i dont get this what is it all about? i am a bit slow 🙁

    violetisse (7b3045)

  73. @ generation x
    “look I just have to say, as in the bible “We must purge the evil from among us” I believe strongly in that and so i believe also in capital punishment”

    I’m curious where in the bible you found that. I don’t doubt it’s in the bible I just think that if you want to take a single phrase out of it and use it to support your views by interpreting it in a very literal sense you should probably know that the devil did the same thing. A person is not the same thing as evil.

    Juan (929d8e)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1058 secs.