Death Penalty quandry...

N

nico

Banned
Banned
Let's say a guy was convicted with murder, and the jury/ or judge, imposed a death sentence on the man. So he was executed, and maintained his innocence until his dying day. After years of neglect the file is re-opened due to a hitherto lost tape that was found, video taping the death of the victim, and the "killer" was not even in the video. So in essence an innocent man was killed. So who should pay for his death? Should the judge be put to death, or the prosecutor? Or the taxpayer who paid for the wonton murder of a innocent man? Or the jury? Or the negligent police officers? Remember if this was a personal situation we would see ppl heads roll... why not here?
 
Well... this is real life, so nobody pays. What would the cost be, in any event?

:m: Peace.
 
Well I realize no one would pay... but who should (in a ideal world of Karma). Should people die if they wrongly convict a innocent man, I mean that is pretty obviously 1st degree pre-meditated murder. The intent is to kill that man… it’s very a philosophical question.
 
I mean that is pretty obviously 1st degree pre-meditated murder.
Click to expand...
A common argument among those of us who are against the death penalty is that killing a killer makes us no better than he. I disagree. There is an entire process of trials, appeals, sentences by juries and judges, and reviews of all available evidence before anyone is ever executed. In theory anyway, we never execute anyone unless there is no reasonable doubt that he is innocent. Murderers, on the other hand, kill whomever they please. The decision to take their victim's life is only theirs, not that of any jury or judge, and not the result of the argument of any attorney. And often, the victim is guilty of no crime that the state would find worthy of killing him for.

I refuse to make the claim here that it is morally right to execute murderers. That's another thread. I only claim that executing a murderer and murdering are not on the same moral level, so that executing a killer does not make us "no better than that killer."

:m: Peace.
 
Of course, there's the possibility that the conviction of an innocent person was completely accidental, and that all involved had nothing but the best intentions. I would go so far as to say that this is the likelyhood of the situation.
 
Obviously it was only perceived to be "beyond a reasonable" doubt, but in reality t’was not. The problem is can we put it categorically? I assert no, let's say a wife kills the killer of her husband... a noble cause (using the death penalty logic), but is really a taxi driver drinking a coffee? She is essentially in the same position that the jury or judge is. The "noble cause" doesn’t exist when a innocent is murdered. It is not something that be tolerated. Of course the only solution is to abandon capital punishment altogether, which will happen eventually. But we cannot negate the simple fact someone was killed by "false" info, and callousness. I think in such a case the police officer and prosecutor would be put to death.
 
I'm not following how we got from the opening post to "noble" causes, and
how a lost video that shows the convicted individual to be innocent means
that a police officer and a prosecuting attorney are guilty of a crime...

:m: Peace.
 
Ok the noble cause was the murder of the "murderer", so the wife kills the (perceived) killer of her husband, and the jury killing the (perceived) killer of x person. I see no distinction.

how a lost video that shows the convicted individual to be innocent means
that a police officer and a prosecuting attorney are guilty of a crime...

The video should have been submitted, if they were able to find it (after it was lost) the police officer in charge or the prosecutor should be charged with the warrant negligence which lead to the death of a innocent man.
 
So the police and the prosecuter would need to be all-knowing.
Yes it would be a tragedy, no they are not criminally responsible.

:m: Peace.
 
Yes they are, it was obviously not beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder was the murderer. How could they neglect such a piece of evidence? They asserted differently, hey you don't start a case without the evidence needed to convict the man, beyond a reasonable doubt. Ignorance is no excuse under the law… get the guillotines!
 
Originally posted by nico
How could they neglect such a piece of evidence?
Click to expand...
Because, as you stated, it was unknown at the time of the trial?

:m: Peace.
 
I gotta agree with Freshman here. I don't think there's any way to implicate the judge and jury in any wrongdoing, and certainly not intentional wrongdoing.
 
Okay, Matlock.

If I only had the theme song... and grey hair, and a snazzy Wal Mart suit...let's do the time warp again I assume?
 
But you aren't talking about ignorance. A person or group of people can make a well-informed choice, and it can still be the wrong choice. Our system is good, but it's flawed. Any system that relies on the faculties of human beings will sometimes be in error, because we ourselves are flawed...even when well-informed and intelligent. No one is omniscient, therefore this kind of thing is, while not probable with our legal system, possible. That doesn't make the people involved criminals when the system fails.
 
So the warrant murder of a innocent man whose life could have been saved with more through investigation should be avenged? (using DP logic)? The wife who killed the taxi driver could have had a well informed opinion that indeed that man killed her husband... where do we draw the line? They are both in essence vigilante justice.
 
Originally posted by nico
Ignorance is no excuse under the law...period.
Click to expand...

I think that is far too simplistic of an outlook to have.

No one is omniscient.
If people WERE, we would not need a criminal justice system at all.
The goal of the system (although perhaps not always realized) is to ensure, to the best of our ability, that those who are convicted are actually guilty.
If a prosecutor (or anyone else) knowingly misrepresents, buries, destroys or tampers with in any other way the evidence then there should exist (and there does exist) severe penalties for that action.

However, to punish a cop for not being a God?
How does that solve anything?

As far as the other question that seems to be on the table:
"Does the possibility of killing an innocent person make for a valid argument against the death penalty?"
No, I don't think it does.
If it did, then why wouldn't the possibility of jailing (or punishing in any way) an innocent person, justify the whole criminal justice system being obliterated, and any punishment be done away with?

I think you have to look at the alternative...
Is it acceptable to jail an innocent man for the remainder of his natural life?

I agree that our current criminal justice system is far from perfect, but NO system will ever be able to absolutely prove guilt or innocence, therefore the possibility of killing an innocent person is not a valid argument for banning the death penalty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top