RE: The Death Penalty - are you for or against it and why?
June 19, 2011 at 6:07 pm
(This post was last modified: June 19, 2011 at 6:09 pm by martin02.)
(June 19, 2011 at 1:29 pm)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote: How much was Timothy Evans worth?
Well, quite. Evans was described as of very low intelligence, and even if he was merely notable for being executed he'd still be someone we probably wouldn't be discussing. He's not famous for himself, or even for his trial and death, but as a cause celebre, via Ludovic Kennedy's book 10 Rillington Place and his place in the campaign to end the death penalty in the UK.
(June 19, 2011 at 3:43 pm)bozo Wrote: I don't accept your argument about this issue being a double-edged sword. The mental state of a murderer found not guilty after trial will be somewhat different to an innocent person found guilty of murder. Can you imagine how bad it must be to be punished for something you didn't do, especially so if it means execution? I can't.
A murderer found not guilty will be so found because the prosecution case was too weak to convince the jury of guilt. That murderer is very lucky, I doubt he/she would be so lucky if facing trial for another murder.
Many of the innocent people who suffered execution were vulnerable and some forced into confessions of guilt because they couldn't withstand the pressure of interrogation.
I maintain that the most significant reason to oppose it is that innocent people die through a miscarriage of justice.
If you don't agree, do tell what you think is the strongest argument against.
I think it's self defeating; judicial fallibility both condemns and frees, and will kill the innocent with or without the death penalty. There are plenty of cases where people have been on trial for murder, only to end up back in the dock on subsequent offenses; Ted Bundy escaped twice from custody, and killed at least three more times. It's not just weak prosecution cases which free the guilty.
I find the argument from prevention far more convincing; if you arbitrarily killed everyone suspected of being a serial killer you'd probably end up saving innocent lives, but not by a significant margin. It leaves something to be desired ...
I also find the argument from austerity to be better than fallibility. But you'd have to convince me the condemned's needs are explicitly too high to meet; and in a first world country that's not going to happen. Perhaps on Mercury ...
As I've said, the best argument is not related to the guilty but to society itself; it lessens all of us when we kill. For a civilization to be considered civilized, this should be an important benchmark. How it treats its worst.
