"It's Safe to Assume We Execute Innocent People"

http://www.commondreams.org/further/2010/03/05-2

"It's Safe to Assume We Execute Innocent People"

by Abby Zimet


A judge in Texas, which has long led the country in executions, has ruled that the death penalty is unconstitutional. The ruling by state District Judge Kevin Fine, a tattooed recovering drug addict, infuriated prosecutors and set a precedent that observers say is likely to be overtuned.

"Based on the moratorium (on the death penalty) in Illinois, the Innocence Project and more than 200 people being exonerated nationwide, it can only be concluded that innocent people have been executed," Fine said. "It's safe to assume we execute innocent people."

I am surprised to hear that a recovering drug addict is a Texas judge. Good for him!

He himself was prosecuting death penalty cases at the time.

Execution of a human being is a barbaric act, period.

that the CIA had, does, will, assassinate US citizens when they find it expedient to do so. They do so, have done so, can be expected to continue to do so, without the intervention of Judge or Jury. They do so, have done so, will do so, solely on the approval of "the highest levels of Government".

... with any criminal punishment of course. "This punishment will be inflicted on wrongly convicted persons" is an inescapable result of any kind of justice system.

It's a serious point to to ponder, but it's not the end-all / be-all on the death penalty, in my opinion. Life in prison will be imposed on the wrongly convicted. Sexual predator status will be imposed on the wrongly convicted. Life itself is critical, but it's not much more sacred than freedom. People WILL die due to society's imperfections and misdeeds, both subtle and grotesque.

The thinking I have a problem with is that (Texas, I'm talking to you) a *significant number of wrongful* convictions and executions is tolerable in the name of (vainly) trying to ensure that we don't FAIL to punish or execute the guilty. Especially if those wrongful punishments and executions are carried out on the less powerful. Vengeance over justice is fine with a lot of people who don't ever expect to wind up on the losing side of that equation.

My focus would be not on whether society ever has the authority to end someone's life -- (show me a society free of decisions that will ultimately kill people?) -- but rather on trying to ensure that occurs through an eyes-open, unbiased analysis that recognizes that everyone has an equal right to life in the first place.

This is also an area where our weirdo legal system of truth-neutral, diametrically opposed sides causes a problem. Why, when DNA or other analysis conclusively shows that a prisoner was wrongly convicted, do we have prosecutors, governors, et al, making intellectually dishonest arguments to try to carry out the punishment or execution *anyway?* Truth and fairness is supposed to be the job of everyone in the legal system, no matter what side of the "ball" they play on. Fix that, and you address the primary inequities of death penalty cases along with the rest.