So you execute a person and later find out the person was 100 percent innocent....

Wouldn't that be murder?

agree...

:sarcasm:

The whole thing makes me sick to my stomach.

Not anymore... I am convinced that innocent people have been executed by the state.

I know some of those put to death here over the years were innocent.

yet she is sitting on Death Row. :(
http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/
12/29/10 - Assistant DA Greg Davis indicted in Collin County
After Greg Davis prosecuted Darlie Routier and sent her to death row, his career made many gains which included many hours on National TV. He was also quoted for saying, "If Darlie is really innocent, that only proves that I am a great lawyer". During that interview, he had a picture of a needle on display in his office. However, during the appeal in the years to follow, much of the States evidence was debunked and many of their witnesses changed their testimony. For example, the nurses admitted being coached by prosecutors to change their original opinions, and the State conveniently loses key evidence associated with the rape exam. The State spent lots of money blocking Routier from testing other evidence. The bloody fingerprint, which Davis calls a smudge, has 8 identifiable points and yet it has never been run through AFIS. Now it comes out that he is indicted for falsifying government records. Gee, could this kind of activity be the reason the evidence and testimoney in the Routier case is tainted and controversial? Could it be true that Davis cheated to get a conviction? Is this why they fight any honest review of the evidence that would cost the State nothing?



Look at the picture on the main page of the link and tell how the fucking hell that she did NOT have defensive wounds?

17 individuals, all through all avenues of appeal, no chance at any recourse, no more hearing, nothing but the execution of penalty.
The only problem? They were all innocent. Some were beaten into confessing (google John Burge), others were given counsel incapable of handling the case. Still others had exonerating evidence hidden on them by police or the prosecutor. (see Richie Daley, Cook County State's Attorney)

It was a travesty, a mess, and a great day when Gov. Ryan stopped them all.

It's collateral damage in the pursuit of justice aka vengeance :sarcasm:

But then again, so is the "collateral damage" that is the result of so many of our wars. It's sickening. The U.S. is going to murder yet another innocent. His name will be added to an extremely long list.

The death certificate itself lists the death as a homicide. But because we Americans are so exceptionally exceptional, we know that it doesn't count. We're pretty sure it doesn't count. Mostly sure.

Shut up.

And since we are a government, "of the people, by the people and for the people" we are guilty of murder one.

it would be more like voluntary manslaughter.

If you had reasonable doubt or knew they were innocent that would be murder.

Thanks for the thread, trumad.

Which is what distinguishes an execution from a murder.

be in jail and not murdered.

I hope you intend to clarify that statement or add some kind of damned caveat about how you actually FEEL about this situation. As law, and only within the bounds of technical law, I understand your point, but in terms of logic it is fallicious, in terms of reason it is dubious, and in terms of morality it is absent.

Are all states in agreement about the way capital punishment results in death? No.

It's inconsistent, this thing you distinguish from murder. Execution should be the thing you do do exercise your vote. Murder is the thing the state does to end a life on purpose.... whatever the purpose.

I realize this is a hot debate, but the law is inconsistent across the US, and that makes it questionable to all. There is reasonable doubt in how capital punishment can be carried out.

End the death penalty. It proves no more of a deterrent than life in prison and the system makes it cost prohibitive. Innocent people HAVE been put to death. How do you punish the state for murdering the wrong person?

This is insane.

That said, I feel confident saying that no matter who was being executed, for what crime, with what evidence, there would be an outcry.

"Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached." -- Justice Antonin Scalia, 1993

Scalia is a monster of course, but there's a logic to his madness. From his point of view, as I understand it, the law is not a mere adjunct to "real life"; it's a completely separate system, and he probably believes it is superior, too. Scalia's Law is not there to serve us, quite the opposite. So by insisting that a person condemned to death is "really" innocent, you're poking a hole in the system of which he thinks he's the ruler. He can't have that. As long as the paperwork is in order, the system is working, and "factual innocence" is not a part of his domain.

This, by the way, is what happens to ANY sufficiently complex and powerful system. The law becomes more important than people's lives and innocence or guilt. The police becomes more important than the citizens they were originally supposed to serve, so new laws are made to make things easier for the police and more dangerous for everyone else. The military no longer protects the nation, but demands and stirs up more wars so that they get more funding and a higher pedestal. A bank is established because people need a place to keep their money and an occasional loan, and after a while the bank's sole purpose is making its owners shitloads of money. A few bright scientists synthesize and sell a new medicine, and some years later the head of Roche says "We are not in business to save lives, but to make money". A charity is founded to eliminate some wrong or injustice, and after a while they realize if they should succeed, they'll be out of business, so their work becomes all about grants, conferences and advertising. A political party is established to promote a possibly good cause, and after a while it's only about who wins and what's good for the party - never mind what they win FOR and what's good for everyone else. Etc. The same process over and over.

It happens to every human-made organization and system, no exceptions. If that were not the case, Troy Davis would not be where he is now, all the crooked banksters would be rotting in Club Fed, universal health care would be your basic right, and Gitmo would be a distant nightmare. Actually, there would never have been a Gitmo.

Isn't that Georgia murder?

(I ask because I don't know.) But they will have legal requirements for when they can and can't grant reprieve recommendations.

But from what I know they pretty much have carte blanche...they can stop an execution by a simple vote.

I'm just troubled by the idea of a legal requirement (and personal criminal liability) for the executive to exercise it.

if at first you don't succeed; try and try again.

That is sarcasm. I really don't like the DP.

No pangs of conscience whatsoever in those precincts. But yes, it is.

later discovered that the person executed was innocent, then the governor in office when the person was sentenced and the governor that was in office when he was executed should both be tried for premeditated murder.

the governor in office when the person was sentenced and the governor that was in office when he was executed should both be tried for premeditated murder.

For allowing a jury to make its findings of guilt and its determination of sentencing?

they get it wrong and have the ultimate responsibility to stop it. Governors can issue a stay of execution, and order pardons from death row. I'd bet we'd never "accidentally" execute another innocent person again.

evidence they can allow the defense to introduce, and prosecutors are typically following the orders of their superiors as to whether or not to prosecute for the death penalty. The states that typically have high death penalty rates are the ones where the governor runs tough on crime campaign.

Edited for clarity.

a 'tough on crime' campaign is vile demagoguery.

"Tough on crime" wasn't just a slogan; it needed to be done at that point.

"Tough on crime" included 'manditory minimum sentences' and 'three strikes laws.' These were stupid provisions enacted by individual states that have resulted in a for-profit prison industry and an absurd number of people in for non-violent crimes.

Most serious academic studies found that crime rates fell from 1989 onwards for reasons that cannot be explained by these laws as they occured more in states that did not pass them or passed weaker versions than those that did.

I seriously doubt greasing the hallway to the gas chamber had any effect on actual crime rates and, if DNA testing (yay science!) is to be believed than all it seems to have resulted in is more innocent people being on death row.

And the per capita results:

Minnesota (my home state) with no death penalty 1.8 per 100K people in 2010
Texas (A hell on earth that produced the worst president of the 21st century)5.0 per 100K people in the same year.

So yeah, the death penalty works and is a great thing... right?

Mandatory minimum sentences seem to have "worked" though, in that we've traded insanely high crime rates for insanely high incarceration rates.

But the Death penalty protion was merely the concluding element. The 'three strikes' and 'manditory minimums' have not been prove to actually have had an impact on crime rates. Again, those states that have had dramatic reductions never adopted either of these asinine and constitutionally iffy policies that strip the judicial branch of local and state government of much of their authority and discretion.

30% of the world's prison population?

http://nicic.gov/library/022140

It tells me that "tough on crime" campaigns are a joke and we're fighting crime the wrong way.

If a prosecutor knowingly withholds exculpatory evidence or fabricates
evidence resulting in a death sentence, that prosecutor should be arrested and tried
for his/her crimes.

In terms of agitprop I understand saying this. But I would no more apply this than I would accept a death penalty as a punishment for a crime. The difficulty is that in states where there is capital punishment, those of us that would refuse to find in a case, where it was authorized, for the death penalty would not be allowed to serve on a jury.

Still, there should be some punishment for overzealous DA's and police that hide evidence and falsify statements to support the conviction of an innocent man in a capital case. There should be some force to assure restraint and reason in the effort for conviction. The District Attorneys have too much power and get a lot of good press and often move from that office directly into politics. Public Defenders haven't had good PR since Perry Mason was on television.

The only solution is to do away with the death penalty.

over time. I have no problem with locking people up for life, but if you execute an innocent person you can't bring them back to life. If you lock up an innocent person, you can at least set them free and make financial restitution.

No ifs, ands or buts...

Namely that murder is killing without legal mandate, and the executioners here have a legal mandate in the form of a jury verdict and sentencing determination.

Factual innocence is a tricky question since none of us were there; but as a legal question there's no doubt he's guilty which is why the executive has a responsibility to carry out the execution. (Which is itself an argument against the death penalty.)

The authority to execute is too much and too permanent. We simply cannot trust the state to do this. We cannot trust anyone to do this.

I still feel that way to this day. I don't think there is any statue of limitations for attempted murder either.

Don

Aren't we sophisticated in thought, movement? What a piece of work is man... So noble is the state's ability to murder you for crimes considered "capital".

Starting 2 illegal wars and accepting interim collateral damage does not fall under that crime.

Who are we?

What would that be? Murderers left alive have killed again far more than EVERY person executed since reinstatement - and they can't all have been innocent.

There is a difference between a criminal killing and the state killing. Would you use the morality of Charles Manson as a meter stick by which to measure how ethical our system is at protecting the innocent?

Actually your syllogism ignores the difference between an innocent being killed by the state and an innocent being killed by a criminal. I'm sorry you don't seem to understand the difference.

Can you guarantee me that every person executed is guilty?

That means the people who actually committed those crimes are still on the streets somewhere.

Shouldn't we be considering that aspect too?

Don

But that doesn't depend on the DP.

because...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...shut up, that's why!

A civilized society doesn't murder innocent people. There are people who run around and are uncivilized, and they should be dealt with, but not if it incurs "collateral damage" in the form of innocent people being executed along with the guilty ones. That's an idiotic way for any society to go about it.

It would prove that the law is not 100% reliable. What human based form of action could be? That's why I'm against the death penalty. We can just never be certain. But one who carries out an execution under law does not commit murder.

And even the worst lawyer would get that excluded under the 5th Amendment. Even so, I'm still against the death penalty due to its finality. But an executioner is not a murderer. Homicide is a neutral concept. There is justification (self defense) and the legal authority given to an executioner.

The governor is only involved at the last stage - after the legal system has been exhausted.

This case is an argument against the death penalty because it shows the legal system cannot be infallible and can make errors. Better to keep all murderers in jail for life rather than risk executing one person who was not guilty after all. But it's no argument that the executioner is a murderer, or even that Perry is a murderer.

confessed too...is it murder.

I think it is....

Perhaps you can find evidence that doesn't absolutely confirm guilt, but unless someone else confesses to a crime, and provides 100% evidence that the confessor did it, your hypothetical probably doesn't exist.

I'd like to turn it back to you: If we can prove with 100% certitude that an adjudged guilty person committed a capital-level offense, would you be OK with the death penalty?

The threshold has never been 100%. The threshold is reasonable doubt.

and is later found to be 100% innocent - is that kidnapping?

while this would be the accidental killing of one.

It serves no purpose. It will take this country down a notch.

Civilized nations don't have a death penalty. The U.S.A. is not a civilized nation.

whether our justice system declares them innocent or guilty, but the methodical execution of someone who has never been given a fair trial, where there are any questions that justice may have been denied...this type of execution is most certainly unconscionable murder!

What if it was Justin Bieber? Just sayin.......:shrug:

I don't recall any : "Except when you are the state."
So if the state executes a prisoner, innocent or not, is the executioner guilty of murder?

between murder, manslaughter whether voluntary or involuntary, or any of the other gradations.)

Still, your point is taken.

innocent or not, it's a willful taking of a life.

You have reasonable cause to execute the person...wait, there was no physical evidence? How did they arrive at the death penalty without evidence?

Anyone?

You thinking about the individual in question is so cute, though.

Let me know when the shame is enough.

Of course gross negligence could be murder.

its the wrong

"Look out! The English system of Constitutionally-limited monarchy threatens our absolutist despotism!"