echi regarding:
Quote:JamesMorrison wrote:
Lastly, many wring their hands and agonize over the innocent/guilty issue, you know-- is the condemned really guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? The reasoning to end all executions on this basis can easily, and often does, result in an analysis to paralysis situation that emotionally ties us in knots, and rightly so. The answer is simple: make sure the defendant is guilty. Sometimes this is easy, oft times it is not. It is here discretion should rule, so, should we let the jury decide the defendant's fate or an experienced jurist?
Your reply:
Quote:The answer is simple but impractical. We can't be sure. People will be executed for crimes they did not commit. Every time this happens the state fails to fulfill its primary responsibility.
I failed to be clear and the paragraph of mine you cite obviously requires further clarification:
The necessity of capital punishment lies not in morality but in practicality. Legal sanctions find their validity in vengeance, punishment, and deterrence. The former two applied towards the actual perpetrator the latter hopefully successfully implemented in the context of decreasing similar acts in the society involved.
Much hand wringing occurs when faced with the prospect of the execution of prospective innocent death row inmates, but this mitigates little against the execution of the convicted. Simply put, a legal system that allows for the defense, perhaps paid for by the very state that prosecutes, appellate review, and even the reexamination and overturning of the conviction really doesn't get much better and should be allowed, at some point, to come to a final decision. Final decisions are extremely important to victims and work against cruel and unusual punishment for the convicted. Remember this is the same legal system that finds accused murders not guilty. Would those that argue against the legal system that finds people innocent of murder throw this system out with the bath water merely because the other side of the coin demands justice for wrongs committed against those members of society it protects when their lives are brutally taken from them? This said, I would argue for more liberal treatment of real evidence, such as DNA, that could be considered exculpatory, but not much since this can easily be abused. (Many regard the appeals process-- the average is twelve years--, as cruel and unusual for both the convicted and the family of his victim(s) but, given the Law's ultimate resolution of murder cases, this is necessary to help guard against the execution of the innocent.)
If morality is to be applied anywhere, it is against the economic argument towards saving lives by the extinction of a particular life. How does this work if, initially, the guilty party is incarcerated and then eliminated entirely from society? Deterrence might be cited but, looking at the majority of individual cases, would not apply since passion, perceived disrespect, or unknown psychopathic origins serve as causative agents in most of the cases in question. Economic arguments to this question always come up wanting. Consider the argument that it is more economic to summarily execute the condemned than to pussy foot around with pesky legal appeals and evidential reexamination.
The American legal system is sound. Capital punishment is practical. Both are morally informed by the experience of the members of society. Regrets? We have a few, but these are based on hindsight which is only useful regarding further decisions and not condemnation of individuals for past decisions honestly made.
Respectfully,
JM
