|
Loki45 -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/26/2009 8:40:52 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: stella41b
After the US Supreme Court decision re Furman and the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976 the first post-Furman execution was Gary Gilmore in Utah in 1977. It's now coming up for the end of August 2009, more than 30 years and 1,173 executions later (some of which were of innocent people).
How much more time do you need to fix these flaws? Why not just accept that this part of the criminal justice system is inherently flawed and on the basis of the above get rid of it?
How old is our country? How far have we come that others have not? I'd say we're doing alright so far. No one ever said our government or laws are perfect and flawless. Look how long my country has debated immigration....health reform.....energy. It takes time. In the meantime, however, I find it comforting to know that people who brutally kill innocent people are being put down for it.
quote:
ORIGINAL: stella41b
Now you can't have it both ways. If you're inclined to see the shortcomings of administering the death penalty as 'mistakes' then surely so too are the humans who find themselves on Death Row are also guilty of 'mistakes'. Similarly if you are inclined to see those on Death Row as 'scum' then why not see those who are failing in their responsibility to administer the death penalty fairly as 'scum'?
However the way I see it the only 'mistake' of most of those found on Death Row or better still convicted of murder is in thinking that they could get away with it. There was no 'mistake' when it came down to pulling that trigger, engaging in violence or indeed in taking that person's life, it was pure premeditation.
Similarly I fail to see the 'mistakes' of failing to represent one's client or prepare an adequate defense strategy, I fail to see the 'mistakes' of juries and courts being misled or misguided to convict someone of a capital crime where due process was not served and 'beyond reasonable doubt' was not proven, and in fact I'm inclined to believe that these acts occur with the same degree of premeditation as those who have been rightly convicted of some of the most terrible, unspeakable crimes.
Therefore I refuse to accept that it is acceptable to do something knowing that someone innocent could die as a result simply because you are acting with the 'will of the people', or to merely dismiss it as a 'mistake'.
People die by 'mistakes' everyday. Just yesterday two high school girls running down the street in North Texas were crushed by a concrete awning. One died, the other is recovering. Chunks fall off of bridges and strike people dead. Mistakes happen. The fact that there is a human element doesn't make it less of a mistake. It simply means that there's a lot of work to be done to fix it.
The difference between you and me is that I don't want to let brutal rapists and killers loose on the public while I fix those mistakes. We already both have stipulated that 'life sentences' rarely mean 'life.' I have read countless stories about criminals that 'should' have been put down not only killing again but in some cases doing so while in prison.
The title of this thread implies the death of a death row inmate (who's guilt appears to be in doubt) is on the hands of everyone living in the state in which he was executed. Let's swing that pendulum back the other way. The blood of every innocent person killed after a murder's first conviction is on the hands of everyone who is against the death penalty. The difference being the blood on my hands is a result of my belief in a system that, while flawed, does in fact put down killers. The blood on your hands is a result of you wanting to unleash brutal murderers and rapists back into the population because of the 'chance' that an innocent person may have a shitty lawyer and a dumb jury and get convicted as well.
In other words, 'my' bloody hands are purely by mistake of not one but several people. Your blood is the result of not wanting to adequately punish real killers.
How about this system -- How about we let the victims of the crime or their families decide the fate? How about we get them into the courtroom and let the killer beg them for their lives? Then, for those who choose to let their killer live, in any subsequent case that killer has against them, the future victims can then call the original victims back as witnesses and have them accept their responsibility for letting the killer let in the first place.
quote:
ORIGINAL: stella41b
This is where we however agree. Life doesn't mean life, and in many cases I feel it should. I don't give a monkey's how much it costs, I want to live in a society which is relatively safe, which metes out justice and where those who present a danger to society or who have committed terrible crimes against its members are effectively removed from society for as long as deemed necessary and in some cases permanently.
Effective justice doesn't have to include the death penalty. There was a similar case to Susan Smith's which took place in Poland some years back. It's known as the 'Michal' case. Michal was aged 4 when his mother on the urging of her lover had her son thrown into the Vistula River in Warsaw leaving him to drown. Both she and her lover received 'dożywocie' - life imprisonment to the end of their natural lives, no parole, no remission, they stay there until they come out of prison in a coffin.
While this may be acceptable on the surface, it also carries with it the re-victimizing ability of the victims knowing their tax money is going to support the one who victimized them.
|
|
|
|
