Uncle Phil Posted 15 May 2012 Posted 15 May 2012 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/15/carlos-texas-innocent-man-death It's a rather long article, but it's another reason why the death penalty is seriously flawed.
Charl91 Posted 15 May 2012 Posted 15 May 2012 It's awful, but I don't think that's really a flaw with the death penalty itself, but rather with the sheer incompetence of the people who were wielding it. Plus that is only one case - how many more lives would be saved if the people who come out of prison and murder again had been given the death penalty (I don't know myself, but I'd guess it's probably a fair few). But poor guy. That really sucks.
stez Posted 15 May 2012 Posted 15 May 2012 I'm sure that'll be of great comfort to the mans' family. Seeing as humans are incharge of the justice system, no-chance-of-a-reprieve sentences should never be an option
The Doctor Posted 15 May 2012 Posted 15 May 2012 It's awful, but I don't think that's really a flaw with the death penalty itself, but rather with the sheer incompetence of the people who were wielding it. Plus that is only one case - how many more lives would be saved if the people who come out of prison and murder again had been given the death penalty (I don't know myself, but I'd guess it's probably a fair few). But poor guy. That really sucks. Which is exactly why the death penalty should not be an option - people are incompetent, they make mistakes and that such a mistake can then lead to someone innocent being executed is a travesty. Perhaps if they'd murdered someone once they should have just been kept in prison? Rather than basing a justice system on an incredibly flawed principle (an eye for an eye). At least if someone's imprisoned and then proven to be innocent then they've still got the chance of a reprieve, pretty hard to correct an incorrect prosecution if we kill the innocent man though.
Leicfox Posted 15 May 2012 Posted 15 May 2012 http://www.guardian....ocent-man-death It's a rather long article, but it's another reason why the death penalty is seriously flawed. I've just read a novel called The Confession by John Grisham that's about an innocent Texas man convicted to death. It's a very good read.
Charl91 Posted 15 May 2012 Posted 15 May 2012 Which is exactly why the death penalty should not be an option - people are incompetent, they make mistakes and that such a mistake can then lead to someone innocent being executed is a travesty. But that's not much better then people who have been wrongly imprisoned for their entire life - that is also a travesty, and a much more common occurence. You are on death row for ten years, on average (according to google anyway). If there was evidence to prove that you were innocent, it most likely would have been found by that point. By the look of that article, there shouldn't have been enough evidence to sentence him to death. It's not the death penalty which is the problem though, but the controls around when it is used and the evidence needed to use it needs to be much tighter. I'm not saying the death penalty should be used regularly - in my opinion, it should only be used in extreme cases against people such as Anders Breivik when there is insurmountable evidence to convict them. However I agree Perhaps if they'd murdered someone once they should have just been kept in prison? Rather than basing a justice system on an incredibly flawed principle (an eye for an eye). At least if someone's imprisoned and then proven to be innocent then they've still got the chance of a reprieve, pretty hard to correct an incorrect prosecution if we kill the innocent man though. I disagree that it is an incredibly flawed principle. If a dog kills someone, we put it down in a humane manner. At least a dog probably doesn't understand that its actions are wrong, or the pain and suffering it will cause people. I don't see why people should be treated any better, especially if they show themselves to have no remorse over their actions. I also don't buy into the argument that keeping them in prison indefinitely is any more humane. I realise that it's a very morally grey area, and I can see the logic over people not wanting the death penalty, however I think it's naive to automatically condemn it as barbaric (It's much less barbaric then lots of human practices). But of course, this is just my opinion.
Guest BlueBrett Posted 15 May 2012 Posted 15 May 2012 If there was evidence to prove that you were innocent, it most likely would have been found by that point. Only if you can afford to pay someone to look for it. I disagree that it is an incredibly flawed principle. If a dog kills someone, we put it down in a humane manner. At least a dog probably doesn't understand that its actions are wrong, or the pain and suffering it will cause people. I don't see why people should be treated any better, especially if they show themselves to have no remorse over their actions. I also don't buy into the argument that keeping them in prison indefinitely is any more humane. The difference between a human and a dog is that in theory a human can be rehabilitated. Plus this article isn't looking at the debate from the humanity perspective it is simply saying that balance of probabilities as interpreted by a human brain can never be enough justification to end someone's life because now matter how intelligent we might think we are we are all inherently fallible. Hard to argue with that logic really.
Charl91 Posted 15 May 2012 Posted 15 May 2012 Only if you can afford to pay someone to look for it. But isn't that the same with life imprisonment? Is life imprisonment any more humane then the death penalty? The difference between a human and a dog is that in theory a human can be rehabilitated. It's probably easier to rehabilitate an animal to be honest. Like I said, in the case of people like Breivik, who clearly don't show any remorse, or are proud of their actions, I doubt you can do anything to rehabilitate them. Either you plan on letting them out eventually (and lets be honest, a psycho like that should never be let out) or you keep them in prison for ever, which is not particularly humane either. Plus this article isn't looking at the debate from the humanity perspective it is simply saying that balance of probabilities as interpreted by a human brain can never be enough justification to end someone's life because now matter how intelligent we might think we are we are all inherently fallible. Hard to argue with that logic really. Yeah, I understand where you're coming from with this. But my argument is that if they were wrongly accused and didn't get the death penalty, they would be spending the rest of their life as an innocent person in a top security prison, which are not nice places. To me, that doesn't seem any more humane. The key factor for me is does the Death Penalty save lives? This study (http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all) says it does. I accept that the study is almost certainly bollocks, but it got me thinking - if the statistics were true (that with each execution 3 to 18 murders are prevented), then would it be acceptable? Again, it's very morally grey, but if the Death Penalty did save many more lives then it took, then to me it would be acceptable, even if it's nothing to be proud of. I realise I've strayed from the original post alot, but I thought it was an interesting topic.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.