Oh, by the way, is anyone here objecting to the execution of Lawerence Brewer? It happened at roughly the same time as Davis'. Brewer also said he didn't kill the victim. It would have been more impressive and forceful if the people opposed to the death penalty had criticised that execution.

Originally posted by charles1952
Abrihetx,
How do we create a system that doesn't make mistakes? We can't. Yet, there must be a system for defining guilt and innocence. Do you have a system significantly different from the current one in mind? I'm assuming that you're basically OK with the current sytem, and only object to the use of death as a punishment option.

Am I correct so far?

Charles1952

Not so much, Charles1952. I'm no lawyer and I can't even begin to start drafting us up a new legal system. And And I do have issues with the current system, so I'm not totally ok with it. Many things are wrong with it, as you said. I know a guy that was arrested for aggravated burglary (and he did it) but he got off because he was the only one out of three that wasn't caught on the security cameras. Very messed up that he got away with this because he committed a crime. I understand why. The system is SUPPOSED to protect the innocent, but many times it ends up protecting the intelligent (or lucky) guilty, as well.

You are right in that I do not support the death penalty the way it is. I have no objections for cases where the convicted is conclusively proven to be guilty, but it should not be an option if there is doubt and it darn sure should not be an option based solely on witness testimony.

Assume the death penalty is eliminated and we go to life without parole, do we re-investigate each of those crimes?

I don't believe it should be law enforcement's job to reinvestigate the crime. They should keep the evidence available in good condition until the death of the inmate or the inmate's release from jail. The act of reinvestigating should be up to the inmate or his designee. The cost of investigating every major crime twice would be too burdensome on the tax payer.

Will the re-investigations be available only for the rich or socially favored?

Not completely. There are charity organizations that do help with such things. I think the limitted resources actually help make sure that cases of high concern are most likely to be investigated.

Many inmates have access to legal libraries or reference materials in the prison. They are allowed to research and challenge their cases on legal technicalities. So, I don't think that inmates are completely cut off based on economic status.

If the courts say there must be irrefutable physical proof, then why bother having a trial?

I think the physical proof should be a requirement before any prosecutor can seek the death penalty. The purpose of holding a trial can be as simple as getting a reduction from murder to negligent homicide or manslaughter. Both offense carry lesser penalties and rarely end up as capital cases.

Plus, you can argue against evidence. A video may show only a limitted angle. DNA may prove sexual relations, but it can't prove that it wasn't consentual. It also can't prove that somebody else didn't use a condom and committ the act.

Even physical evidence can be misleading. Everyone should have the right to argue their innocence in the face of the most staunch evidence.

Willingham was executed 22 years after his conviction. Is there a time limit on re-investigations?

With the death penalty off of the table the limit would be sentence length or death of the prisoner. If capital punishment remains, 15 years sounds good to me. It really is an arbitrary number. However, with the rapid evolution of technology I don't think it would take much longer for science to disprove something or new techniques to develop.

I honestly think one of the big steps will be to curb lawyers trying cases in the court of public opinion. I think gag orders should be standard procedure in capital or potential capital cases. Too often we see lawyers grandstanding and attempting to effect the jury pool before a trial starts. The same happens with police officers handing out information during the investigation. The public has a right to know. We have to find a balnce that protects the public and the accused however.

Why is there such a strong desire for the death penalty?

I think there is an inate human desire for revenge against those that cause harm to others or society. Originally punishment was left up to the individual that was wronged. Only as a matter of social evolution did it become a matter for government. As society grew and changed crimes began being viewed as crimes against the community and eventually against the state. The longer the state was involved the more punishment became a matter of establishing "order" and social engineering.

The desire for punishment on a personal level hasn't evolved out of the first stage however. People still want retribution for percieved harm. However, as society grew and evolved it became common for severe violations of the societal norms to be viewed as attacks against the person as well. So, the individual seeks retribution for wrongs against the hive. Because an attack against the hive is an attack of their personal beliefs and the foundation of their self identity.

It wasn't untill the 1700's that the humanist movement began to see punishment as a chance for rehabilitation and correction. That was not a long time ago, in the evolution of the human pschology. It is still fighting against millenia of human nature and conditioning. Plus retribution makes people feel vindicated and safe in their beliefs. It reinforces the thought process they subscribe too now.

At least that is my opinion based on my limitted understanding of the subject.