|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 20, 2009 6:22:19 GMT -6
your singular view on this is at once arrogant and astute It isn't singular. Others have noted the quintessential paradox contained in conditional support for capital punishment. I have to evaluate the facts before me and the fact remains that no one, not one person or group has been able to prove that an innocent person has been executed. That's not a definitive statement. That's merely an admission of disbelief in probabilities. You don't see flaws in a cut diamond, so you declare it to be flawless, although it is likely to be flawed. You then pay a jeweler a ton of money for that diamond, confident in its perfection. Are you truly interested in other points of view at that point? Of course not. They were put into place to prevent the very thing we are debating now - the execution of an innocent person. Multiplying layers of criminal procedure doesn't prevent groupthink -- it actually encourages it. An innocent man will be executed, and probably already has been, because no one made any mistakes before or during his trial. The law does not require absolute certainty of guilt. It only requires good faith. The innocent are convicted and sentenced all the time because his right to due process is respected. Justice is NOT the pursuit of truth. It only ascribes guilt, at best. I do agree with you concerning the lack of commitment to the DP. The system is over cautious with fear and the lack of timely completion of sentence is a trait of cowardice. You can't have it both ways. If you want to execute the guilty, you have to execute the occasional innocent. If you cannot accept that, you can't support capital punishment on moral grounds.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2009 8:33:49 GMT -6
I'm interested in why you 'don't like to be considered an anti' ~ perhaps you could elaborate? I can write pages and still not answer the "ANTI" question completely. Please understand that my answer will include a lot of generalizations, which I know is not fair, but it would make my answer longer to separate the generalizations. Although I have been reading about the Death Penalty for about 10 years, I have only been debating the merits of the death penalty for almost 2 years (with large breaks between). I do oppose the death penalty, without a doubt, but I have trouble with the stances many antis have. I will go as far as saying many of the stances antis use are propaganda or just plain deceit. I review some of them: 1. Innocent claims - It seems that this is a very strong stance of many antis. In order to be a true anti, many believe you have to agree with all the Innocence claims. While I fully understand that Wrongful convictions occur, they do not happen on the scale antis try to state. The fact of the matter is, inmates lie and their lawyers/supporters will magnify these lies. (Lets not even mention Scumpals) 2. Botched executions - For myself, the only way to botch an execution is if the inmate lives after wards. The intent is to kill an inmate, the worst part of the punishment is the death. I don't want to sound cruel (because I don't wish them to die in pain), but waiting an extra half hour when they are looking for a vein to administrate the lethal cocktail is not botched. 3. Lethal Injection - (This is similar to above) How can Lethal Injection be considered cruel and unusual ? This statement could suggest that if a purely painless (which LI is close) method was developed, then many who oppose the DP, would then have to support it. 4. Cost of the DP process - True Justice is expensive, if you support the DP, then the additional costs are acceptable. In Canada we have a horrible serial killer named Robert Pickton, who murdered approx. 50 women. The first trial was only for about half of his victims and the cost before the trial started was over $250 million. The DP was not involved, yet the expense of justice was huge. Abolishing the DP to reduce costs is ridiculous ! 5. Economic class - Sure people who are poorer receive the DP more often, but this just part of society. I will ignore a huge part of this debate as it opens too many doors and only respond to very limited area of this stance. If I were asked which is more deserving of tax dollars, poor students receiving a free breakfast before school or some murderer receiving better lawyers, I vote for the students every time. I understand that any Justice system is not perfect, but I have to support it, I only oppose the penalty of death, so if I have to labeled I chose to be labeled a JUSTI ! (Inside joke that no one on this board will understand). Ron Ron, I agree with a lot of what you say in this post, although I can't say I feel for murderers about to die, since we're all going to die, many of us quite painfully regardless of deservedness. However, I do feel for their families, some of whom are mere victims of the choices their loved ones made on behalf of us all. I have to admit that this a huge conflict within myself, I immediately want to object when you use the term "feel for murderers", but can not elaborate on it further. I understand that many people die by means that are worse than a controlled execution, murdered victims, car accidents or illnesses such as cancer come quickly to mind, but it can not be answered easily or completely for that matter. It is society choosing that you are to die, that is unsettling.
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Mar 20, 2009 9:14:43 GMT -6
Welcome aboard then matey, i eat myself up everyday wehen hear some of the awful things that happen, im like you, i oppose the dp for a number of reasons other then for peados, its a huge contradictory battle i have but i have read up on sex offenders regarding children from many boks from so called experts and none have said that cagorically any can be cured. they blame their upbringing and other reasons apart from, themselves and i hate them with a vengence and for reasons i dont or wont go into.
Murderers even though puss and scum of the earth can be cured and not all murder is equal, for 1st degree muder i could support the dp if it was failsafe as itdc wants me too but for obvious reasons not for having anyone force me. If they plan, rehears and carry out a muder they are in complete control of their actions mentally and physically in my eyes and opinion. If found guilty needle time no porblem the rest second degree, manslaughter etc i cant support it. Get rid of the inconsistencies and then maybe it can be defended but until then, like you, i cant support it. for the rest there are just to many other factors to take into consideration.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Mar 20, 2009 9:25:02 GMT -6
It isn't singular. Others have noted the quintessential paradox contained in conditional support for capital punishment. That's not a definitive statement. That's merely an admission of disbelief in probabilities. You don't see flaws in a cut diamond, so you declare it to be flawless, although it is likely to be flawed. You then pay a jeweler a ton of money for that diamond, confident in its perfection. Are you truly interested in other points of view at that point? Of course not. Multiplying layers of criminal procedure doesn't prevent groupthink -- it actually encourages it. An innocent man will be executed, and probably already has been, because no one made any mistakes before or during his trial. The law does not require absolute certainty of guilt. It only requires good faith. The innocent are convicted and sentenced all the time because his right to due process is respected. Justice is NOT the pursuit of truth. It only ascribes guilt, at best. You can't have it both ways. If you want to execute the guilty, you have to execute the occasional innocent. If you cannot accept that, you can't support capital punishment on moral grounds. I apologize in advance I am not as adept with the manipulations of the board yet to single out each line.If not a singular view, then a binary view. Definitive - serving to define or specify precisely <definitive laws> I defined my position. Disagree if you like, but it is nonetheless definitive. Your last two comments are based on your binary view of all or nothing. I can indeed have it both ways because the world we live in is more than two dimensional. Binary thinkers have yes and no, maybe is not allowed. Dimensional thinkers do not see binaries, we see more than two options, and in fact the options are limitless.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2009 18:12:57 GMT -6
Hi Ron,
I understand about generalizations and also a want not to be associated with ‘those’ antis. By ‘those’ of course, one can fill in just about anything. I’m sure many antis prefer not to be lumped into the same category as me. Also, I completely agree with you that there are issues that are stretched to their limit by many antis (and groups) to the ultimate exclusion of much truth. And, yes, I too, find that dishonest.
To go down your list: 1. Innocent claims ~ I agree with you completely. I think that the majority of cases of exoneration do not necessarily equal innocence. Yet we do all the checks and balances, not for the guilty, but for all of us and the innocent. Yes, absolutely, the guilty benefit from that, too. I’d have it no other way, since if we don’t assure the rights of those who are guilty we won’t be assuring the rights of the not-guilty. But, I find it disingenuous to simply accept ~ and then spout ~ that all those who’ve been exonerated are therefore innocent of the crime for which they were sentenced to death. To me, it’d make more sense, and be more convincing, more honest to stick with those cases where at least there’s a legitimate reasonable doubt about guilt. 2. Botched executions ~ again, I agree. 3. Lethal Injection ~ ditto. 4. Costs of DP ~ I’m not convinced, but I don’t have time now to get into the nitty-gritty. Suffice to say, I believe there are better ways to spend our money. Still, what I want for murderers, in the long run would likely be just as costly, and I’d not blink about the cost. So, on this, I too get where pros are coming from. 5. Economic class ~ I agree here, too. Still, I do believe we have to set some standard (probably already met) for those defending people not yet found guilty of (whatever), lest we forget that could be us.
JUSTI ? Now, of course, I’m curious. How about I just leave it at Ron?
You said: “It is society choosing that you are to die, that is unsettling.”
Okay. I *think* I understand ~ and also the difficulty in describing it rightly. For me, it’s not like that. It’s what’s in my gut (as a friend of mine once said) ~ a feeling of wrongness, not because they don’t deserve the worst possible punishment imaginable, but that we choose to at all…. But not exactly wrong, either. For me, it feels like we’ve failed with each execution ~ but not even the execution itself ~ more like we failed long since. Maybe like we shoulda come a long way, baby ~ and have just wandered in circles. I dunno.
Thanks. Lynne
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Mar 20, 2009 20:23:16 GMT -6
If someone was proved to innocent after being executed, then it would mean the end of the dp. Just like the first innocent pedestrian killed by an automobile ended the use of the automobile.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Mar 20, 2009 20:49:54 GMT -6
If, for you, there's no debate, nothing to discuss, why jump into a discussion about it in the first place? If there weren't at least some people interested in discussing the various issues beyond a cheer each time there was an execution, I think Charlene would have closed the doors long since, since there'd likely be very few here besides those interested in saying 'yup.... yeehaw... and NEXT'. Like a lot, or even most, alleged "pros," this gentleman has painted himself into a logical corner. He conditions support for executions on a justice system that never makes mistakes. If such a mistake were made, his commitment to the death penalty obligates him to discount 'it as unproven or unprovable. "Pros" like him give capital punishment a bad name, because they are secretly relieved by each stay of execution, each reversal, each successful dilatory appeal -- they affirm their twisted faith in the infallibility of appellate jurists. We now have a thousand or more condemned murderers who will die of old age, and not be executed, because these so-called "pros" are too scared to kill them. Oh, tell me, sir, when is the last time that 'pros' have killed an inmate instead of the state? How then could the 'pros' be too scared to kill the inmante when they do not even have the ability? Of course, our legal justise system is not perfect. The number of exonerations tell us that. Yet, you are forgetting one importaint fact: dp cases receive extra appeals and scrutiny in ensure the truly guilty are executed. It is in this extra layer where confidence is given to the statement that an innocent has not been executed in the U.S. since 1976. According to the DPIC, all of the exonerations have happened in the appeal process as opposed to posthumanously. This tells me that the appeal process is the vindication and safeguard against a false conviction and execution.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Mar 20, 2009 20:53:46 GMT -6
If someone was proved to innocent after being executed, then it would mean the end of the dp. Just like the first innocent pedestrian killed by an automobile ended the use of the automobile. I get what you are saying but this is a bad comparison. While a pedestrain killed is quite accidental (otherwise charges should be filed), there is nothing accidental about an execution.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Mar 20, 2009 20:55:18 GMT -6
If someone was proved to innocent after being executed, then it would mean the end of the dp. Just like the first innocent pedestrian killed by an automobile ended the use of the automobile. uh-oh, now you've done it. you've suggested he take a stand on "tragic" death vs "acceptable" death. I'm still waiting on that myself.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 20, 2009 22:20:05 GMT -6
How then could the 'pros' be too scared to kill the inmante when they do not even have the ability? I submit "pros" are satisfied enough with sentences of death. They are not particularly interested to see the condemned executed. There can be no other explanation to accept the current status of capital punishment in the United States. The "no innocents have been executed" types are content to depend on the appellate courts to waste time adjudicating frivolous appeals, and then blame the justices for slowing the system down. Of course, our legal justice system is not perfect. The number of exonerations tell us that. Yet, you are forgetting one importaint fact: dp cases receive extra appeals and scrutiny in ensure the truly guilty are executed. That is not a fact at all. How many DR appeals have you read, cover to cover? I've read hundreds. The job of the appellate courts isn't to second-guess juries. The jurists do not reopen cases. They are simply looking for reversible error. Perfect trials convict the guilty and the innocent. It is in this extra layer where confidence is given to the statement that an innocent has not been executed in the U.S. since 1976. It is false confidence based on ignorance of the law. What YOU forget, or refuse to acknowledge, is that the legal presumption of innocence does not extend to convicts. Jury verdicts aren't reversed absent a convincing showing of reversible error, and isn't easy. The extra layer of adjudication is perfunctory. It doesn't prevent the execution of innocents because it's not supposed to. According to the DPIC, all of the exonerations have happened in the appeal process as opposed to posthumanously. This tells me that the appeal process is the vindication and safeguard against a false conviction and execution. You wouldn't believe DPIC anyway. You'd say their claims are motivated by an agenda. There is no provision in the present system to open any murder case after it's been fully adjudicated. Judicial ethics do not require such introspection. After someone's been executed for having committed murder, that's that. That is arguably how it should be, since the purpose of justice isn't the pursuit of truth.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Mar 20, 2009 22:36:57 GMT -6
How then could the 'pros' be too scared to kill the inmante when they do not even have the ability? I submit "pros" are satisfied enough with sentences of death. They are not particularly interested to see the condemned executed. There can be no other explanation to accept the current status of capital punishment in the United States. That doesn't answer my question. You said 'pros' are too scared to kill. You have not shown how a 'pro' instead of the state could kill an inmate- much less to be scared. The "no innocents have been executed" types are content to depend on the appellate courts to waste time adjudicating frivolous appeals, and then blame the justices for slowing the system down. Once again, as I demonstrated in another thread, there are valid appeals. In a dp case, I submit the appeals are very much needed. Without the appeals, your risk of executing an innocent increases dramatically. That is not a fact at all. How many DR appeals have you read, cover to cover? I've read hundreds. The job of the appellate courts isn't to second-guess juries. The jurists do not reopen cases. They are simply looking for reversible error. Perfect trials convict the guilty and the innocent. How can a conviction of an innocent be viewed as perfect? Are you saying that an appellete court has never vacated a conviction or awarded a new trial? How, exactly, would that not be second guessing a jury? It is false confidence based on ignorance of the law. What YOU forget, or refuse to acknowledge, is that the legal presumption of innocence does not extend to convicts. Jury verdicts aren't reversed absent a convincing showing of reversible error, and isn't easy. Perhaps you never heard of the phrase innocent until proven guilty? Once a person is convicted, under law they are presumed guilty. However, this is where the appeals are needed.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Mar 20, 2009 22:44:14 GMT -6
You wouldn't believe DPIC anyway. You'd say their claims are motivated by an agenda.. I resent that statement. You do not know me. How , then, can you speak on what I would or wouldn't believe?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 20, 2009 23:20:37 GMT -6
You said 'pros' are too scared to kill. You have not shown how a 'pro' instead of the state could kill an inmate- much less to be scared. Executions are performed to benefit pros, and pros alone. To the extent pros accept a dysfunctional, open-ended appellate process, based on misunderstanding the purpose of appeals, they are fearful of having executions performed. In other words, if you refuse to countenance reform of the appellate process, you refuse to speed up executions. If you are happy executing only one in 241 murderers a year, you are obviously fearful of killing them. In a dp case, I submit the appeals are very much needed. Without the appeals, your risk of executing an innocent increases dramatically. You clearly haven't actually read any of them. If you did you would not have made such a ridiculous statement. DR appeals are a matter of public record. Read a dozen and get back to me about the lofty principles of jurists, as opposed to judges. You will find they are not the least bit interested in the guilt or innocence of CONVICTS, because convicts are assumed to be guilty. You will find that appellate attorneys don't even CLAIM that their DR clients are innocent. ALL you will find are arguments about legal minutia. You will discover two demonstrable facts: (1) appellants are 99 percent guilty (2) how easily an innocent can be executed anyway How can a conviction of an innocent be viewed as perfect? Because it's not the purpose of the system, as a whole, to guarantee the lives of innocence. Were that true, jury verdicts would NEVER be considered dispositive. Murder cases would never close, because it's so easy to cast SOME doubt about a convict's guilt. The guilt-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard applies to capital cases, too. There's a good reason why we condemn prisoners with less than absolute certainty of their guilt. Why? Because the process is what matters, not life. Are you saying that an appellete court has never vacated a conviction or awarded a new trial? It's absolutely NOT because a convict's guilt was questioned. It's because of reversible error. How, exactly, would that not be second guessing a jury? Reversible error means the jury MIGHT have voted differently had a certain prosecutor's error not been made. Perhaps you never heard of the phrase innocent until proven guilty? Once a person is convicted, under law they are presumed guilty. However, this is where the appeals are needed. Boy you are thick. If you're convicted you've been found guilty by the trier of FACT. Your assumption of innocence is replaced by a presumption -- a very STRONG presumption -- of guilt. Appellate courts do not try cases. They hear appeals, and DR convicts are only legally entitled to one automatic appeal. At NO time is a conviction reversed without a finding of reversible error. I'm no lawyer but it was my job to read hundreds of DR appeals when I worked for a legal newspaper. I know how the process works, and it's obvious you don't. These "exonerations" you feel so good about -- they don't exculpate convicts. They simply free them because a trial was conducted badly. A process based on guilt beyond a reasonable -- but not absolute -- doubt isn't meant to protect the lives of the innocent. It is designed to move criminal cases along, to make criminal justice administration possible. It simply reduces the odds of executing an innocent to an acceptable level.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 20, 2009 23:50:35 GMT -6
I defined my position. Disagree if you like, but it is nonetheless definitive. You define it subjectively, then, for your own purposes. The word definitive, however, more commonly is synonymous with authoritative. If you are implying your position to be the last word on the integrity of judicial outcomes, you would be wrong. Your last two comments are based on your binary view of all or nothing. I can indeed have it both ways because the world we live in is more than two dimensional. Binary thinkers have yes and no, maybe is not allowed. Dimensional thinkers do not see binaries, we see more than two options, and in fact the options are limitless. Not on moral issues. Your support for capital punishment is conditioned on blind faith in the accuracy of adjudications. You cannot in good conscience become well-acquainted with appellate procedures and purposes and still argue the rectitude of capital punishment based on an imaginary track record of perfection. If the execution of an innocent troubles you that much, you are not doing the death penalty any favors by supporting it. People who want perfect justice do not agree that justice delayed is justice denied. They simply say that having most of the condemned dying of old age is a small price to pay for executing a tiny fraction of them with confidence in their guilt. That's the state of capital punishment today. Thousands and thousands of innocents are murdered every year, and we convince ourselves that executing 50 murderers a year is something to celebrate. The death penalty is limping along on the freeway, going one mile an hour, while murderers zoom by, in the fast lane, on their way to parole. I cannot understand how pros like you find this acceptable. And don't tell me you don't, because I'm wagering you didn't even write your Congressperson or U.S. Senator when it came time to vote on streamlining the execution process in 2005 and 2006. That idea floated among "pros" like a lead balloon. I could be wrong, but the let's-not-be-too-hasty pros defeated that important legislation, and you seem to be of that persuasion.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Mar 21, 2009 0:01:36 GMT -6
Justice is NOT the pursuit of truth. It only ascribes guilt, at best. What IS it that you think justice pursues? Procedural fairness?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 21, 2009 0:05:38 GMT -6
How, then, can you speak on what I would or wouldn't believe? Intuition. I feel you would greet such a claim with irrational skepticism. DPIC and I can disagree on whether the exonerated are truly innocent. but these folks aren't going to be wrong in perpetuity. My support for capital punishment is unconditional. I believe a death penalty that works is more important than the life of an innocent convict. I can therefore consider a claim of an executee's innocence with an open mind. Can you? I would argue, and demand, that some good come from that innocent's death, some needed reform, but it wouldn't change my mind about the morality of that execution. As long as the state acts in good faith, that execution is just. It has to be.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 21, 2009 5:20:58 GMT -6
What IS it that you think justice pursues? Procedural fairness? The purpose of the criminal justice system is simply to adjudicate criminal responsibility and enforce the laws. It is a human, pedestrian enterprise, not a philosophical search for truth. Were it the latter, it would be impossible to execute or even to imprison anyone. Jury verdicts would never be trusted. Investigations would never close. At some point a concern for due process subverts the goal of justice. When it comes to the death penalty, we are well beyond that point. We have slowed the machinery of death to a crawl. We are condemning murderers much faster than we are executing them, and no one seems to notice or be bothered by it. I am starting to believe that's what Americans want. To talk about streamlining appeals is much like farting in church. There's a tacit agreement that we just don't do it. We prefer to lay the blame on the guys in the robes, when they are only following our lead.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Mar 21, 2009 6:05:47 GMT -6
I defined my position. Disagree if you like, but it is nonetheless definitive. You define it subjectively, then, for your own purposes. The word definitive, however, more commonly is synonymous with authoritative. If you are implying your position to be the last word on the integrity of judicial outcomes, you would be wrong. I defined it exactly as I meant it; you, however, have changed it to fit your argument proving that you are indeed of a singular mind. Your last two comments are based on your binary view of all or nothing. I can indeed have it both ways because the world we live in is more than two dimensional. Binary thinkers have yes and no, maybe is not allowed. Dimensional thinkers do not see binaries, we see more than two options, and in fact the options are limitless. Not on moral issues. Your support for capital punishment is conditioned on blind faith in the accuracy of adjudications. You cannot in good conscience become well-acquainted with appellate procedures and purposes and still argue the rectitude of capital punishment based on an imaginary track record of perfection. If the execution of an innocent troubles you that much, you are not doing the death penalty any favors by supporting it. People who want perfect justice do not agree that justice delayed is justice denied. They simply say that having most of the condemned dying of old age is a small price to pay for executing a tiny fraction of them with confidence in their guilt. No, execution does not bother me and, yes, every once in a while you need faith. But that is not the issue, the issue is you cannot escape from your narrow view to understand that there are others who can process multiple issues and standards simultaneously. I cannot understand how pros like you find this acceptable. And don't tell me you don't, because I'm wagering you didn't even write your Congressperson or U.S. Senator when it came time to vote on streamlining the execution process in 2005 and 2006. That idea floated among "pros" like a lead balloon. I could be wrong, but the let's-not-be-too-hasty pros defeated that important legislation, and you seem to be of that persuasion. Once again because you don't see it or have proof of it, let alone conduct yourself in that way; you cannot understand how others would participate. I regularly contact all of my elected officials on range of issues; regularly. This is why I bemoan the fact that Corrine Brown is my congressional representitive. You are 100% correct on one thing... you may be wrong indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Mar 21, 2009 7:22:38 GMT -6
Just like the first innocent pedestrian killed by an automobile ended the use of the automobile. I get what you are saying but this is a bad comparison. While a pedestrain killed is quite accidental (otherwise charges should be filed), there is nothing accidental about an execution. Charges being filed would certainly bring the pedestrian back to life. While an execution is not accidental, the execution of an innocent person would be accidental.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Mar 21, 2009 7:31:36 GMT -6
Were it the latter, it would be impossible to execute or even to imprison anyone. Jury verdicts would never be trusted. Investigations would never close. But most importantly, we would be living in a truly barbaric land because the criminally inclined would have little to impede them. Quite the contrary, for the most part the machinery of death chugs along in fine fashion. We have only slowed a few minor auxiliary machines. The judge who came up with the phrase "the machinery of death" was absolutely dishonest in using that phrase.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2009 10:10:13 GMT -6
Just like the first innocent pedestrian killed by an automobile ended the use of the automobile. I know this off topic, but the first car accident in Cornwall, Ontario, involved the first 2 cars in the city. Ron
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Mar 21, 2009 14:06:04 GMT -6
What IS it that you think justice pursues? Procedural fairness? The purpose of the criminal justice system is simply to adjudicate criminal responsibility and enforce the laws. It is a human, pedestrian enterprise, not a philosophical search for truth. How does one accurately adjudicate criminal responsibility without searching for the truth related to the crime in question? On any account, below is the instruction given to jurors prior to deliberations in a criminal case in Wisconsin. How would you amend it? Wis JI-Criminal 140- In reaching your verdict, examine the evidence with care and caution. Act with judgment, reason and prudence.
The defendant is not required to prove his innocence. The law presumes every person charged with the commission of an offense to be innocent. This presumption requires a finding of not guilty unless in your deliberations you find it is overcome by evidence which satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. The burden of establishing every fact necessary to constitute guilty is upon the State. Before you can return a verdict of guilty, the evidence must satisfy you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.
If you can reconcile the evidence upon any reasonable hypothesis consistent with the defendant's innocence, you should do so and return a verdict of not guilty. The term "reasonable doubt" means a doubt based upon reason and common sense. It is a doubt for which a reason can be given arising from a fair and rational consideration of the evidence or lack of evidence. It means such a doubt as would cause a person of ordinary prudence to pause or hesitate when called upon to act in the most important affairs of life. A reasonable doubt is not a doubt which is based upon mere guesswork or speculation. A doubt which arises merely from sympathy or from fear to return a verdict of guilty is not a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is not a doubt such as may be used to escape the responsibility of a decision. While it is your duty to give the defendant the benefit of every reasonable doubt, you should not search for doubt. You are to search for the truth. (emphasis mine)
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 21, 2009 16:17:37 GMT -6
How does one accurately adjudicate criminal responsibility without searching for the truth related to the crime in question? It's not a search for truth, Erick. Think of all the evidence withheld from juries on 4th and 5th Amendment grounds. Thus the guilty go free before any truths are discovered. A search for truth would allow all relevant evidence to be introduced at trial. A search for absolute truth, i.e. absolute guilt, would require an infinite number of juries for each case, an infinite number of appeals, until every imaginable alternative explanation for a murder has been ruled out. Truth is not the goal. The goal is much more pedestrian: do the best with what you have and reach a verdict -- any verdict. On any account, below is the instruction given to jurors prior to deliberations in a criminal case in Wisconsin. How would you amend it? Wis JI-Criminal 140- In reaching your verdict, examine the evidence with care and caution. Act with judgment, reason and prudence.
The defendant is not required to prove his innocence. The law presumes every person charged with the commission of an offense to be innocent. This presumption requires a finding of not guilty unless in your deliberations you find it is overcome by evidence which satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. The burden of establishing every fact necessary to constitute guilty is upon the State. Before you can return a verdict of guilty, the evidence must satisfy you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.
If you can reconcile the evidence upon any reasonable hypothesis consistent with the defendant's innocence, you should do so and return a verdict of not guilty. The term "reasonable doubt" means a doubt based upon reason and common sense. It is a doubt for which a reason can be given arising from a fair and rational consideration of the evidence or lack of evidence. It means such a doubt as would cause a person of ordinary prudence to pause or hesitate when called upon to act in the most important affairs of life. A reasonable doubt is not a doubt which is based upon mere guesswork or speculation. A doubt which arises merely from sympathy or from fear to return a verdict of guilty is not a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is not a doubt such as may be used to escape the responsibility of a decision. While it is your duty to give the defendant the benefit of every reasonable doubt, you should not search for doubt. You are to search for the truth. (emphasis mine) I'd remove the entire second paragraph. It's not only patronizing, it's insincere. Juries are never punished for failing to reach a verdict, or when they acquit the obviously guilty for political reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Mar 21, 2009 16:31:38 GMT -6
How does one accurately adjudicate criminal responsibility without searching for the truth related to the crime in question? It's not a search for truth, Erick. Think of all the evidence withheld from juries on 4th and 5th Amendment grounds. Thus the guilty go free before any truths are discovered. A search for truth would allow all relevant evidence to be introduced at trial. A search for absolute truth, i.e. absolute guilt, would require an infinite number of juries for each case, an infinite number of appeals, until every imaginable alternative explanation for a murder has been ruled out. Truth is not the goal. The goal is much more pedestrian: do the best with what you have and reach a verdict -- any verdict. On any account, below is the instruction given to jurors prior to deliberations in a criminal case in Wisconsin. How would you amend it? Wis JI-Criminal 140- In reaching your verdict, examine the evidence with care and caution. Act with judgment, reason and prudence.
The defendant is not required to prove his innocence. The law presumes every person charged with the commission of an offense to be innocent. This presumption requires a finding of not guilty unless in your deliberations you find it is overcome by evidence which satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. The burden of establishing every fact necessary to constitute guilty is upon the State. Before you can return a verdict of guilty, the evidence must satisfy you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.
If you can reconcile the evidence upon any reasonable hypothesis consistent with the defendant's innocence, you should do so and return a verdict of not guilty. The term "reasonable doubt" means a doubt based upon reason and common sense. It is a doubt for which a reason can be given arising from a fair and rational consideration of the evidence or lack of evidence. It means such a doubt as would cause a person of ordinary prudence to pause or hesitate when called upon to act in the most important affairs of life. A reasonable doubt is not a doubt which is based upon mere guesswork or speculation. A doubt which arises merely from sympathy or from fear to return a verdict of guilty is not a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is not a doubt such as may be used to escape the responsibility of a decision. While it is your duty to give the defendant the benefit of every reasonable doubt, you should not search for doubt. You are to search for the truth. (emphasis mine) I'd remove the entire second paragraph. It's not only patronizing, it's insincere. Juries are never punished for failing to reach a verdict, or when they acquit the obviously guilty for political reasons. I agree that the goal of justice is not an absolute search for the truth. As you said, if it were, we would not have amnedments such as the 4th. Still, searching for the truth is a very important aspect of the purisit of justice. Now I do not believe that there is a single goal or definition of justice. In my experiance, justice involves balancing tests and the weighing of oftentimes conflicting social values. And the search for the truth is a social value that weighs heavy. But let me ask you the following hypo: Let's say Husband (H) is convicted of murdering Wife (W) and sentenced to death. The police never found W's body, but the circumstatioanl evidence was strong and H was convicted. After exhausting all of his appeals, H is sent to death watch. He certainly had due process. On the day of the juicing, as it turns out, W shows up alive at the police station (remember, they never found her corpse). W tells police that she faked her death so she could run away and assume a new identity. But she feels horrible because she does not what H to be executed for her "death." I get the impression that you would allow the execution to go forward and would refuse to consider the matter because H had "due proceess" and was found guilty by a jury. Is that what you would do?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 21, 2009 16:46:12 GMT -6
most importantly, we would be living in a truly barbaric land because the criminally inclined would have little to impede them. Agreed. Quite the contrary, for the most part the machinery of death chugs along in fine fashion. We have only slowed a few minor auxiliary machines. The judge who came up with the phrase "the machinery of death" was absolutely dishonest in using that phrase. Fifty or sixty executions per year + over a thousand on death row? That's "chugging along?" That sounds rather euphemistic. I have no problem with the phrase. I like the thought of a death machine, automatically killing convicted murderers without human interference, the same way a traffic camera mails out tickets to red light violators. It doesn't work that way, but it should.
|
|
|
Post by somebody on Mar 21, 2009 17:23:42 GMT -6
How, then, can you speak on what I would or wouldn't believe? Intuition. I feel you would greet such a claim with irrational skepticism. DPIC and I can disagree on whether the exonerated are truly innocent. but these folks aren't going to be wrong in perpetuity. My support for capital punishment is unconditional. I believe a death penalty that works is more important than the life of an innocent convict. I can therefore consider a claim of an executee's innocence with an open mind. Can you? I would argue, and demand, that some good come from that innocent's death, some needed reform, but it wouldn't change my mind about the morality of that execution. As long as the state acts in good faith, that execution is just. It has to be. You wrote: "I believe a death penalty that works is more important than the life of an innocent convict." But a death penalty with an innocent person being executed as a result doesn't work. Right?
|
|
|
Post by somebody on Mar 21, 2009 17:34:38 GMT -6
Hi Joseph, I agree with a lot of things you write about the lawsystem. I have helped anti death penalty lawyers and I know that the job of the appellate courts isn't to second-guess juries and that jurists rarely reopen cases. They are only looking for reversible errors. I also agree with your statement that it is almost beyond any doubts that an innocent has been executed. I am curious though. Because of the things you write, and especially because of how you write them, I know that you have a lot of insight in DR appeals. You must have read hundreds of them indeed.... That's why I want to ask you a question. Do you happen to know about a case in which you personally think that an innocent had been executed? Not proved (yet) but likely?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 21, 2009 22:42:13 GMT -6
Do you happen to know about a case in which you personally think that an innocent had been executed? Not proved (yet) but likely? I don't recall feeling that way at the time. This was during the 1980s. Appellate procedures haven't changed since then. Mostly I recall that most of the appeals were purely dilatory. If the conviction of a murder convict requires absolute certainty before we execute him, we ought not to have a death penalty. I don't want the justice system considering every defense lawyer's crackpot theory about imaginary "real" murderers. Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is good enough. It leaves room for unreasonable doubt, and a small possibility of error, but we have to draw the line somewhere. The justice system not only has to work, but has to be seen to work, if we expect any respect for the laws.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Mar 21, 2009 22:46:19 GMT -6
Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is good enough. It leaves room for unreasonable doubt, and a small possibility of error, but we have to draw the line somewhere. The justice system not only has to work, but has to be seen to work, if we expect any respect for the laws. And even though you draw a very deep line to the right of me; I wholeheartedly agree.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 21, 2009 22:47:15 GMT -6
a death penalty with an innocent person being executed as a result doesn't work. Right? That would not be a failure of the criminal justice system, since it can't be prevented. Even when the state does its best, and acts in good faith to prevent such executions, they will still happen. It's simple math. The state, therefore, isn't liable for those deaths.
|
|