Quote:
Originally Posted by fatso
That's true - fair enough. So let's stick with the administrative concerns.
What would be an infallible system of proof? Knowledge is always subject to historical conditions - and what seems 'true' and 'obvious' now can be totally subverted 50 years as people's viewpoints and technology changes. DNA evidence comes to mind. But just think about things like who can testify and in what capacity they can be witnesses, and how much that's changed in the last 100 years. Think about hearsay evidence. Think about systematic judicial biases against particular groups. You might argue that it's just a matter of system refinement. But when do you know the system has been sufficiently refined?
I remember when there was that Central Park jogger case about, oh, 20 years ago I think. I was in New York at the time and it was scary. In the end, it was a group of black teenagers that had attacked a white woman and beat her to within an inch of her life. The perpetrators even confessed. Case closed. Airtight, right? Except it wasn't. They were teenagers coerced into a confession because the cops wanted to close it fast. 15 years later the actual attacker came forward and exonerated the youths who were wrongly accused and imprisoned. This was confirmed through DNA evidence. Seemed like an open-and-shut case, meeting all the burdens of evidence... 15 years is a long time to rot in a jail cell... but at least they're still alive.
But let's just say you have a murderer's identity that is 100% undoubted. OK, cold-blooded murder merits the death penalty. But what about being recklessly criminally negligent to the point of virtual homicide? Or what about the issue of age? Or what about mental illness or the mentally challenged? Where do you stop the sliding scale of who merits death? Next thing you know, you're back in 17th century Salem, which seemed pretty logical to a community afraid of witchcraft and its harm on society.
I'm not saying a criminal justice system without the death penalty is perfect. It's anything but that. But opening the door, even if it was morally correct, necessarily creates the possibility of error and regret.
|
All good points. I guess in my mind (seeing as I believe it is the morally correct thing to do) it is worth both the trouble and risk.
I think one could avoid a lot of the mistakes if there was a panel of Judges who would automatically review any death sentence to see if that high level of proof had been achieved. I realize there is appeal processes in place today but, they are only allowed to address errors in procedure and possible new evidence. Often these questionable convictions have social and race implications: Sometimes blatant and other times subtle. The questions of mental competence and accountability could also be readdressed by them. This would mean that the accused would have to have been found guilty twice: Once by a jury of his/her peers and once by a group of professional judges. Justice is only as fair as the people administering it.