

Death-penalty analysis reveals extent of wrongful convictions - gautamnarula
http://www.nature.com/news/death-penalty-analysis-reveals-extent-of-wrongful-convictions-1.15114

======
papasmrf
My own particular belief is that the death penalty as it is currently
implemented is an abomination. But I also believe that there are just some
crimes committed that must be punished by death. I have often wondered why the
death penalty shouldn't only be imposed in cases where there is a 100% moral
certainty that the accused committed the crime, ie, caught at the scene of the
crime, captured on videotape, etc. Other than these types of cases, we really
should be thinking about not allowing the death penalty anymore.

~~~
raverbashing
Exactly

It's one thing to put someone in death row for one conviction (with a possible
error rate), another, would be to put someone for multiple convictions (and
not from the same event)

Unless there's a direct evidence (filming, or something similar) no evidence
(testimony, DNA, etc) should be enough to put someone in death row.

------
gautamnarula
From the article: "At least one in 25 people on death row in the United States
would be exonerated if given enough time...That number still underestimates
the rate of false convictions, Gross says, because many innocent people never
manage to prove their innocence."

Abstract of the study available here:
[http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/04/23/1306417111](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/04/23/1306417111)

Edit: Full paper here:
[http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/04/23/1306417111.full...](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/04/23/1306417111.full.pdf+html)

------
mathattack
My 2 cents... The death penalty is wrong on both moral reasons. The moral
reason is clear - you can never be 100% sure that you got the right person,
and you don't have the opportunity to back out of a bad decision afterwards.
The economic reason is that it's just too expensive anyway. You wind up having
to do a tremendous amount of extra work to get the conviction (which may not
have been correct) and then have to deal with years (decades?) of appeals and
imprisonment. Just toss them in jail.

~~~
apta
It's not always wrong. Never being 100% certain is incorrect. There are cases
where you are sure; and in such cases, it should be a viable punishment.
Otherwise, you're right, it is not something you can back out of.

~~~
mathattack
Are we ever 100% sure though, when the possibility exists that the prosecution
is corrupt and the confession could be coming from someone that is mentally
ill?

And stepping aside from morality, if it costs 10X[0] the cost of a life prison
sentence to kill someone, isn't it really better to just put them away for
life with no chance of parole?

[0] 10X is a made up #, but it's certainly a large multiple of non-capital
punishment cases.

------
dang
This was covered yesterday:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7663845](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7663845)

------
gabriel34
The interesting thing about death and imprisonment for life sentences is that
legally society is basically saying these people are beyond recovery and not
worth having among us. In practice, though, society is demanding punishment
and exerting vengeance.

Where I live there are (in theory, of course) three sides to every penal
sentence:

    
    
      Punishment
      Example
      Rehabilitation
    

Sentencing to death is admitting the convicted is beyond rehabilitation or
that he will do more good to the society as an example than as a productive,
rehabilitated member.

The punishment part I can't see as anything but thirst for vengeance from the
society and, perhaps, atonement for the convicted.

P.S.: This thirst for vengeance, our collective need to have someone pay is,
rationally , the source of these false convictions

------
protomyth
When you look at government and see how many things they do wrong, it seems to
be consistent to not allow the death penalty and instead have true life-
without-parole. I have no moral issue with the thought of giving a child
rapist-murder the death penalty[1], but I think the risk of being wrong is
just too high to support a death penalty. Plus, it seems to be a lot cheaper
just to skip it and keep the person in prison for the rest of their life.

So, cheaper and allows for an apology in error.

1) I feel bad for feral dogs that need to be put down, monsters not so much.

------
trendoid
Lack of free will invalidates any form of extreme torture or death penalty.
People think that the perpetrator should have known better and hence
"deserves" the punishment. This is nonsense since we now know from
neuroscience that "we" are not authors of our own thoughts.

There is no hard evidence that shows that capital punishment acts as a
deterrent for future crimes, there is some contradictory data though[1][2].

Interesting study which found out that instead of acting as a deterrent,
pickpockets were picking pockets during the hanging of a pickpocket![3]

[1][http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/studies-fbi-preliminary-
crim...](http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/studies-fbi-preliminary-crime-
report-2012) [2][http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-
and-...](http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state)
[3][http://aler.oxfordjournals.org/content/4/2/295.short](http://aler.oxfordjournals.org/content/4/2/295.short)

