

Database of last words of Texas execution victims - isomorph
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/executedoffenders.htm

======
RandallBrown
Wow, that's some powerful stuff. Just scrolling through and clicking randomly,
it seemed like half of them maintained their innocence until death.

I don't have any strong opinions about the death penalty but it seems like
executing even one innocent person would make it worth thinking about getting
rid of it.

~~~
billybob
I'm in favor of the death penalty, though not rabidly so. I do think we should
strongly scrutinize how these verdicts are arrived at. In trying to research
whether they are fair, I've found people arguing statistics both ways.

I don't think I agree with your statement, however. It IS terrible to execute
an innocent person. However, you're assuming that bad outweighs whatever good
may be done by executing the guilty. Whether there IS any good done is
arguable, but until you determine that, you're saying "Pros - Cons < 0"
without knowing the value of the pros.

The fact that prisoners maintain their innocence is really not surprising. I
think this is a basic fact about human nature: we are frequently dishonest,
especially when trying to maintain a positive view of ourselves. This quote
from "How To Win Friends and Influence People" gives a striking example to
make that point:

<quote> When Crowley was captured, Police Commissioner E. P. Mulrooney
declared that the two-gun desperado was one of the most dangerous criminals
ever encountered in the history of New York. "He will kill," said the
Commissioner, "at the drop of a feather."

But how did "Two Gun" Crowley regard himself? We know, because while the
police were firing into his apartment, he wrote a letter addressed "To whom it
may concern." And, as he wrote, the blood flowing from his wounds left a
crimson trail on the paper. In his letter Crowley said: "Under my coat is a
weary heart, but a kind one -- one that would do nobody any harm."

A short time before this, Crowley had been having a necking party with his
girl friend on a country road out on Long Island. Suddenly a policeman walked
up to the car and said: "Let me see your license."

Without saying a word, Crowley drew his gun and cut the policeman down with a
shower of lead. As the dying officer fell, Crowley leaped out of the car,
grabbed the officer's revolver, and fired another bullet into the prostrate
body. And that was the killer who said: "Under my coat is a weary heart, but a
kind one -- one that would do nobody any harm." </quote>

~~~
za
<http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/cases/usa-troy-davis>

I think your point on human nature applies equally to those executing a
justice system. Capital punishment shows arrogance.

~~~
billybob
Yes, judges and juries are also flawed humans. But by that logic, executing a
justice system _at all_ shows arrogance. If you have convictions, try as you
might, you will have some false convictions.

Imagine you have convicted someone of multiple cold-blooded murders and
believe they would murder again. You realize that it's possible the conviction
was in error, but you've done your best to investigate, present and argue the
evidence, and the jury was unanimous.

What now? Imagine you keep this person in jail for 70 years until their death.
Was that kinder than executing them? Is it worse to die, or to live every day
in captivity for 70 years? Yes, you retained the ability to reverse the
conviction while they were alive, but that ability has an expiration date.
Once they're dead, you have given them a life of suffering instead of death.
Even if you reverse the conviction during their life, you may have deprived
them of decades of free life. You can't give that back.

This issue is tricky. I can respect opinions on both sides. And I don't think
it helps to say "my opponents in this debate are arrogant."

~~~
za
My bad.

------
billybob
The term "execution victims" strongly implies that these executions were
wrongful (or that all executions are).

"Executed inmates" would have been a factual description.

~~~
pointyhat
All executions are murders as are war casualties.

The definition of murder was "manipulated" around the time of the second world
war to include the world "unlawful".

Find an old dictionary (circa 1930) and look up the definition of murder. It
mentions only a "premediated killing".

This is an unpopular opinion, especially with the "perpetual war" that we have
to endure, but if you kill another person regardless of the justification,
even if it's your job, or they wronged you, then you are a murderer. That
includes the people who perform the executions and all soldiers. Putting a
label on it or changing semantics doesn't make it ok.

(This was downvoted immediately obviously by a supporter of murderers)

~~~
JoachimSchipper
That is interesting, but "murder" has a clear definition in 2011, and I don't
think that using the 1930 definition in 2011 clarifies communication.

Of course, there are valid moral points to be made here, but if you want to
make those you should make an ethical argument, not just play semantic games.
(Please don't, it's way off topic on HN.)

~~~
pointyhat
I won't go further than to say that when semantics are change by politics, we
all lose. Legitimising murder in the name of war and justice is a slippery
slope.

"An-eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye ... ends in making everybody blind."
(Ghandi).

~~~
yummyfajitas
It's sometimes necessary to use violence in order to create disincentives for
it, and discourage others from engaging in it.

Ghandi is a good guy and all, but he isn't always right:

 _I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving
you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what
they want of the countries you call your possessions...If these gentlemen
choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you
free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be
slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them._ \- Ghandi, 1940

~~~
solutionyogi
As a side note, it's spelled Gandhi, not Ghandi.

------
091123
Man. I'm all teared up reading those, and I haven't even left for work yet.
Definitely bound to be a depressing day.

~~~
smoyer
Yes ... they're very powerful words knowing that the person that uttered them
chose them as the last thing they'd ever say. I'm also surprised at how many
of them mentioned that they could "feel it coming".

I don't think I'm going to get much done today either.

------
flomincucci
I'm the only one amused by the fact that out of 475 exections there are only 2
women?

------
nvictor
powerful.

it brings me tears to see people express their love to the same person, twice,
three times...

i just don't know...

