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.
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>
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."
So you'd prefer for us to lock an innocent person in jail until they die?
The death penalty forces us to acknowledge the decisions we make regarding the criminal justice system. We screw up, we kill innocent people. Each time a person is executed we are forced to acknowledge the possibility that maybe we screwed up.
By locking people in jail until they die, we get to pretend there is no problem. We take people's lives away on the theory that we might possibly detect our errors at some point in the next 60 years. In reality, we won't do this except on rare occasions.
Locking people up until they die makes us feel better because there is no single instant we are forced to acknowledge the possibility of an error. But it doesn't actually reduce the error rate.
It appears that sentenced to life are considerably more likely to be forgotten in some corner of a dungeon than people facing the death penalty. This fits my hypothesis - execution forces us to think about what we are doing, whereas life imprisonment allows us to pretend nothing is wrong.
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)
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.)
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).
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
1930 was not the first time murder and killing were made distinct, by a long shot. One ancient example is Mosaic law, which forbids murder, yet commands capital punishment for certain crimes (including murder). Actually, I'd bet that your point of view is a very modern one. Can you cite an ancient source for it?
There is a lot of unjustified killing in the world, I'll grant you that. But all killing is murder? I can't agree. If you see a suicide bomber about to blow himself up in a mall, and you kill him, saving everyone's lives there, I would not call that murder. I would call that heroism.
This was down-voted because you attempted to express your opinion as a fact. If you look at even older religious texts, you'll find that murder is not condoned while capital punishment and war are considered justified.
I think I lean towards your opinion ... capital punishment leaves me with a lot of questions, but I also think there are cases where it's clear-cut. I guess I'm thankful that I'm not the one dripping the poison into prisoner's veins.
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.
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.