Let's stipulate that there's a 99% chance that people sentenced to death are guilty. I'm not saying that they are, but let's just pretend that this is the case for the sake of argument. If the death penalty is imposed in every one of these cases, you are guaranteed to kill at least one innocent person- guaranteed, w/no way to 'do overs' if you realize the mistake afterwards. Considering that not even the most cockeyed optimist is going to claim 99% accuracy in our justice system, we're admitting to a certainty of judicial murder of at least some entirely innocent people.

If we were perfect- that is, we could be 100% certain that every person sentenced to death was guilty of the crime + deserving of the ultimate penalty- then we could reasonably accept the death penalty. But, as wiser men than I have said, we are not angels; and angels wouldn't commit crimes in the first place.

That's far and away the biggest single problem w/the death penalty: it is, by nature, impossible to reverse. If you commute every death penalty to life w/o chance of parole, you accomplish two very helpful things. For one, you have the chance to reverse a mistake, hopefully before another person dies. And, for another, it has been amply demonstrated that life imprisonment is less expensive than the death penalty.

And I desperately hope that nobody raises the 'closure' or 'ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime' arguments. It's called the 'criminal justice system' for a reason: justice is intended to be dispassionate. If you want to apply the death penalty as some kind of judicial retribution, why not just change the name of the system to the 'criminal revenge system' and get it over with.

Tzedek, tzedek, tirdof,
-Z

Ben & Zorro...

I am currently in Europe fulfilling part of my annual military obligation as a Captain in the U.S. Army Reserves JAG Corps. To keep up with Philly I am checking in frequently here on YPP. I am glad that Ben posted the link regarding the ABA report concerning the application of the death penalty in Pennsylvania. If we are going to discuss true reform in our criminal justice system there can be no sacred cows.

When I return from my duty here I hope to read the report in its entirety. The three suggestions that I read on the link..preserving evidence for post-trial DNA testing, the use of videotape for defendant statements and modernization of line-up procedures all seem reasonable and much needed steps to ensure the integrity of the outcomes.

Ultimately we must decide if capital punishment is something that our society wishes to continue and if we do, then under which circumstances. If we conclude that the system is so inherently flawed or fundamentally unjust that it must be abolished, then the citizens must demand the legislature to act. I hope this is a topic that others would like to share their perpectives.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
— Margaret Mead

Seth

Before my quote, though, I would like to note that, if the goal of the death penalty is to reduce the rate of the most violent of crimes, it has to be considered an absolutely miserable failure.

On to the quote. This is an excerpt from Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun's dissent from the Supreme Court's decision denying review in a Texas death penalty case, Callins v. Collins, Feb. 22, 1994.

From this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death. For more than 20 years I have endeavored... to develop... rules that would lend more than the mere appearance of fairness to the death penalty endeavor... Rather than continue to coddle the court's delusion that the desired level of fairness has been achieved... I feel... obligated simply to concede that the death penalty experiment has failed. It is virtually self-evident to me now that no combination of procedural rules or substantive regulations ever can save the death penalty from its inherent constitutional deficiencies... Perhaps one day this court will develop procedural rules or verbal formulas that actually will provide consistency, fairness and reliability in a capital-sentencing scheme. I am not optimistic that such a day will come. I am more optimistic, though, that this court eventually will conclude that the effort to eliminate arbitrariness while preserving fairness 'in the infliction of [death] is so plainly doomed to failure that it and the death penalty must be abandoned altogether.' (Godfrey v. Georgia, 1980) I may not live to see that day, but I have faith that eventually it will arrive. The path the court has chosen lessen us all."

-Z