Friday, February 08, 2013
A very debatable point
Wesley Pruden has posted an essay on the Death Penalty and its abolition. He focuses on the number of incorrect convictions overturned by DNA evidence as supporting an abolition of the death penalty on practical grounds, namely the courts too often get it wrong. The issue hangs on two principles, 1) our general approach to justice is that it is better that the guilty go free than the innocent be punished (hence the presumption of innocence, less and less frequently honored by the press), and 2) There are some people for whom it would seem the only justice for their actions is to kill them in return--prime poster boys for this would Sadam Hussain and his sons.
It is important to ignore the utilitarian static in this debate--that the cost of a death penalty conviction is much higher than that of a life sentence. Principles are not up to the highest, or in this case the lowest, bidder.
One can make note that the most frequent mis-carriages of justice would seem to be the most emotionally charged cases. People jump on the first person they can seem to pin the crime on and then blind themselves to contrary evidence. This is not a desire for justice but for revenge.
The proper approach is to determine where the errors were in the wrongful convictions and find ways to strengthen the system to prevent them. Another approach is to make a system of penalties for wrongful convictions. Cops that got carried away and failed to properly investigate, DA's that failed to properly build their case and ignored evidence, judges that produced questionable readings of the law, all should be held accountable.
Of course this all depends on a country of people more interested in getting it right than making it look good or feel good. It also depends on an attention span of more than a couple of days.
I think that doing away with the death penalty all together is throwing the baby out with the bath water. It is certainly easier than doing it right and finding ways to keep the death penalty for crimes that deserve it, and better protecting the innocent.
It is important to ignore the utilitarian static in this debate--that the cost of a death penalty conviction is much higher than that of a life sentence. Principles are not up to the highest, or in this case the lowest, bidder.
One can make note that the most frequent mis-carriages of justice would seem to be the most emotionally charged cases. People jump on the first person they can seem to pin the crime on and then blind themselves to contrary evidence. This is not a desire for justice but for revenge.
The proper approach is to determine where the errors were in the wrongful convictions and find ways to strengthen the system to prevent them. Another approach is to make a system of penalties for wrongful convictions. Cops that got carried away and failed to properly investigate, DA's that failed to properly build their case and ignored evidence, judges that produced questionable readings of the law, all should be held accountable.
Of course this all depends on a country of people more interested in getting it right than making it look good or feel good. It also depends on an attention span of more than a couple of days.
I think that doing away with the death penalty all together is throwing the baby out with the bath water. It is certainly easier than doing it right and finding ways to keep the death penalty for crimes that deserve it, and better protecting the innocent.
// posted by Bill @ 9:47 AM 
