Well Todd Willingham comes to mind.
That said I’m not necessarily opposed to the death penalty. In principle I’m certainly for it.
My concern after ten years as a prosecutor and defense attorney is the danger of an innocent person being executed. For that matter I don’t care for the innocent being put in prison either.
If you are interested there is a very good documentary called “An Unreal Dream: The Michael Morton Story”.
He was imprisoned for over 24 years for the murder of his wife. The trouble was that the DA held back serious exculpatory evidence from the defense.
After years of help from the Innocence Project and obstruction by the DA he was exonerated by DNA evidence. The IP also solved the murder of his wife in the process.
So Mr. Morton lost his wife, his child (obviously reasons), and a huge chunk of his life because of a malicious prosecutor. Personally I can’t imagine going through such a thing.
Morton is a strong Christian and has a very good attitude despite all this.
He made a chilling remark the Texas Supreme Court (during a very unusual Court of Inquiry at the time of his official exoneration) about how he was glad it wasn’t a capital case.
Just some information for you in case you didn’t know.
The Willingham story is quite lengthy too, but he’s already dead so that story isn’t getting much attention.
I’d agree. I’m certainly for the death penalty, but I’d kind of like to see the standard for its imposition higher simply because there is no reversing it.
I’m not a lawyer and dont play one on TV, but I know the standard we have to convict is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. My thinking is that for the death penalty to be imposed, the standard should be “beyond a shadow of a doubt”, meaning video evidence, or conclusive DNA findings, confessions, etc.
So for people like Ted Bundy, the Night Stalker, The Boston Bomber, and their ilk, no question. But in a case where its sure looks like it, everything points to it, but its not 100% certain, life in prison.
So, you've got one “maybe.”
I see you have a balanced position in your post. I'm going to call out a series of questions as if to a more certain capital punishment opponent.
Is the administration of justice so flawed that we may not convict anyone because of those flaws? Of course not.
Is the deterrent value of justice so little that we may not have harsh penalties that fit harsh crimes? Of course not.
Is imprisonment without the possibility of parole that much more humane? This is open to debate.
Doesn't capital punishment permanently close off the possibility of eventual exoneration of the innocent? Certainly. And society has decided that's okay anyway.
Isn't it for society to weigh these things to determine whether or not it believes capital punishment is a properly available punishment and deterrent? Of course society may judge these things, unless, like 0bamacare and marriage, legislative authority is removed from the people and arrogated unto our masters in black robes.
And, isn't that judgment legislatable? Of course, that's why some states virtually require capital punishment and others definitely ban it.
Even a Conservative who abhors the fact that the occasional innocent may be put to death has to agree that society gets to decide.
My respect for the police and the judiciary is at such a nadir that I think mob justice would be roughly equivalent. Nearly arbitrary. I have no trust in the system at all. Nonetheless, insofar as we're to have our civilization for a few more moments, I'll take capital punishment with its warts. When capital punishment too is completely undermined by the uniparty juiciarchy police state, we may as well foment armed revolt.