I am split on the issue. When I am thinking about this in general (i.e. not tied to any particular case), I am against the death penalty but I must admit there are cases where in that particular case I would not be against it, but that is my emotional side speaking.
My issue with the death penalty are:
- to me it seems to be more about revenge than anything else. While this is understandable on a personal level, especially for those affected by the crime (and I would be no different), the justice system should be as free from vengeful emotion as possible.
- the death penalty is final, so in case an innocent person has been executed there is no way to make this right - and there have been (far too) many cases where innocent people were sentenced to death based on sloppy investigating, ulterior motives, giving wrong testimony, hiding / manipulation of evidence, people not doing their job properly...
- In many cases a death sentence is actually a double-punishment since convicts can sit in jail for 10+ years before the sentence is carried out.
So, from the above, if society feels that the death penalty should be allowed, then
- it needs to be ensured that all defendants have a proper legal representation
- there need to be certain requirements on proof (i.e. the smoking gun)
- it should be swift (no combination of a long prison term and an execution)
- it should also mean that anyone contributing to an innocent person being executed (i.e. because they were hiding, manipulating or ignoring exonerating evidence) should automatically receive the same sentence
Gunnar, I think your thoughts most closely resemble my own, with a few differences:
I agree that the state should not be a part of a victim's or victim's family revenge. While I can completely understand the desire to kill someone who has harmed a loved one, I still don't think the state should be a part of that revenge.
You correctly noted that many innocent people have been executed. Once that sentence is carried out, it can't be undone. In Jacksonville people have had many concerns with Angela Corey and her performance and tactics. However, she's an angel compared to some prosecutors who have falsified evidence and who have hidden evidence that would have exonerated defendants. Some of these people were only concerned with their own "win-loss record" and weren't interested in true justice. So they willingly participated in the execution of an innocent person while they left the true murderer out in the general population.
It's also pretty obvious that there's a justice system for rich people, and a different system for poor people. I can't remember who first said "if you're rich and guilty you get treated better than someone who is poor and innocent." (I just did a quick google search and Bryan Stevenson said it in a TED talk but I'm not sure if that was original or if he was paraphrasing someone else:
https://www.ted.com/talks/bryan_stevenson_we_need_to_talk_about_an_injustice/transcript?language=en).
To that point I agree with your assertion that all defendants should receive proper legal representation, but I'm not sure if that's realistic. (In which case, I think you and I might agree that abolishing the death penalty is reasonable).
I'm not convinced that the "smoking gun" requirement would work because there are still immoral prosecutors who can manipulate evidence.
As for the requirement that the execution should be swift, wouldn't that deprive the defendant of a fair and robust appeal process? I guess (assuming I'm a truly innocent defendant) I would rather deal with the mental anguish of spending 10 years on death row and eventually getting exonerated, than having a speedy execution that can't be undone.
I agree that people who are involved with wrongful convictions should be punished, but that is rare and I don't ever see that changing.
