ext_23022 (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
johnny9fingers.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2011-03-30 05:26 pm
johnny9fingers.livejournal.com) wrote in talkpolitics2011-03-30 05:26 pm
Entry tags:
An old debate, but one that just keeps rearing its head.
This article caught my eye this merry morning.
The thing that made me take notice was these paragraphs, which I quote for the tl;dr brigade:
Correia brings up a significant but little-known fact about death-penalty law in the US – namely, that current court precedent allows the execution of innocent people. Remarkably, the supreme court, in a 1993 opinion, suggested that "actual innocence" is not a sufficient cause to be let free. The court only cares if the legal rules are followed, while acknowledging that innocent people could still be convicted and put to death.
In such cases, a prisoner could appeal for executive clemency. It seems the court has not yet learned what many states have: that the death penalty system is broken beyond repair.
Whether the final declarative sentence of the second paragraph is true or not is probably a matter for debate. However....
I'd like to ask the folk in favour of the death penalty a question: if the first paragraph is true should the death penalty laws be amended so that 'actual innocence' is reason enough for it not to be executed?
I know some folk will think this all very silly: if the courts convict, of course you're guilty. It's just in the UK we've seen a good few miscarriages of justice, and we happen to think we have the best justice system in the world. No doubt America views its justice system similarly.
The thing that made me take notice was these paragraphs, which I quote for the tl;dr brigade:
Correia brings up a significant but little-known fact about death-penalty law in the US – namely, that current court precedent allows the execution of innocent people. Remarkably, the supreme court, in a 1993 opinion, suggested that "actual innocence" is not a sufficient cause to be let free. The court only cares if the legal rules are followed, while acknowledging that innocent people could still be convicted and put to death.
In such cases, a prisoner could appeal for executive clemency. It seems the court has not yet learned what many states have: that the death penalty system is broken beyond repair.
Whether the final declarative sentence of the second paragraph is true or not is probably a matter for debate. However....
I'd like to ask the folk in favour of the death penalty a question: if the first paragraph is true should the death penalty laws be amended so that 'actual innocence' is reason enough for it not to be executed?
I know some folk will think this all very silly: if the courts convict, of course you're guilty. It's just in the UK we've seen a good few miscarriages of justice, and we happen to think we have the best justice system in the world. No doubt America views its justice system similarly.