Thanks for chiming in. I found your comment in our spam filter; I didn’t want you to think that anyone here at TLP was purposely blocking you.

What is your take on how Gov. Perry handled the Willingham case?

There have been 273 post-conviction DNA exonerations in United States history. These stories are becoming more familiar as more innocent people gain their freedom through postconviction testing. They are not proof, however, that our system is righting itself.

The common themes that run through these cases — from global problems like poverty and racial issues to criminal justice issues like eyewitness misidentification, invalid or improper forensic science, overzealous police and prosecutors and inept defense counsel — cannot be ignored and continue to plague our criminal justice system.

•Seventeen people had been sentenced to death before DNA proved their innocence and led to their release.

•The average sentence served by DNA exonerees has been 13 years.

•About 70 percent of those exonerated by DNA testing are members of minority groups.

•In almost 40 percent of DNA exoneration cases, the actual perpetrator has been identified by DNA testing.

•Exonerations have been won in 34 states and Washington, D.C.

I think Mr. Willingham suffered a loss of faith and everything else. It looks like he was innocent. An entire system screwed him especially the initial law enforcement involved and the prosecutor’s office. I don’t judge him for his harsh last words. I admire his defiance.

The death penalty is more humane than serving a long sentence in most of America’s prisons. That sounds sick but it’s true. The main flaw with the process is in the law enforcement investigation and prosecution phases.

As to life imprisonment as the proper punishment, I suggest that you and Stephen read George Bernard Shaw’s “The Crime of Imprisonment”. Shaw argues strongly in favor of the death penalty over lifelong imprisonment. I believe it to be a compelling argument. I also believe it to be an argument rather than a simple statement of preference. That does not mean that I agree with it totally.

I do dispute your “flood” of wrongful convictions and information being withheld from a jury “happening all the time”.

Are there mistaken convictions? Of course. It is not a perfect world. Bad things happen to good people. None of this is sufficient arguement that the death penalty is unacceptable.

As to the “practical” argument that it costs more to execute a convicted murderer than to imprison them for life, those are not the only two alternatives. The reason it now costs more to execute is that the appeals process is almost limitless. The other alternative is to strictly limit the appeals process.

As to helping to assure fewer wrongful convictions I would argue for expanding the defense’ opportunity for DNA testing. I can think of no other help in that area.

As a juror I would feel quite bad if a murder defendant was found not guilty and on release murdered an innocent person. I would also feel worse if the defendant were found guilty, sentenced to life, and murdered a guard in prison.

In short, the death penalty is not “wrong”. Convictions are flawed as is everything else in the world. The best solution might be to shorten the appeals process.

I don’t get your point. The death penalty is unacceptable because one innocent person wrongfully killed is one too many. The justice system is very unjust and I don’t trust it, both based on my experience with it and on cases I have followed. Also, not once did Stephen say HE didn’t think that there should be no jail time. Quite the opposite.

Car crashes- While unfortunate, that is called natural selection. What would be fit for someone that did commit murder is life in prison. Why should they get a peaceful way out after a nice meal of their choosing? There has been a flood of men that are being released from prison and death row because they were wrongfully convicted.

How would you feel if you were a juror that helped someone get the needle only to later find out information was withheld from the jury and that person had been innocent after all? Happens all the time.

Wouldn’t it be better to be safe than sorry? It’s also cheaper to be safe.

What would be an appropriate penalty for a person who did, in fact, take the life of an innocent other person?

Using your reasoning, why punish murderers at all? After all, we all die. The murderer is only shortening that person’s life. Why delay the inevitable?

My short answer for why I believe the death penalty is unacceptable is because I believe that if killing is morally wrong for an individual is also morally wrong for the government. If it’s wrong for me to kill it is also wrong for the judicial system to kill even someone who is guilty of the most heinous of crimes.

But even if I did believe that it was okay for the state to kill, I don’t think the state is competent enough to make certain that only the guilty are executed (or any human system for that matter because humans fail). When people in government make a mistake it’s rare that they will admit to it; more times than not when evidence shows them to be in error they double down instead. Others in government tend to “have their back.”

That’s the short answer. Read my death penalty archives if you are interested in more detail.

So, if the death penalty is off the table, what should the state do with someone who murders someone else? I say life in prison is appropriate in most cases.

If you want to make any progress towards opening the eyes of a death penalty proponent, you must combat that assumption head-on; you must spend your effort talking about those that are probably innocent yet never get exonerated.

I thought I did do that using Claude Jones and Cameron Todd Willingham as examples. How many more examples need to be produced?

What do you do with people like Phil (comment right after yours) who say “we all die” ?

What would be an appropriate penalty for a person who did, in fact, take the life of an innocent other person?

But to say the system is “fair” even when faced with these facts?

It’s easy… incredibly easy to conclude the system is fair if you start with the assumption that the system sufficiently self-corrects. With that assumption firmly in place, all of the cases you cited are evidence in favor of the system being fair.

If you want to make any progress towards opening the eyes of a death penalty proponent, you must combat that assumption head-on; you must spend your effort talking about those that are probably innocent yet never get exonerated. No other argument will amount to a hill of shit.

On this one point, it wasn’t my intention to beat Gov. Perry up but to point out that the Texas criminal justice system has been wrong at least five times since he has been governor where an individual’s life was held in the balance. In fairness to Gov. Perry, I haven’t studied each of the five cases and don’t know what role he played or didn’t play. I probably should also point out that he has signed some significant reforms including post conviction DNA testing (which may finally bring the Skinner case the proper resolution) and compensation for the wrongfully convicted (Gov. Perry reversed Anthony Graves injustice and thanks to his actions Graves gets compensation he otherwise wouldn’t). It’s also my understanding that in Texas, the governor’s ability to pardon or commute sentences is limited by the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles.

But to say the system is “fair” even when faced with these facts?

As you may recall, Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn came to a very different conclusion from his experiences with his state’s criminal justice system:

“I have concluded that our system of imposing the death penalty is inherently flawed.” said Quinn in a statement issued after the signing.

“Since our experience has shown that there is no way to design a perfect death penalty system, free from the numerous flaws that can lead to wrongful convictions or discriminatory treatment, I have concluded that the proper course of action is to abolish it.”

I think you are right about the difference between Gov. Perry on the one side who thinks the system sufficiently self corrects and us on the other who don’t believe it self-corrects enough.

The fact that five men who were once on death row who were exonerated on his watch doesn’t give Gov. Perry even a little pause? Five men who would have been executed had Gov. Perry had his way?

It’s a bit disingenuous to beat him up for the guys that were exonerated. Juries are bound to make mistakes, so the fact that those men were freed on appeal shows that the system is at least somewhat self-correcting.

The difference between you and Perry is that you don’t believe the system self-corrects well enough and he does. I’m with you, but we should be able to recognize his perspective isn’t completely crazy.