Night Hawke
philosophy
insurrection
outside links
Einstein, Heisenberg, and Kippler
The best of us being unfit to die, what an
unexpressible absurdity to put the worst to death.
-- Nathaniel Hawthorne
What do you see?
You're the Eyewitness
Death Penalty
The problem with the death penalty is our justice
system has very little to do with justice and everything to do with rules
and precedents. The system is slanted toward returning the guilty an
'innocent' verdict. (which is for a reason and one that I support). This
is proof that it is a flawed system. IF it has this flaw -- then it will
also return guilty verdicts against the innocent -- even on appeal.
Convictions only require beyond 'reasonable' doubt evidence -- which is
not beyond 'all' doubt. There is no doubt in my mind that some criminals have perpetrated crimes
deserving of execution -- but we don't always know who those criminals
are. Resorting to killing for any reason is admission that we aren't smart
enough to think of a better solution.
But why waste human life?
Why not take mean murderers and rapists and put them to good use?
Thousands of innocent lab animals loose their life in testing that
wouldn't be as efficacous as if conducted on humans. We could use
convicts. Or -- how about this? Use the low down dirty rats to clean up hazardous
waste sites? At least that way we'd get our money's worth. Right?
Now, someone may want to point out that these notions constitute cruel and
inhuman punishment which is unconstitutional in America. To which I say --
balderdash. We do far worse things. (My tongue is in my cheek)
It's much more humane and civilized to tie a rope around someone's neck
and let them dangle from a gallows for all to see. What better way to get the point across to our children that killing is
wrong than by showing them executed convicts? Or of course there is the gas chamber -- a bullet -- letheal injection --
there must be fifty ways to kill a convict -- all resulting in death --
which -- is humane.
An eye for an eye right?
How about if we take those boys in Texas who dragged that man behind their
truck until he was beheaded -- and just do the same to them?
It's better to be guilty and rich in this country, than innocent and poor.
-- Stephen Bright
Southern Center for Human Rights, Atlanta
But wait..
Take a look at Clyde Charles:
He spent 18 years in a Louisiana prison convicted for a rape he didn't
commit when DNA testing finally released him. He was mistakenly
identified by an eyewitness. The eyewitness. A U.S. Dept. of Justice Study
shows though
"The most common cause of wrongful convictions in our judicial system
is mistaken identification." Yet -- our justice system thrives on eyewitness
identification of
perpetrators.
Perception, memory, suggestibility, cross-racial, and stress factors all
effect a witnesses ability to pick out a suspect in a line-up or in a
court room. These are easy ways (translate cheap) to lock people up -- which is what
law enforcement and legislatures are under pressure to do.
State and Federal legislators are eager to appear tough on crime and
are limiting the number of appeals
convicts may have and the time in which they may seek the reviews. But, consider this -- if the innocent are denied appeals cases remain
closed -- and the real perpetrators are still out there.. or.. er.. out
here.
Another serious problem with our judicial system is a lack of good,
experienced lawyers for lower income, often minority defendants. Stephen Bright, from the Southern Center for Human Rights in
Atlanta says, it's better to be guilty and rich in this country, than
innocent and poor. (Can you say O. J. Simpson?).
I don't debate whether some perpetrators deserve to die (Timothy McVeigh) -- but even if they
do -- must we kill them? Is that the best way to enforce law? What
purpose does it really serve? And -- given
the failings of our judicial system -- would you be willing to throw the
switch? Yank the cord? Pull the trigger? Push the button?
Consider this:
Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, 87 people on death row
have been set free because of newly discovered evidence. That’s one
innocent person for every seven who are executed. That's about the
same odds as Russian Roulette if you pull the trigger it's an innocent
man/woman.
Ready to play?
My question is: how many innocent people is it acceptable to execute?
(It should be noted that in modern times there is no documented case of an
innocent person being executed -- but -- for the most part cases are
pretty much closed after the switch is thrown and we really don't expect
prosecutors to come forward post mortem with new evidence for obvious reasons.)
poem of the month | home | gas tank | road rage center | poetry archive
waking venus | bidness as usual | fugitive muse gallery | favorite quotes
philosophy | cigar review | hawke bio | FAQ | contact | links
© 2001 Night Hawke all rights reserved
If you steal anything from here I will hunt you down and eat you!
--U.S. Dept. of Justice Study