« US Sentencing Commission holds regional hearing in New York City this week | Main | Should we feel good or bad about feeling good about how bad Madoff got punished? »
July 5, 2009
"When Governments Kill: A conservative argues for abolishing the death penalty"
The title of this post is the heading for this notable commentary by renown conservative Richard Viguerie, which appears in the July 2009 issue of Sojourners Magazine. Here are snippets (with emphasis in the original):
The fact is, I don’t understand why more conservatives don’t oppose the death penalty. It is, after all, a system set up under laws established by politicians (too many of whom lack principles); enforced by prosecutors (many of whom want to become politicians — perhaps a character flaw? — and who prefer wins over justice); and adjudicated by judges (too many of whom administer personal preference rather than the law).
Conservatives have every reason to believe the death penalty system is no different from any politicized, costly, inefficient, bureaucratic, government-run operation, which we conservatives know are rife with injustice. But here the end result is the end of someone’s life. In other words, it’s a government system that kills people.
Those of us who oppose abortion believe that it is perhaps the greatest immorality to take an innocent life. While the death penalty is supposed to take the life of the guilty, we know that is not always the case. It should have shocked the consciences of conservatives when various government prosecutors withheld exculpatory, or opposed allowing DNA-tested, evidence in death row cases. To conservatives, that should be deemed as immoral as abortion.
The death penalty system is flawed and untrustworthy because human institutions always are. But even when guilt is certain, there are many downsides to the death penalty system. I’ve heard enough about the pain and suffering of families of victims caused by the long, drawn-out, and even intrusive legal process. Perhaps, then, it’s time for America to re-examine the death penalty system, whether it works, and whom it hurts.
July 5, 2009 at 06:22 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e2011571c33aff970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "When Governments Kill: A conservative argues for abolishing the death penalty":
Comments
"The death penalty system is flawed and untrustworthy because human institutions always are."
That is ALL the reason needed for a person of good conscience to petition the court to abolish capital punishment.
There is NO justice for anyone when we in the name of "Justice" have killed innocent people.
Posted by: Grateful | Jul 5, 2009 8:01:47 PM
From the article: "The fact is, I don’t understand why more conservatives don’t oppose the death penalty. It is, after all, a system set up under laws established by politicians (too many of whom lack principles); enforced by prosecutors (many of whom want to become politicians — perhaps a character flaw? — and who prefer wins over justice); and adjudicated by judges (too many of whom administer personal preference rather than the law)."
1. Every one of these arguments applies equally to imprisonment. Therefore we should also abolish it.
2. Mr. Viguerie neglects the most important actor in imposing the death penalty, to wit, the jury. Maybe he thinks they're all nascent politicians as well.
3. The "politicians" Mr. Viguerie condemns are often known by another name, to wit, the legislators we elect. Perhaps he has some better form of government in mind. King George certainly did.
4. If, however, he or anyone else would prefer to cut out the "politicians," fine. Let's have a direct referendum of the people. Any doubt about how that would turn out?
5. I am delighted to see liberals running to none other than Richard Viguerie for cover. I guess Karl Rove will be next. Times must be tough indeed.
6. If ideological cross-dressing is nonetheless to be in vogue, perhaps it should be noted that such liberals as Barbara Boxer and, yea verily, Barack Obama favor retaining the death penalty.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 5, 2009 8:30:16 PM
Without personal remarks about Viguerie, where is the conservative argument? I missed it in the ipse dixit. Government does nothing well, is that the argument? The pain of victim families caused by the appellate process?
Those are good arguments to exclude the lawyer from all the branches of government. I saw no substantive argument against the death penalty.
Viguerie also devalues black murder victims by this statement. Not surprising. He and StormFront endorsed the same candidate.
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=388565
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 5, 2009 10:16:07 PM
Reply to Richard A. Viguerie
Dudley Sharp,7/09
Subject: His errors within "When Governments Kill: A conservative argues for abolishing the death penalty"
Mr. Viguerie makes a very weak arguement for repeal of the death penalty.
1) Mr. Viguerie writes: "I’m a Catholic. Because of my Christian faith, and because I am a follower of Jesus Christ, I oppose the death penalty."
Sharp replies: There is no conflict with Catholic/Christian faith and support for the death penalty. There has been nearly 2000 years of biblical, theological, traditional and rational support for the death penalty within the Catholic Church. Even today, a Catholic in good standing can support the death penalty and an increase in executions, based upon their own prudential judgement. I would ask Mr. Viguerie to rview the requirements of his faith, re the death penalty.
see "Death Penalty Support: Modern Catholic Scholars"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-support-modern-catholic.html
2) Mr. Viguerie "I’m a conservative as well, and because my political philosophy recognizes that government is too often used by humans for the wrong ends, I find it quite logical to oppose capital punishment."
Sharp replies: Because some seek any goal for the wrong ends, doesn't mean that the death penalty is not sought, most often, for honorable ends , the just and appropriate sentence for the crime committed. As Mr. Viguerie does not have a case for an opposite finding, he gives little support for ending the death penalty.
3) Mr. Viguerie: "The fact is, I don’t understand why more conservatives don’t oppose the death penalty. It is, after all, a system set up under laws established by politicians (too many of whom lack principles); enforced by prosecutors (many of whom want to become politicians—perhaps a character flaw?—and who prefer wins over justice); and adjudicated by judges (too many of whom administer personal preference rather than the law)."
Sharp replies: Mr. Viguerie, the same arguments can be used against all legal sanctions. You provide nor argument or evidence that the death penalty is not, most often sought and given by honorable persons for honorable reasons. Furthermore, 80% of US citizens support the death penalty for true, capital, death penalty eligible murders. Again, Mr. Viguerie provides no foundation to oppose the death penalty.
4) Mr. Viguerie: "Conservatives have every reason to believe the death penalty system is no different from any politicized, costly, inefficient, bureaucratic, government-run operation, which we conservatives know are rife with injustice. But here the end result is the end of someone’s life. In other words, it’s a government system that kills people."
Sharp replies:
A) Costly/inefficient: Rebuttal. Virginia executes in 5-7 years. 65% of those sentenced to death have been executed. Only 15% of their death penalty cases are overturned. With the high costs of long term imprisonment, a true life sentence will be more expensive than such a death penalty protocol. Therefore, again, Mr. Viguerie does not provide a solid reason to oppose capital punishment. Improve the system in other states.
See: "Cost Savings: The Death Penalty" http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/05/07/cost-savings-the-death-penalty.aspx
B) Injustice: Rebuttal. Of all the government programs in the world, that put innocents at risk, is there one with a safer record and with greater protections than the US death penalty? Unlikely. Therefore, this may be the least likely government program to end, based upon Mr. Viguerie's reasoning.
See "The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
"Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html
Mr. Viguerie, a very weak case, indeed, for death penalty opposition.
Posted by: Dudley Sharp | Jul 5, 2009 10:40:47 PM
Yes, the jury, of course, why didn't I think of that! Appeals to the wisdom of lay jurors is usually the last refuge of prosecutors who want to avoid moral responsibility for their own charging decisions. But as any experienced trial lawyer knows, once you get to the point of having to make a closing argument, the game is usually over. And that remains true (to paraphrase Churchill's quip about democracy), even if the jury system is the best mechanism we have yet devised for resolving criminal cases. Put differently, this argument begs the policy question entirely.
Moreover, the claim that Viguerie's position implies the illegitimacy of incarceration is simply a non sequitur. We have lots of competing moral and policy goals, such as deterring the incidence of crime in order to maintain a tolerably stable social order, while also preserving robust individual liberty. This does not mean that we cannot tolerate any errors whatsoever, but that the more drastic the punishment, the more cautiously we should proceed. So, yes, we probably should rethink the costs and benefits of our current fetish for mass incarceration, particularly for non-violent crimes for which there is no identifiable victim. It does not follow that we should give up on the criminal justice system.
Posted by: anon | Jul 6, 2009 7:52:24 AM
Mr. Viguerie's views are consistent. Although he did not employe the Commandment it seems that 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is something that 'conservatives' can grasp or perhaps embrace. One of my friends attended a Catholic Church service on the Sunday following the recent execution of a convict by the people of the State of Missouri. This human being had been strapped on a board, with a room full of gawking witnesses, poison was injected into his body thus killing him. A doctor was in attendance to 'assist'. Some preacher was there to pray for his soul but I think he neglected to pray for the souls of the people of the State of Missouri in whose name this human being was killed. In the church service attended by my friend after this killling no mention was made of this killing. But the righteous were called upon to oppose pro lifers and indeed vote against the Democrats because they are pro choice.
If Mr. Viguerie is a 'conservative' on this issue of Capital Punishment (great euphemism for murder) then so am I.
Posted by: mpb | Jul 6, 2009 8:40:29 AM
anon --
"Yes, the jury, of course, why didn't I think of that!"
You're in a better position to answer that than I am.
"Appeals to the wisdom of lay jurors is usually the last refuge of prosecutors who want to avoid moral responsibility for their own charging decisions."
Appeals to the raw sympathy of lay jurors are usually the last (and not infrequently the only) refuge of defense counsel who could care less about the moral responsibility of trying to put a person they know or should know did it back on the street.
As for willingness to take responsibility, I notice that I sign my name here and you sign as "anon."
"[Your] argument begs the policy question entirely."
My argument rebuts Viguerie's claim that the DP is the work of putatively corrupt prosecutors, judges and "politicians" by pointing out that the DP is actually imposed by the jury, which Viguerie forgets to mention.
"Moreover, the claim that Viguerie's position implies the illegitimacy of incarceration is simply a non sequitur."
Baloney. Viguerie's position implies not only the illegitimacy of incarceration but of welfare, food stamps, AFDC, Head Start, the armed forces -- you name it. His position is that if the government does it, it's bound to be both hopelessly botched and probably corrupt as well, since it's all the work of unprincipled politicians and politician wannabees. (If you doubt that, re-read what he wrote).
At no point did I state or imply disagreement with the obvious point that the stakes are higher with the DP than with incarceration. But the stakes involved have nothing to do with the LOGIC of Viguerie's thinking, which is what I was analysing.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 6, 2009 8:45:05 AM
Viguerie appears to have mailed it in, and I hope he's actually smarter than this. There are plenty of strong arguments against the death penalty, but this one seems to have been written by an eighth grader. Unless you're shocked that there are conservatives in the world who oppose the death penalty (in which case you need to read and/or get out more), there's nothing to see here.
His first point is that the death penalty is inefficient and subject to political pressures, like other government operations. So what? He's not arguing for the abolition of government or for the privatization of the death penalty, so that point's basically a nonsequitur... but then he adds that the death penalty "is a government system that kills people." Again, so what? That's why it's called the death penalty. There are some people who are so dangerous and so morally depraved that they should die. The system that arrives at that judgment and carries it out is imperfect, but Viguerie doesn't explain what that's a reason for doing away with the death penalty.
His second point is the abortion analogy--i.e., abortion is wrong because it always takes innocent life; similarly, the death penalty is wrong because it sometimes takes innocent life. The possibility of executing the innocent is one of the primary arguments against the death penalty--the debate on this point seems to be over the moral/practical question of what a tolerable error rate should be (some people argue zero, which is understandable) and over the empirical question of what the current error rate actually is. Viguerie isn't interested in either of those questions, and has nothing to offer beyond the truism that it's wrong to execute the innocent.
After those two points he just rambles on. I don't think he has anything to say other than "I'm a conservative and I *oppose* the death penalty--isn't that shocking?" The answer is no.
But maybe the commentary is written for people who have never given any thought to the death penalty.
Posted by: anonymous | Jul 6, 2009 8:54:06 AM
His first point is that the death penalty is inefficient and subject to political pressures, like other government operations. So what? He's not arguing for the abolition of government or for the privatization of the death penalty, so that point's basically a nonsequitur...
He may not be arguing for the abolition of government, but many conservatives believe that government should do no more than what it absolutely has to. Since the government clearly doesn't have to execute anybody, it's a reasonable conservative position that it should not.
Posted by: Marc Shepherd | Jul 6, 2009 9:19:52 AM
Marc Shepherd --
The government also doesn't HAVE TO imprison anybody. Indeed, for most of human history, there were no such things as prisons.
In my view, opening the prison gates would be foolhardy in the extreme, and would result in a big upsurge in crime. But would the world come to an end? Nope.
Under your analysis, it would therefore be a "reasonable conservative position" that imprisonment should be abandoned. In fact, though, (1) no conservative I ever heard of takes that position, and (2) if he did, it would hardly be reasonable.
Viguerie's column strikes me as an example of evangelical libertariansim on steroids. For the most part, I thought anonymous had a pretty good take on it.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 6, 2009 9:36:44 AM
"At no point did I state or imply disagreement with the obvious point that the stakes are higher with the DP than with incarceration. But the stakes involved have nothing to do with the LOGIC of Viguerie's thinking, which is what I was analysing."
The point is that fallibility is acceptable in certain circumstances. Instead of your kindergarten responses (we should give you leeway because, after all, it is the DOJ that taught you how to analyze), explore in what circumstances are we prepeared to accept the possibility of an unwarranted death of another human being.
Posted by: Jay | Jul 6, 2009 10:09:15 AM
For those arguing in favor of the death penalty, I'd like to know what the death penalty accomplishes that life in prison without parole doesn't. Both permanently remove dangerous individuals from society. Both serve their purpose of punishment and deterrence. Except the death penalty is more expensive to maintain, and it leaves no opportunity to correct any potential mistakes made in the judicial process once the person has been executed. So I'd like to know, what does the death penalty accomplish that life without parole doesn't?
Posted by: Phil W | Jul 6, 2009 10:25:43 AM
Bill introduced incarceration into a DP thread so I guess it is OK to comment on the issue of reducing the number incarcerated.
NY and NJ have been able to reduce their prison populations by about 1% to 1.5% per year for about the past six to seven years without destabilizing their society. Former Governor Pataki of NY increased the length of incarceration for violent offenders (increased incapacitation) and reduced the length of incarceration of non-violent offenders and at the same time increased treatment and services for persons under the jurisdiction of community based correction (reduced recidivism). My take on this was this is that it is an example of fiscal conservatism because there was a large reduction in the cost of incarceration (in other words ideology had nothing to do with this decision).
I doubt that prison depopulation rates larger than 2% are sustainable because I do not think it is possible to suddenly increase the number of persons under supervision in the community without causing serious problems..
Posted by: John Neff | Jul 6, 2009 10:26:05 AM
The government also doesn't HAVE TO imprison anybody. Indeed, for most of human history, there were no such things as prisons.
I don’t know what version of history you have read, but there have been prisons or their functional equivalent for most of recorded history, except for places where death was the punishment for almost everything.
Richard Viguerie is a conservative, but he not a moron. He does realize that there needs to be a way to incapacitate those whose freedom would pose grave danger to innocent people. That is why imprisonment in the category of “things the government has to do,” whereas the death penalty is not.
Posted by: Marc Shepherd | Jul 6, 2009 10:27:04 AM
On Bills points:
1. Viguerie's gripe is with the politics and ambition that infect the justice system, not even-handed punishment of wrongdoing. Non-lethal punishment mistakes can be fixed; wrongful orchestrated killings cannot. Presumably politics and ambitions could be reined in.
2. Isn't it true that potential jurors in death-penalty cases typically are rejected for their opposition to the death penalty?
3. The "politicians" Mr. Viguerie condemns are mostly timid demagogues devoted only to clinging to office and the attendant fame and fortune. Leadership, principles and altruistic notions of service seldom apply. It's why "activist judges" should be celebrated. They're democracy's only hope.
4. Your point's well taken, Bill. We voters ultimately get what we deserve. Still, I don't think we should empower the cretins our simple-minded majorities sometimes elect to kill people.
5. Viguerie is a principled pro-lifer, not a pricipled conservative. Years ago as an editorial writer for one of the nation's more conservative newspapers I routinely defended choice on purely conservative grounds.
6. It's not ideological cross-dressing; it's political cowardice. As much as I admire Boxer, she and Obama live in fear of the rath the demagogues on the right who are ever eager to whip up loonies (receptive voters) at the drop of a hat.
Posted by: John K | Jul 6, 2009 11:08:04 AM
"what does the death penalty accomplish that life without parole doesn't?"
One word: vengeance
Posted by: DEJ | Jul 6, 2009 11:51:07 AM
Marc Shepherd --
I said, "The government also doesn't HAVE TO imprison anybody. Indeed, for most of human history, there were no such things as prisons."
You respond, "I don’t know what version of history you have read, but there have been prisons or their functional equivalent for most of recorded history, except for places where death was the punishment for almost everything."
I read the version in which human history was not thought to be co-extensive with recorded human history.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 6, 2009 12:15:30 PM
Marc
Kings did not waste money incarcerating commoners. There were jails for pretrial detainees, debtors, drunks and the mentally ill. The upper levels of the nobility might be incarcerated but banishment was a lower cost alternative. They also had fines and enforced public service as well as public humiliation, whippings, branding, transportation and sale as a slave as alternatives to execution.
Posted by: John Neff | Jul 6, 2009 12:19:27 PM
Jay --
"...fallibility is acceptable in certain circumstances. Instead of your kindergarten responses (we should give you leeway because, after all, it is the DOJ that taught you how to analyze), explore in what circumstances are we prepeared to accept the possibility of an unwarranted death of another human being."
Actually it wasn't so much DOJ. It was Stanford Law School.
As to exploring the circumstances in which society ought to be prepared to accept the possibility of an unwarranted death of an innocent human being, I did that earlier this morning, before the milk and cookies break. I guess you missed it while receiving your degree from Oxford. So here's what I said:
The possibility of executing an innocent person cannot be dismissed by anyone with a conscience, but proof that we have done that in, say, the last 40 years, is non-existent. See Scalia's concurring opinion in Kansas v. Marsh. Indeed, Barry Scheck of the Innocence Project has admitted as much.
Balanced against that is the proven fact that killers who should have been executed but were not have gone on to kill numerous innocent people. In that regard I commend to you the cases of Kenneth McDuff and Clarence Ray Allen. The latter is the more recent, and resulted in a unanimous Ninth Circuit panel affirming the (too late) death sentence of one of the most cold-blooded killers you'll ever hear of.
You can read the opinion (by Clinton-appointed Judge Kim Wardlaw) for yourself, but the basics are that, after getting LWOP for one witness murder, Allen orchestrated and managed the murders of three other people. Judge Wardlaw ended her opinion thusly:
"Evidence of Allen’s guilt is overwhelming. Given the nature of his crimes, sentencing him to another life term would achieve none of the traditional purposes underlying punishment. Allen continues to pose a threat to society, indeed to those very persons who testified against him in the Fran’s Market triple-murder trial here at issue, and has proven that he is beyond rehabilitation. He has shown himself more than capable of arranging murders from behind bars. If the death penalty is to serve any purpose, it is to prevent the very sort of murderous conduct for which Allen was convicted."
Accordingly, the actual evidence is that it is not the death penalty, but the failure to impose it, that has cost the lives of the innocent. ###
I guess the Ninth Circuit is part of kindergarten too. On the other hand, if a learned person like yourself has an analytical response to Judge Wardlaw's opinion, or to Justice Scalia's concurrence in Kansas v. Marsh, I'm sure we'll all be eager to see it.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 6, 2009 12:41:11 PM
Kings did not waste money incarcerating commoners. There were jails for pretrial detainees, debtors, drunks and the mentally ill. The upper levels of the nobility might be incarcerated but banishment was a lower cost alternative. They also had fines and enforced public service as well as public humiliation, whippings, branding, transportation and sale as a slave as alternatives to execution.
Banishment is the functional equivalent of incarceration: it gets the offender out of the way, which is its main purpose. Transportation and slavery accomplish much the same thing. Perhaps when low-cost travel to Mars becomes practical, banishment will once again become popular. I am sure Bill Otis will let us know when that happens.
Posted by: Marc Shepherd | Jul 6, 2009 1:10:00 PM
Gee, some conservative wants some attention and decides to make a big deal out of the death penalty.
Posted by: federalist | Jul 6, 2009 1:24:19 PM
John K --
I'll answer some of your points.
-- Jurors who categorically state that they could not impose the death penalty are excused for cause from service, just as a juror who said that judgment is for God, not human institutions, would have to be excused. If you refuse in advance to consider a punishment the law allows, you have no place on a jury. On the other hand, jurors who do no more than say that they have serious misgivings about the DP, but would not in all instances refuse to impose it, are allowed to serve.
-- In order to "kiil people," through the DP there has to a concurrence of the legislature (to have provided the death penalty), the executive (to have sought it), the judiciary (to have approved it in the particular case after the typically numerous challenges to it), and of course the jury, (which under Ring v. Arizona is alone empowered to impose it). The idea that all these people are moral cretins is a bit far-fetched, wouldn't you say?
-- It's sure news to me that Barbara Boxer lives in fear of right-wingers. Instead, she USES conservatives (Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, etc.) as drawing cards in her fundraising appeals.
With all respect, you might want to give some thought to the possibility that liberals -- politicians and ordinary people -- support the DP because they think it's right.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 6, 2009 1:35:09 PM
Marc Shepherd --
Actually, I don't know a lot about space travel, but, instead of the snide stuff you and Jay have been putting up here, I would be quite interested in your detailed, analytical rebuttal to Judge Wardlaw's opinion approving the death penalty in the Clarence Ray Allen case, and to Justice Scalia's concurring opinion in Kansas v. Marsh.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 6, 2009 1:43:39 PM
Once again, I will chime in with something I've said before--why is the death penalty that big of a deal? Someone murders someone else and is made to pay for that crime with his own life. Even if you oppose the death penalty, the lamentations over it are completely over the top.
Posted by: federalist | Jul 6, 2009 2:41:21 PM
federalist --
I think it turns out to be a big deal because it's sort of a litmus test about whether society has sufficient confidence in itself and its values to exact the ultimate punishment. To those who think the United States stinks -- as a cauldron of class injustice, racism, militarism, capitalist abuses, insufficient pre-school programs and what have you -- the idea that we could put anyone to death, no matter how appalling or sadistic his crime, is just anathema. Contrariwise, those who look on the United States as a basically fair, decent and benevolent place tend to think that we have earned the right to say "no" and actually mean it.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 6, 2009 4:07:16 PM
That's funny; I think the United States is a basically fair, decent, and benevolent place, but I don't think we have "earned" the right to put people to death, even for the most heinous crimes. And I know a great many people who think the same way.
Moreover, I reject the very premise of your comparison. I think -- and many reasonable, America-loving people think -- that a sentence of LWOP is our society saying "no" and actually meaning it. One need not support the death penalty to be "serious" and/or "tough" about crime.
And what exactly is the relationship between a society having "sufficient confidence in itself and its values" and the death penalty? Are you saying that if a society has confidence in its values, then it may execute people who do not agree with those values?
Posted by: CN | Jul 6, 2009 4:32:08 PM
bill, i agree that the DP is a test of our will/moral courage whatever u wanna call it--but the execution of a killer shouldnt be that big of a deal
Posted by: federalist | Jul 6, 2009 5:43:30 PM
So I'd like to know, what does the death penalty accomplish that life without parole doesn't?
1. Greater deterrence.
2. Certainty that the person will not escape or harm fellow inmates or prison guards.
3. Closure.
Posted by: anonymous | Jul 6, 2009 6:12:05 PM
Bill, let me assure you that the day you come across as being sound, I will be the first to sit on your lap and give yo a great big smack on the cheek.
"I think it turns out to be a big deal because it's sort of a litmus test about whether society has sufficient confidence in itself and its values to exact the ultimate punishment."
Come on now, Billy Boi. You can't trust our own eyes much less trust the eyes of "witnesses" claiming to have seen XYZ. Yet we ask jurors to trust eyewitness accounts KNOWING that research demonstrate that eyewitness evidence is THE number one reason for wrongful convictions.
Bill, come stand next to me and look at life from a different angle. I have faith that before you pass on, you will be enlightened by the truth. :-)
Posted by: Grateful | Jul 6, 2009 8:17:12 PM
Bill, do you have access to delete posts?
I left a post here stating how research confirms that eyewitness testimony is THE number one cause for wrongful conviction yet court personnel and jurors trust them.
Censorship of the truth...historical.
Posted by: Grateful | Jul 6, 2009 9:51:36 PM
You deleted it again. This time I'll print screen it to blog it elsewhere.
I get it. I should have left links to show that I know what I'm talking about. Is that it?
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/spring2003/conviction.html
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/causes-wrongful-convictions
http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/mistakenid.html
http://www.exonerate.org/facts/causes-of-wrongful-convictions/mistaken-eyewitness-identifications/
http://apublicdefender.com/tag/wrongful-convictions/
"a) Eyewitness Identification
The state’s attorneys are looking at the benefits and drawbacks of videotaping and sequential identification. A report will be coming out regarding the benefits of double-blind and sequential identification from the State of New Jersey:
• False identification is the number one reason why wrongful convictions occur.
• It is virtually impossible to implement double-blind interrogation in small police
departments.
• Is sequential better that simultaneous? The answer to the question is not conclusive, although it is still worth looking at.
Advisory Commission on Wrongful Convictions
Minutes
May 12, 2004
Attorney Conference Room
Supreme Court Building
The state’s attorneys are in the process of developing recommendations to improve eyewitness identification.
The commission members agreed that it would be very helpful to know how many wrongful convictions are the results of false eyewitness identification in Connecticut.
In addition, the commission members asked the educators if they can provide recommendations as to what mechanism could be used for state’s attorneys and public defenders to submit cases anonymously.
The commission discussed the use of DNA evidence and that approximately 30% of requests for DNA analysis are for exclusion purposes. There are many cases that are nolled before the defendant is convicted, when prosecutors realize that the eyewitness identification is inaccurate. If there are procedures that could
be implemented easily and cost efficiently that would reduce mistakes, they should be implemented, even if the number of instances where the mistakes occur is small.
It is more likely that wrongful convictions will be discovered with the advent of more DNA analysis. There may be an exoneration based on DNA review, at some point. If this occurs, how does the commission respond to the public’s call to make changes to prevent another wrongful conviction?"
http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb99/reno.html
http://www.thejusticeproject.org/blog/eyewitness-identifications-lead-to-wrongful-convictions/
Eyewitness Identifications Lead to Wrongful Convictions
By John F. Terzano
"In an ambitious investigative series last week, the Dallas Morning News chronicled the role of eyewitness errors in the alarming number of wrongful convictions exposed by DNA in Dallas County. All but one of the 19 DNA exonerations discovered so far in Dallas involved faulty eyewitness identifications according to the Morning News analysis.
The report cited a devastating lack of procedural safeguards as the main reason for the high number of false eyewitness identifications that repeatedly undermined justice."
Is this better?
Posted by: Grateful | Jul 6, 2009 10:01:12 PM
@aunt
Posted by: Grateful | Jul 6, 2009 10:06:18 PM
