Alyrium Denryle wrote:
How many executed prisoners have been proven innocent anyway? Numbers would make it much easier to tell whether it is worth it.
I know of at least one. There are probably thousands more when you consider that an independent review of Illinois death row inmates found that fully half of them were innocent.
Depending on what source you look at there is credible evidence to suggest that between 5-20 executions since 1970 have been done under questionable circumstances. This is not to say that these people were innocent, only to say that there were circumstances which raise the question of reasonable doubt. There are about five cases quoted as the obvious failures of the system.
A great number of wrongful convictions have been made over the USA's history but most of them have been overturned by the appeals process.
Because until recently, objective evidence like DNA was simply not available. The only way to overturn a conviction was to find an error in the law. Consider. The absolute worst evidence you can ever present is eye witness testimony. It does not provide accurate. However, it is the most persuasive to a jury, and many many people have been convicted on the basis of it. What do you think the likelihood is that someone convicted on the basis of eye-witness testimony is innocent? Is there an error in law there that can be used in an appeal? No. Oops!
Assuming that they're right and 8 out of 1235 executions since 1976 were questionable that puts the appeals process at about a 99.35% success rate. At a the 99.35% point it becomes more of an academic debate over if a system that kills one innocent man and a hundred cold blooded murders is a fair system and I can understand argument either way.
Problem with this. It is only possible to make that determination if there is DNA evidence available. For many crimes, there is not.
Even since the discovery of DNA vast majority of cases are tried without DNA evidence because outside of rape cases most cases of DNA evidence end up being circumstantial. Its useful for proving some things "my semen was not the semen in that woman" or "the bloody on my knife was not my blood," but the vast majority of cases brought before a jury without DNA evidence are done so because there is already an overwhelming amount of evidence from the DA can prove his case. The law and order/ CSI type shows give the impression that any conviction gotten without DNA evidence is somehow illegitimate but that's simply not true.
Even eyewitness testimony requires some sort of outside corroboration by a neutral party or by something impartial (bank records, forensic evidence, and so on) to support it specifically so the "he said she said" situation wont arise mid murder case. If a DA can prove that your fingerprints were on the firing pin of the murder weapon as well as the bullet casings, there is witnesses to the shooting who'd never met you before that night, and there are financial records proving that the victim stole 150 grand from you and was sleeping with your wife then DNA is simply a waste of time. If the defendant wants to appeal his case with DNA that's fine but for the vast majority of cases there is no DNA to even begin to test against nor is there a reason to look for it.
Take the example of the tragic case where a father in Texas was convicted and executed for the death of his children. Tragic by all accounts but what good would DNA do him? To prove that it was his own house he lived in? The later tests proved that there were circumstances in which the death of his three children
might have been accidental, which may or may not have gotten him an appeal and an exoneration. However in his case DNA would have achieved jack all squat.
Another of the eight cases that the Death Penalty Information Center seems to feel were questionable is that of William Felker who tried to use DNA to prove his innocence but was unable to achieve any conclusive evidence because the DNA samples taken were unable to eliminate him as a suspect. In fact the use of the specious DNA evidence at his appeal seems to have damaged his defense more than helped it. He protested his innocence till the end but honestly damn near
everyone convicted of a capitol crime does that.
"
- PeZook
