The thing is, eyewitness testimony is not definite proof. There have been too many cases of witnesses recanting testimony years after sentencing for me to put my faith in that. Like I've said before, I believe the risk of executing an innocent person is too high to continue the practice of capital punishment.

__________________
"Some years ago I had a sobering realization about women, which was that there are just too many nice ones. One simply can't fall in love with, sleep with, or marry all the nice women...One of the saddening facts of life is that there is always going to be a delightful woman somewhere who, for whatever accident of timing or attraction, simply slips by and recedes to return only in a dream."
-Larry McMurtry in Roads

Please cite the actual numbers.

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

Out of curiosity, what makes it worth it (or "bearable") executing that innocent person? What is gained by killing 99 guilty people as opposed to imprisoning them for life? And by life, I do mean life, as in without parole.

Now, some have argued that if I'm in favor of giving a person life without parole, then what's the difference if we just execute that person. I'm not sure if the question was asked in jest, but I'll answer it again. Giving a person life without parole gives the unfortunate innocent the time to let the evidence emerge that clears them of the crime. Sometimes it takes years they wouldn't have had if they been executed.

I just think the injustice of the state executing an innocent person is so overwhelming that whatever is supposed to be gained by executing guilty people is far outweighed.

__________________
"Some years ago I had a sobering realization about women, which was that there are just too many nice ones. One simply can't fall in love with, sleep with, or marry all the nice women...One of the saddening facts of life is that there is always going to be a delightful woman somewhere who, for whatever accident of timing or attraction, simply slips by and recedes to return only in a dream."
-Larry McMurtry in Roads

Hmmm that's a very good question.

I guess for me, the difference would be that theoretically any Governor could pardon any of those 99 and let them go free back into society. Any executor has the right exhert his prvellage and authority as such if he is authorised to do so and our law does allow for that.

Sorry, the actual numbers of what? Witnesses that recant testimony? I could pull up a lot of cases of exoneration. I'll try to provide whatever info I can.

Of course, as some have argued, those cases of exoneration "prove that the system works."

However, it does nothing of the sort. It would only prove that the system works if every witness that lied recanted their testimony, if every case had definite DNA evidence, and if person that was actually guilty confessed to the crime. That is usually how the innocent are exonerated, but unfortunately, exoneration is dependent upon events that either unlikely or unavailable.

__________________
"Some years ago I had a sobering realization about women, which was that there are just too many nice ones. One simply can't fall in love with, sleep with, or marry all the nice women...One of the saddening facts of life is that there is always going to be a delightful woman somewhere who, for whatever accident of timing or attraction, simply slips by and recedes to return only in a dream."
-Larry McMurtry in Roads

Yeah, but unfortunately that puts the governor in the position to determine innocence and guilt. I don't the governors are supposed to be in that position, nor can they determine it anymore effectively that the judicial system. I'd imagine they do it less effectively actually. Somehow they are supposed to pick out the one person the judicial system got wrong out of one hundred. I don't think that's fair to the governor or the innocent.

__________________
"Some years ago I had a sobering realization about women, which was that there are just too many nice ones. One simply can't fall in love with, sleep with, or marry all the nice women...One of the saddening facts of life is that there is always going to be a delightful woman somewhere who, for whatever accident of timing or attraction, simply slips by and recedes to return only in a dream."
-Larry McMurtry in Roads

No, see Governors don't just have to do it for those reasons alone, they can do it for any reason. And not just them, the President too.

Take Medelin for example, everyone knew he was guilty but that didn't mean Bush couldn't pardon him did it?

Also the other thing is with the amount of time most DP inmates sit on death row they could well discover any plausable reason for a pardon i guess so leaving it as an indefinate life sentence just gives more time an eventual release....like say if a Governor is term tied and has nothing to lose after re-election or after the next guy has been elected and he's winding down.

Also to add to that the Justice department could overturn the ruling itself and i think the House of Representatives can be petitioned to if i'm not mistaken....and i say that as a strong supporter of the executive branch's right or the executor's right to have such super-ceeding authority.

I say it supporting the executor's right to make the call but if a new governor or President came in who is anti-DP it takes nothing for him to issue a pardon, to stop it would be near impossible, and there's no way to really speed up an execution. Its highly unlikely that someone would come in and pardon a ton of DR inmates based on philosophy as he could grant clemency but the possibility is there, which i think is good enough reason to favor execution based on your question specifically.

I'm not talking about cases with just one eyewitness, I'm talking about those with multiple eyewitnesses as in a mass shooting or bank robbery, etc. I wouldn't want to see anyone sentenced to death when there was a doubt about their guilt as in a case absent of DNA or several eyewitnesses.

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

So are you against the way the death penalty is currently implemented? There have been plenty of people executed with plenty of doubt surrounding their guilt. How do you propose we prevent those people from being executed if we execute the people you are suggesting? And for the record, I can pull an example of multiple witness recantations if I need to. More than one witness implicating a person doesn't prove guilt. I just don't see how a system of capital punishment can be carried out without taking a real risk of innocent people being killed. Furthermore, I don't see the benefit of capital punishment as opposed to life in prison when taking into account the known commodity that is human error.

__________________
"Some years ago I had a sobering realization about women, which was that there are just too many nice ones. One simply can't fall in love with, sleep with, or marry all the nice women...One of the saddening facts of life is that there is always going to be a delightful woman somewhere who, for whatever accident of timing or attraction, simply slips by and recedes to return only in a dream."
-Larry McMurtry in Roads

I understand that governors and presidents can pardon for any reason they want to, but that's really not the point I'm making. Former Governor George Ryan of Illinois commuted the death sentence of all death row inmates in Illinois and put a moratorium on the death penalty here. He did so because of the high number of death row inmates in Illinois being exonerated. His commutation of the death penalty didn't set those death row inmates free, but it did give the innocent ones a chance to be set free. That's all I'm arguing for here.

What I really want to know is what we gain by executing guilty people when we take into consideration the very real (and overwhelmingly probable) chance that we will execute innocent people as well. I just don't understand what we gain.

It seems that either the benefits of executing the guilty are larger than I can tell or I'm overstating the "cost" of executing the innocent. Which is it?

__________________
"Some years ago I had a sobering realization about women, which was that there are just too many nice ones. One simply can't fall in love with, sleep with, or marry all the nice women...One of the saddening facts of life is that there is always going to be a delightful woman somewhere who, for whatever accident of timing or attraction, simply slips by and recedes to return only in a dream."
-Larry McMurtry in Roads

Look at the case that is in the news now, OK, the SC just put it on hold, but this "cop killer" had ten witnesses against him, now 8 have recanted and said the police coerced them, and the other two? Well, one told the cops he didn't see anything on the night of the murder, then later testified he saw the defendant, and the other witness, would be the chief suspect if the convicted party didn't do it.
The death penalty gets applied in horrible crimes, which coincidentally are crimes where there is great pressure on law enforcement to convict somebody. Since DNA testing has freed so many convicted people, it's a pretty good guess that there are a lot of wrongful convictions, it's also a pretty good guess that DNA won't correct every wrongful conviction, so having the DP means executing innocent people, and a lot more than just one or two.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

Do you have a source for this?

Here's one: U.S. Supreme Court stays Georgia execution - CNN.com

Just type "Troy Anthony Davis" and "supreme court" into google if you want more.

__________________
"Some years ago I had a sobering realization about women, which was that there are just too many nice ones. One simply can't fall in love with, sleep with, or marry all the nice women...One of the saddening facts of life is that there is always going to be a delightful woman somewhere who, for whatever accident of timing or attraction, simply slips by and recedes to return only in a dream."
-Larry McMurtry in Roads

Wphelan, i saw your response yesterday but didn't click back in on the thread until now, sorry.

To your question:

What I really want to know is what we gain by executing guilty people when we take into consideration the very real (and overwhelmingly probable) chance that we will execute innocent people as well. I just don't understand what we gain.

It seems that either the benefits of executing the guilty are larger than I can tell or I'm overstating the "cost" of executing the innocent. Which is it?

My answer would be that in specificities, i would say that the ability of the executor (politician, not be-header) to grant clemency on the sentence is not my reason, my reason is his ability to comute the sentence. It is unlikely but like with your Governor it could happen anywhere, and a whole Gubernatorial race a couple of years hinged on the DP and its enforcement.