I'd like to see executions for these kind of crimes. Not so much as a punishment or a deterrent, but to protect the public. Rabid dogs are destroyed not out of hatred or anger, to to punish or deter other rabid dogs, but to protect everyone else from injury and death. That said, I'd prefer the death penalty only be applied in those cases where there is no doubt as to guilt.
That said, I'd prefer the death penalty only be applied in those cases where there is no doubt as to guilt.
Alas, DNA evidence is showing that a lot of "there is no doubt" cases convicted the wrong person.
I rather wonder what would turn up if we were re-examining evidence in cases where the defendant had been executed the way we are examining it in cases where the defendant is still around to protest his innocence.
Of course, the DAs and the states & feds have good reason to *not* want this done.
Eventually, we are going to have to do something to break the exalted status of "eyewitness testimony" in the eyes of the public. DNA is showing all too clearly what psychologists have been saying for decades. It's barely reliable at the best of times.
I'm sure there is doubt in most cases. And frankly, I don't really trust law enforcement agencies to do whatever it takes to get a conviction. If a person comes to the attention of the police all to often the police stop looking for anything else but ways to convict their suspect regardless of contrary evidence. That said, there are some cases that there is little doubt. I'm reminded of (though I can't find on the net, was in 2000 or 2001 in South Carolina) a man who admitted to murdering his one year old child on its birthday as revenge for his wife flirting with another man before they were married. He said he was teaching her a lesson.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
Alas, DNA evidence is showing that a lot of "there is no doubt" cases convicted the wrong person.
I rather wonder what would turn up if we were re-examining evidence in cases where the defendant had been executed the way we are examining it in cases where the defendant is still around to protest his innocence.
Of course, the DAs and the states & feds have good reason to *not* want this done.
Eventually, we are going to have to do something to break the exalted status of "eyewitness testimony" in the eyes of the public. DNA is showing all too clearly what psychologists have been saying for decades. It's barely reliable at the best of times.
no subject