THE HILL
 

Is the death penalty defensible?

By John Feehery - 09/01/09 09:58 AM ET

I never agree with Bob Herbert, the New York Times columnist. But on this one, he may have a point. He wrote a column today about the plight of Cameron Todd Willingham, a Texan who was put to death for the crime of starting a fire in his own home, a fire that killed his three small children.

He was charged with murder, and refused to take a plea deal because he insisted that he was innocent. It turned out that he was right and the folks who had him executed him were wrong. Later evidence proved to exonerate him, but that exoneration did little good. He is still dead.


Without getting into all of the facts in this particular case, it is clear that we live with an imperfect justice system. The system makes mistakes. Wrong people are accused and convicted. Witnesses sometimes misremember the facts, and sometimes they lie for their own self-interest. Sometimes cops make mistakes, and sometimes prosecutors reach the wrong conclusions.

But the death penalty, when carried out, is always perfect. It always kills the target, and kills the target permanently. And once you kill the accused, you can’t really turn back the clock. If the system turns out to be wrong, as it does on occasion, saying you are sorry doesn’t do much good.

DNA testing has proven to be bad for the death penalty. Doing those tests after the accused has been killed, and finding out that the accused was actually innocent (which has happened on more than one occasion), has raised questions in my mind about why we have the death penalty in the first place.

Like many Americans, I used to be a strong proponent of the death penalty. In the 1970s, when crime was out of control, when our cities became shooting galleries, and when gang-bangers and drug bandits preyed on the innocent and the unarmed, the death penalty was seen as one tool to combat lawlessness.

But that tool has been applied all too often with a tint of unfairness. There is a perception, whether it is true or not, that blacks are more likely to get death than whites. And in too many cases, for my taste, innocent people have been put to death.

I understand why the death penalty is still popular in some parts of the country, especially where crime is still prevalent. I also understand and appreciate the desire to put some evil-doers to death, especially monsters like John Wayne Gacy and Jeffery Dahmer. And I get why the death penalty is a very good tool for law enforcement to compel convictions of suspects who will plead guilty to avoid the gas chamber.

But I am bothered by the examples of people who are put to death even though they are innocent, like the one mentioned by Bob Herbert today. We should rethink the death penalty in this country. If even one innocent person is wrongly put to death on behalf of the state, for me, that is enough to get rid of it.

 

Visit www.feeherytheory.com.

 

Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/crime/56927-is-the-death-penalty-defensible

Comments (8)

The idea that this would not hit small to medium investors is ridiculous. As person who makes a living day trading, I might make 5 to 10 trades a day. One tenth of one percent might not sound like much, but at $10k to $100k per trade at 10 trades (that is in and out so 20 trades), that could amount to $1000.00/day TAX on the small individual day trader.This would in essence destroy the day trader market. WAY TO GO and stand up for the Little Guy, Democrats. The hypocrisy in the Democratic party is beyond words.BY Stephen McConnell on 09/01/2009 at 12:54
While I don't necessarily have a problem with this tax, I can't say I like anything associated with the AFL/CIO. If you really want to sink this idea it should mention that the measure has the full backing of the ACLU.(I am not aware of the ACLU's stance on this subject, just saying)BY John on 09/01/2009 at 13:02
…What are you guys talking about?BY Anthony on 09/01/2009 at 19:08
If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.BY Robert Rosencrans on 09/01/2009 at 19:49
Is the death penalty defensible? Ask Mary Jo Kopchne.BY Reality Check on 09/01/2009 at 21:27
Yes, the number of innocent people on death row is frightening. In Illinois the governor placed a moratorium on the death penalty, due to DNA exonerations. In Oklahoma forensics tests were falsified to get convictions in three cases, two were executed before the wrong was uncovered. Many DNA absolved cases have found that the key witness was actually the perpetrator.A thinking person must ask "How can this happen?" When an innocent person is convicted and subsequently exonerated who is liable? The problem lies in lack of accountability for Judges and DA's. They have the ability to prosecute with impunity. The problem with convicting the innocent is the guilty is still a danger to society. It is not a scorecard of wins and losses, it is the safety of our society and the integrity of our justice system.BY Mary Putnam on 11/02/2009 at 21:46
I actually think that the death should still exist, even with the mistakes that occur. Dont get me wrong, it is horrible to kill someone that is completely innocent. However, how often does the death penalty occur?Not very often. I think that the death penalty should be for demented cereal killers/ murderers (criminals such as those) because they deserve balanced punishment for their crimes; but before anyone executes, there should be a long process of DNA testing and investigations to have solid proof that the person is the killer. If proof is shaky and not exact, no one should be punished with the death penalty; but instead, get life in prison.BY Drusilla O. on 01/12/2010 at 21:30
i believe that the death penalty is simply used as an excuse to use people as an example of what not to do and i truly think its wrong. if you are gonna kill someone have a good enough reason behind it. there are alot of innocent people put to death also, and that is something that once its done there is no turning back. the death penalty cost too much money anyways! life in prison i feel you will learn your lesson.BY latasia J. on 01/21/2010 at 23:04

Add Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Your Comments

You need Flash Player 8 (or higher) and JavaScript enabled to view this content

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.