A quick mini-rant about the death penalty, inspired by this recent article in The Age: Ross cleared of murder nearly 90 years ago.
Seems there was once a guy who was charged of committing a (pretty horrible) crime, the prosecution used some trumped up evidence in his trial, and he was sentenced to death...and then hanged for it.
Turns out - he was clearly innocent.
The Victorian Government has now taken the brave step of posthumously pardoning him, which removes the stain from his character, but, obviously, not the noose from his neck.
However unlikely such a turn of events may be these days (pause for sarcastic effect), this case highlights how final, but also how flawed, the death penalty can be.
Problem is, how do we know that the persons responsible for enforcing the law (e.g., the police, the prosecutor's office, even the judiciary) are doing their job correctly? Or even competently?
We don't.
I agree that the people who commit some crimes may be deserving of death. But in light of the fact that the community is rarely likely to be 100% certain of the guilt, or extent of the guilt, of any one person (quite apart from the fact that a Government should probably not be responsible for killing its own citizens), we should keep the death penalty off the table.
Anyway - that's what lynch mobs and vigilante justice are for.
Seems there was once a guy who was charged of committing a (pretty horrible) crime, the prosecution used some trumped up evidence in his trial, and he was sentenced to death...and then hanged for it.
Turns out - he was clearly innocent.
The Victorian Government has now taken the brave step of posthumously pardoning him, which removes the stain from his character, but, obviously, not the noose from his neck.
However unlikely such a turn of events may be these days (pause for sarcastic effect), this case highlights how final, but also how flawed, the death penalty can be.
Problem is, how do we know that the persons responsible for enforcing the law (e.g., the police, the prosecutor's office, even the judiciary) are doing their job correctly? Or even competently?
We don't.
I agree that the people who commit some crimes may be deserving of death. But in light of the fact that the community is rarely likely to be 100% certain of the guilt, or extent of the guilt, of any one person (quite apart from the fact that a Government should probably not be responsible for killing its own citizens), we should keep the death penalty off the table.
Anyway - that's what lynch mobs and vigilante justice are for.
Everyone knows the US loves a good death penalty, but even this news should give them pause: 'I want to be a martyr' - Three of five alleged plotters in September 11 attacks demand death sentence (at http://www.theage.com.au/world/
ReplyDeleteseptember-11-attack-plotter-khaled-
sheikh-mohammed-appears-in-guantanamo-
bay-us-military-hearing-
20080606-2mft.html).
Legal hearings or not, I bet those yanks are just itching to put these guys in the electric chair, but isn't that just giving them what they want? While they're at it, maybe they should blow up Mt Rushmore and the Golden Gate Bridge as well, and really show these terrorists a thing or two!
As an aside, I think it's important to find some humour amongst all the sadness - one of the accused dudes, Sheikh Mohammed, said "We've been (imprisoned) five years, and they torture (...) and they transferred us to Inquisition Land in Guantanamo," he added to explain his distrust of the military hearing."
"Inquisition Land"?
That's gold.