Aside from being on the U.S. death row, Elijah Page,Robert Comer, and Christopher Newton have something in common. They assisted their government in its efforts to kill them. They have given up their appeals and are "volunteering" for execution. Robert Comer is scheduled for execution in Arizona on 22 May 2007, Christopher Newton in Ohio on 23 May, and in the week of 9 July Elijah Page is due to become the first person to be put to death in South Dakota since 1947. In addition, on 4 May 2007, the Tennessee Attorney General requested an execution date for Daryl Holton, a former soldier with a history of depression, , who has effectively waived his appeals and has been found competent to do so.
Today, because of an increase of psychological issues, more and more people are asking and willingly lettin the government to execute them. A United States Supreme Court Justice of 1990 states, "When a capital defendant seeks to circumvent procedures necessary to ensure the propriety of his conviction and sentence, he does not ask the State to permit him to take his own life. Rather, he invites the State to violate two of the most basic norms of a civilized society -- that the State's penal authority be invoked only where necessary to serve the ends of justice, not the ends of a particular individual, and that punishment be imposed only where the State has adequate assurance that the punishment is justified."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Gary Gilmore is another case of a man who demanded execution. He was shot by a firing squad in Utah in 1977. Norman Mailer wrote a biographical piece about him called The Executioner's Song.
Perhaps it is the law enforcement mindset speaking here...
If someone commits a serious crime, such as pre-meditated murder (not speaking of self-defense, but outright murder) I think they should be tried right away and if convicted, their sentence should be carried out sooner than what it now the norm. The thing that makes this difficult is that there are sometimes mistakes made in the justice system. I am specifically speaking of someone that commits a crime, admits to it and then is convicted. Or if there is 100% evidence that shows they did it, such as many eye witnesses, video, certain scientific tests, etc. In this case I think someone that commits murder should be have their sentence carried out immediately upon sentencing. We are paying for them to lead a better life than some of the poorer people in the world. I firmly believe that if someone kills someone else (other than self-defense, in the line-of-duty, etc..) they are mentally broken. I dont think it is fair to risk the lives of other innocent people by trying to reform them and then releasing them to see if the behavior modification worked. Now this is a different case, the convicted parties are asking to have their execution dates moved up - I think that is an honorable thing to do and is in the best interest of everyone involved.
Given recent false convictions revealed by DNA evidence, and the impact of demographic background (age, sex, race, IQ, economic class) on conviction and sentencing, do eye-witnesses or even video constitute 100% evidence?
And confession, bizarrely enough, does not always mean someone is guilty, particularly (but not only) when confession is extorted. Given that the recent Patriot Act has been taken to mean that prisoners may be held indefinitely and tortured, at least according to the standards of the Red Cross,
Does immediate execution mean there should be no right to appeal? If so, how should errors during trials be addressed?
Good questions! While it is not a common thing, it does occasionally occur that a crime is witnessed first hand or the entire crime is caught in videotape - that is what I am referring to when I say "beyond doubt". You are correct, there are many people who have been wrongfully convicted, and to that I say that we cannot proceed with immediate executions. In my opinion, if someone does confess or there is hard factual evidence that proves beyond a doubt that someone killed someone else with malice and intent (other than self-defense) I think the appeals process should be taken away and the person executed. The appeals process is to ensure that a person is not wrongfully convicted - if there was a way to know exactly what happened and who did it the that would nto longer be an issue. I believe that the article was abotu inmates who request the appeals process be waived and that they be executed without delay - I admire that and think it only fitting.
I also know first hand about confessions and the person not always being guilty - you are 100% correct. Again, my opinion is based on knowing for a fact that this person did this crime not on circumstantial evidence. Even DNA evidence can be misleading and even tampered with.
Post a Comment