The problem with hurrying up the execution of the innocent is that -- duh! -- they're innocent.

Some anyway.

The actual reform that's needed is in standard of proof. Convictions based on jailhouse snitches and eyewitness testimony are worthless.

A requirement to convict by at least 2 of the 3 classes of evidence would catch just about as many deserving murderers and would about eliminate the false-positives that give retributive justice its deservedly bad name.

How does it help the innocent to suffer before we kill them?

If we're not executing 10-15000 people a year for violent crimes, we are simply wasting time and money.

Interesting to note the number of death penalty opponents who say "Well, they will suffer even more by having to live with what they have done, etc.

Basically a cute way of being "even more hard-core law 'n order" while in fact opposing the death penalty. Opportunistic much?

So waddya think they'll say if given convincing evidence that argument is in fact exactly the reality?

A conservative answer, Orrin.

We could always neglect to execute the innocent.

I understand that goes against the doctrine of antiprogress, but sometimes it's worth bending principle a bit to get a desirable result.

Harry,

Bad movies aside, the main impact of the DNA Project is that there are a lot of guilty people behind bars. My preference is to get it right and then execute the bastards. The appeals process is a total waste of time.

Harry:

We still execute them, just after torturing them.

No myth of those who oppose capitakl punishment is more inane than that the innocent will out.

In his debate with Scalia, Judge Bryer seemed to be scrambling to endorse the "run out the clock" strategy on the death penalty, in which continued appeals that keep a death row inmate alive can later be used to justify a new appeal on the grounds that the inmate has been awaiting execution for such a long time his sentence now qualifies as cruel and unusual punsihment.

Dean Smith used to use the clock-killing strategy for years at North Carolina, until the NCAA got fed up after a nationally televised game had a halftime score of 4-2. They put in a shot clock that sped up the process of actually taking a shot and made Dean's teams do something instead of just passing the ball around until time expired. Before the courts start deciding that the length of the appeals process justifies nullification of death penalty verdicts, they need to look at time-limiting the appeals process itself and pushing those opposed to executions to make a solid case in a set amount of time, as opposed to a series of frivolous appeals tossed around in the legal system.

We can't kill them because we have waited too long to kill them and that is damaging to individuals we are supposed to kill.

Sounds a little strange, but a true believer criminal defense attorney will say just about anything.

I favor neglecting to convict the innocent in the first place.

It might be done.

In fact, if you think it cannot be done, it becomes pretty hard to justify having courts period, doesn't it?

Harry:

Not at all. Juries put people away who they think should be away. But your position is the only conclusion available if capital punishment objections are rigorously applied--if you so fear punishing anyone who hasn't committed the crime for which they are charged then the imperfection of humans would forbid punishing anyone at all.

They are not supposed to decide based on what they think but on what evidence they've been presented.

I understand your position to be that religious elites have authority to kill anyone they think objectionable. It is one of your very few Christian orthodoxies.

Harry:

Supposed to be able doesn't enter into it--juries send away people who scare them. The notion that it's better the innocent suffer in prison for life than be executed is mere opinion.

That's perfect.

Scared without evidence. The summation of Christianity.

The creed that launched a thousand -- maybe 100,000 -- pograms.

Harry:

The trial presents the evidence.

Actually, not. The problem is that our law recognizes 3 classes of evidence, and allows convictions using any one of them.

There's pretty good evidence, though, that 2 (if not all 3) classes are not too reliable, which is how you end up with wrongful convictions. The percentage of wrongful convictions due to jury misconduct is pretty small.

Harry:

You're azware, aren't yopu, that juries aren't required to explain how they arrived at their decisions? They send away folk they don't like--evidence doesn't mean much.