 |
| "The Execution" by Carel Willink (1933)This artwork may be protected by copyright. It is posted on the site in accordance with fair use principles. Why? |
John Grisham's 2006 nonfiction book, The Innocent Man: Murder and Injustice in a Small Town, offers an account of a man from Ada who was put on death row for a murder he did not commit, also, in part, because of unreliable testimony of witnesses who claimed to have seen something they didn't in fact see.
Some might say that the unreliability of eyewitness testimony as described by Mlodinow in this chapter (and dramatized by Grisham, Hitchcock, Anderson, and Brean) is a reason that the death penalty should be abolished. Do you agree? Why or why not? Can you think of any other ways that the justice system might be reformed in a way that takes account of this new knowledge about the unreliability of eyewitness testimony?
If I began to run through all the things that are wrong with our current legal system, it would take forever. There are, however, a few examples I can give off top about how to improve it.
ReplyDeleteLet's start with jurors. The "jury of your peers" has got to go, the whole thing is rotten. Ordinary people, generally, don't know how to evaluate evidence. Instead of picking people off the street, so to speak, there should be an entire profession dedicated to the activity; at the very least, jurors should only be people who can pass a test on evidence evaluation.
Secondly, I think the profession of law needs to be revised in some ways. It seems to me that the courts aren't exactly about truth; you have two sides who argue against each other and somehow the truth emerges out of the arguments.
Lastly, there are many cases where evidence is witheld from the courts. One example when this would happen is if the evidence was acquired illegally. I say, how cares?! This is a slap in the face to true justice, that of which we pride our nation on.
To show you how scary misguided our courts can be, take this to mind. Dr. Neil Tyson, a famous astrophysicist and science communicator, has told stories in which potential jurors (including him) were asked whether they could convict someone based solely on eyewitness testimony. When he, rightfully so, said "No." he was asked to leave. I fear that this will never change, simply because prisons have been made into private businesses; people make billions a year from these atrocities.
Should these misfortunes be cause to abolish the death penalty? I'm not so sure, at least not for good. Until we can correct our wrongdoings, I think we should put a hold on the death penalty. Wouldn't this cause further over crowding you might ask? Surely it would, and I propose that there are some crimes that should be directly cause for death.
I’m sure there are hundreds if not thousands of people who have been wrongly prosecuted in the United States because of an eyewitness testimony. In the case of the rape of Jennifer Thompson, she saw the photo of Ronald Cotton and immediately replaced the face in her memory with that of Cotton and not the real rapist. Every time she accused him of being her rapist it reinforced the image of his face in her mind and memory.
ReplyDeleteAs for the death penalty, I still think we should have it or crimes would become more rampant than they already are. In my hometown of Purcell there was a murder a few years ago where a man premeditated the murder of a ten-year-old girl. He proceeded to kill her and tried to eat her. People like that who are just innately evil do not need to be in prison for life with the possibility of escape. The citizens of the U.S. would be a lot safer if we keep the death penalty in place. We need a better way, though, to decide what makes someone guilty than just relying on eyewitness testimonies. I know in my own life, my friends and I will be talking about something that happened in Junior High, and we can remember the same thing completely different. If people can not remember major events that happen in their own life very well what makes the Justice System think they can remember accurately something that happens when their adrenaline is pumping and most likely are panicking? One thing that could definitely work is the court using DNA testing whenever it is applicable. I believe that will save many people from getting punished for a crime they didn’t commit.
I have to disagree with Chase’s view on evidence being withheld from court because it was obtained illegally. This law protects many Americans from wrong-doing by police and the government. Without this, the government or law enforcement could invade your right to privacy whenever they wanted; I think many Americans take pride in their country on its right to privacy.
I would disagree that the death penalty should be abolished. I could maybe see implementing a rule that doesn't allow the death penalty for people convicted primarily based on eyewitness testimony. Even though I'm not sure if the death penalty is a real deterrent for people not to commit such violent crimes (I don't think people think about doing bad stuff and then stop because of fear of the death penalty), there are enough reasons to keep it around. There are some criminals that just don't deserve to live after committing certain violent acts (perpetrators of mass shootings, terrorist acts, etc.).
ReplyDeleteBased on Mlodinow's description of the issues with eyewitness testimony, I think all such evidence should be taken with a "grain of salt." It can be used as evidence against someone, but not as the key factor in a conviction.
Matthew Parham
One thing I cannot understand is the death penalty. If someone has made a mistake huge enough that they deserve to die, why kill them? Lock them up in a cell and let them wither. Killing a person, regardless of why it is done, is murder. The only reason anyone should kill someone is if they are being attacked and they have to in order to save their life. If some serial killer came to one’s house and tried to kill one’s family, why would one just kill them? Why not send them to solitary confinement in prison for the rest of their life? Death would end them, but keeping them alive would eventually force them to consider what they did and regret it until the end of their days. I understand wanting revenge, but death is not the best revenge. In death, one cannot suffer and pay for their sins. The person who was sentenced to death would have only a short time to worry and fret about what would happen, and the person might even accept that they will die for his or her choices.
ReplyDeleteOne way to make them pay is to make them think they have the death penalty, and then just keep them locked up. This means that they can be terrified that each day is their last! It may not seem like a bad punishment, unless you think about it. Imagine if you woke up today and had no doubt in your mind that you would die today. The anxiety, the sweating, the nervous tapping of your foot as you wait and wait all day, hoping, praying that some miracle will happen and save you for just one more day. Now imagine feeling like that every day of your life. Sure, eventually you might just ignore your fear, but you would still be in prison until you die. It would be the best revenge. I have heard it said that sometimes, the moment leading up to the kiss is better than the kiss itself. How glorious would it feel to know that the person who raped you is suffering for the rest of his or her life the way he or she made you suffer when they took advantage of you?
Besides being ethically wrong, what if someone was sentenced to death and killed, then evidence was found that the person killed was innocent? That has happened countless times. This means that innocent people have been killed because we thought “for sure” they were guilty. If the death penalty is taken away, people who are wrongly sentenced can be free if new evidence is found. If a person is sentenced and is truly guilty, they will be forced to spend the rest of their days with no freedom. What if you went to trial to against someone who killed your parents, they were tried and killed, and then found out to be innocent? Would you feel guilty for having someone wrongly killed? Not if there was no death penalty. The person could be released and free to live his or her life.
Kyle Hetzel
I can definitely see where you are coming from on this point of view. The death penalty is in a way murder. But that has been the age old way of being sure you get rid of the "bad guy" throughout history. I don't think something as fundamental to most if not all cultures could be completely wrong. Regarding the anticipation of death, it would indeed be overwhelming, and would it not, in that case, overwhelm the person's mind all the time? Then there would be no time to contemplate the wrongdoing that occurred to get them there. And honestly, instead of these luxury cells with zero pests and a steady supply of essential items (unlike the lives every free citizen is guaranteed) I believe work camps could be a possible avenue. Why should every other person in this world work for their living, but the second they commit a wrong be "sentenced" to life without work, be provided food, shelter, medical attention, and counseling? They should instead work to being a help to society by working on things for the state to benefit the very people they hurt.
DeleteDiffering from a few of my classmates posts, I, personally, am very much in favor of the death penalty. Even after having had a family member go to prison, whom is still on death row, I am still very pro-death penalty. I believe that if you rape, molest, or murder another human being, that you have earned yourself the right to be put to death for your actions. While being for the death penalty, however, I do not believe in putting a criminal on death row and allowing them to waste tax payer’s money for thirty plus years, just waiting to die. Personally, I would give each person sentenced to death a maximum of five years or three appeals, whichever comes first, thus shortening the time spent in prison and the wasting of the tax money spent on housing and feeding inmates.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I agree with the statement that jurors and eyewitnesses are not very accurate or trustworthy. Most jurors are easily manipulated or biased to begin with, however not all are easily fooled as others. I believe that the jury should be done away with, due to the fact that juries are unpredictable, and also very unreliable.
Continuing on, I think that the judicial system is flawed in the fact that courts throw out evidence found illegally. I believe that a lawyer or anyone looking for evidence should be allowed to go to any means necessary, save criminal acts, to prove a person innocent or guilty. I believe that to find the real truth behind any case, one must do what they need to do in order to prove ones innocence or guilt.
Hunter White
I agree with parts of each comment but not any as a whole. I agree with Chase that there should be an evidence evaluation test that jurors should be required to pass, but i disagree with his view on illegally obtained evidence. This brings me to what i agree with Erin on. I believe that in order to protect the rights of the people we cannot allow any officials to do whatever it takes to put away the bad guy. That would allow more power to the police and government than is rightfully theirs. I agree with the death penalty. Criminals are aware of the consequences of their actions and if they choose to take their chances and carry out those actions then they should be held accountable. Another reason i agree with the death penalty was mentioned by Hunter. Taxes are used from the innocent to accommodate the prisoners. The expense would be worse if we completely did away with the death penalty. I do completely disagree with eyewitness cases. If there is not tangible or professionally supported evidence then there should not be any reason to put anyone away. With so many instances in which eyewitnesses have been wrong or unreliable, there should not be any reason to keep using that “evidence” to lock anyone up.
ReplyDelete^ that was Maecey McClain
ReplyDeleteNo. I have personal reasons for believing that the death penalty should never be abolished and in fact should be enforced with a greater vigor than it is. While it is certainly true that innocent people have been executed in the place of the guilty throughout history, those executed have not all been innocent. Like anything made by man, the system of justice we have now in this nation and time is flawed and entirely capable of making mistakes. No we don’t always “nab the bad guy”. And unlike in the movie The Fugitive the innocent doesn’t always get a chance to prove their innocence and end up dying in the criminal’s place. These “margins of error” do happen. We cannot allow some mistakes to derail what system of justice we do have. The penalty of death is the greatest degree of punishment one person can enact on another. It is also a fear of death that keeps many people from doing questionable things that they would otherwise not think twice about. While it is no doubt unfortunate that poor evidence or witnesses have put innocent people to death, as cold as it sounds, these casualties must be accepted and under no circumstances be allowed to dismantle an instrument of justice.
ReplyDeleteTell Jordan
If the system to which the government uses can have more sound reasoning for someone to be convicted of the accused murder, then I think there are times when something someone has done cannot be let go. If people relied more on DNA testing and not just testimonies then I think a lot of the mistakes committed would be eliminated. I do not think it is okay at all for someone to have been wrongly accused of a crime. On the other hand some people do not deserve to live in society for actions they chose to commit and act through. It is difficult to decide someone’s fate by pure outside judgment and we do not ever really know what is like to have someone be put on death row or to experience the outcomes of someone’s crime they committed until it actually happens.
ReplyDelete-Ashley Huhman
I agree with a lot of comments made on this post, Tell, Ashley, Matthew, and others. Our system is flawed because man created it. Just as those eyewitness testimonies have been wrong and have put people to life sentences or death, others in the system have been wrong as well. Mlodinow stated in the book, that throughout time judges have disallowed talking about the problems with witness testimony on the basis that it is to difficult to understand or to simplistic. We cannot blame an entire system of flaws on a few injustices from witnesses. I believe the death penalty should be in place for certain circumstances, however just as Matthew said, it should not be given only on witness testimony since there is proof of mistake.
ReplyDelete