"And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God"
-- Micah 6:8

"The duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict."
-- American Bar Association Standard 3-1.2(c)

"There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."
--Pope Benedict XVI, June 2004

Monday, April 20, 2015

Lies,Damned Lies, etc.

You know they've lost the argument when they resort to these tired canards.

The Catholic Left often attaches itself to arguments against the death penalty that are developed by hard left secular groups, not pausing to examine the groups or their specious claims in their rush to find some, any, plausible arguments against the just, limited, proportional use of the death penalty.

So the latest:  1) some cops and prosecutors are biased or corrupt, possibly even criminally so. Therefore, the death penalty must be abolished because we can't risk that capital defendants might have been set up.

And, a related point, 2) The Death Penalty Information Center says that loads of people on death rows have been "exonerated" and since we can't risk wrongful convictions and death sentences, therefore the death penalty should be abolished.

But it is abundantly clear, that as an advocacy outfit, the DPIC routinely abuses  the term "exoneration," often listing criminals as "exonerated" when their convictions are overturned for legal errors, for ineffective assistance of defense attorney claims, or for evidentiary issues that do not truly exonerate a defendant but throw some doubt on his level of guilt.

Others have noted this disingenuous use of the terms "exoneration" and the difference between actual innocence and legal innocence (legal innocence being trial errors casting doubt on the sufficiency of the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, which is not the same thing as "the defendant was innocent").  In a very detailed paper, the Institute for the Advancement of Criminal Justice, expanding upon a masterful concurring opinion of Justice Scalia in Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163 (2006), has thoroughly debunked the reliability of the DPIC methodology. Those who have not read Scalia's opinion and the IACJ paper, have no standing to defend the DPIC numbers.

It can be said, clearly:  there is no proof that, since restoration of the death penalty in 1976, an actually innocent person has been executed.  Not one.  If there had been, we would know the person's name because the Left and their media allies would trumpet it constantly.  The error rate in death penalty cases, in the sense of an innocent person being executed, is therefore really zero.

As to the issue of police and prosecutor corruption, I have some extensive thoughts here.  The gist of my observations is that the system itself impliedly allows for the potential of a certain number of innocent people being convicted (by not demanding a standard of "absolute proof" or "proof to a metaphysical certitude"), so then it can be understood that the system is no way broken simply because some very small number of mistaken convictions occur.  We do not, and have never had, a system that adopts the old saying of Blackstone, "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" in the sense that we fashion our system to be absolutely infallible in assigning guilt. There is, in effect, a built-in error rate inherent in the process.  

Yet the error rate is probably somewhere around .025 percent precisely because we continually strive for a zero error rate through an adversarial trial, appellate review, and even "external" checks such as media reports of corrupt police.

And as my post just below this illustrates, in death penalty cases, there are even more stringent reviews in both state and federal courts, often lasting for years, and an executive clemency "backstop" to provide a failsafe if, after the years and years of appellate review, some issue of actual innocence arises.  And given modern developments in forensic science and DNA technology, error rates can be lowered even further.

In sum, no system devised and populated by humans is perfect, but ours, unlike that in any period of history (when the Church unequivocally endorsed capital punishment) is heavily weighted to reduce error to as close to zero as possible short of simply abolishing punishment for crimes.

No comments: