Thiel College-Comment Project No. 4
Hugo Bedau claims:
"The execution of the innocent believed guilty
is a miscarriage of justice that must be opposed whenever detected.
Most human activities like medicine, manufacturing,
automobile, and air traffic, sports, not to mention wars and revolutions, cause
the death of innocent bystanders. Nevertheless, advantages outweigh the
disadvantages, human activities including the penal system with all its
punishments are morally justified."
Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Provide a detailed explanation of your position.
Posts
8 comments:
Student 8:
While the statement has some truth to it, I have to disagree. It is not right to take the life of an innocent man. If definitive evidence does not exist proving that the accused is guilty, then execution should not be an option available. I understand Bedau's ideology because there will always be room for human error. Innocent people die every day from all the causes Bedau mentioned. However, these causes of death are not intentional: an execution is intentional and the date is determinable. If there is a significant number of innocent men being executed, then the process should be reevaluated. The entire process of a capital punishment trial could be adjusted to incorporate the use of definitive evidence to determine capital punishment as appropriate during the sentencing phase. An individual could be found guilty for murder in the first degree with existing aggravating circumstances during the guilt phase, but be spared life in the sentencing phase. The jury should determine whether the defendant is 100% guilty. If there is substantial or any amount of doubt, life without the possibility of parole would be more appropriate in order to avoid the execution of an innocent party. Therefore, I disagree with Bedau's claim. Execution of an innocent man is not morally justified even if it was caused by human error. Innocent people should not be considered collateral damage in this case.
#3
I agree partially with this statement, but I disagree as well. I feel that there is no judgement free from flaw, human judgement is suceptible to prejudice and appeals to emotion, while as technological judgement is suceptible to flaws within coding, and lack or emotional appeal. I think that our criminal justice system is flawed with human error that make certain races, and genders more likely to be targeted, and when the ultimate punishment is death? Well the moral question continues- are we okay with a system that is more likely to kill certain groups over others? I would like to make note of a recent news story i've read in regards to individuals being released that were proven innocent ; http://ktla.com/2017/03/15/man-wrongfully-convicted-of-murder-is-released-after-32-years-in-prison-following-l-a-county-judges-ruling/
While as this instance isn't directly releated to the death penalty it is related to the flaws within the system. So this raises a different moral question- are we okay with a flawed system that has been proven even in current times to target one race or gender more than another? Ultimately with considerations to the evolving standards of decency we should ask is this still something that should be considered? Times are changing and so too our are beliefs.
Student No. 7
I disagree with what Hugo Bedau has to say but I do believe there lies a truth to it. To take an innocent person's life is not right. There has to be substantial evidence for a person to receive the death penalty. If an innocent person was put to death, no one would ever know because they are no longer alive to prove that they are innocent. It is like the movie The Green Mile which is about a man, John Coffey, being put to death by the electric chair for rape and murder that he did not commit. To say that human error in medicine, manufacturing, automobile, etc is the same reason to justify to the death penalty is absurd. Those things listed by Bedau are caused by an accident where the death penalty is done intentionally. Those who receive the death penalty commit first degree whereas medicine is used to try and help someone. If the treatment does not work they improve the medicine so no one else dies. It is and should be the same way as the death penalty with trial and error. There is too much error to take away a person's life for not committing the crime for the death penalty. I see no justifiable reason to why it is morally right to see an innocent person die. There is human error seen every day and that will never go away but I do not see an innocent life as advantages outweighing the disadvantages.
Student 4
A system of law and justice should never accept that innocent people could die. It is the responsibility of that system to ensure that the chances of innocent death are reduced to near non existance. We as a society should never take human life for granted.
I agree somewhat because making a mistake when it comes to someones life is something that should not be played with. Especially the life of an innocent person which can not only effect the loved ones around the person but the judicial system that convicted said person. Executing someone cannot be an accident it has to be 100% accurate cause if not an innocent person has died at the hands of the real culprit who is still free.
Student #1
I agree somewhat because making a mistake when it comes to someones life is something that should not be played with. Especially the life of an innocent person which can not only effect the loved ones around the person but the judicial system that convicted said person. Executing someone cannot be an accident it has to be 100% accurate cause if not an innocent person has died at the hands of the real culprit who is still free
Student #12
I agree with this statement. When a person is on death row for doing a crime that they did then yes they should be executed. With the technology to make sure there is evidence putting that person in the room or where of the crime and proving it is one thing. If someone innocent and truly innocent then did the jury just make a crime of killing someone as well. The jury and the judge can not make a mistake but yet they will because of human error. If the mistake of killing the wrong person happened then that is tragic but does that happen often no. I agree that killing someone that is proven guilty for their crime is ok but making a mistake not so much.
END
Post a Comment