Hanging was the worst use a man could be put to.
— Sir Henry Wotton, The Disparity Between Buckinham and Essex
There are always glimmerings of awakening, even in the most unexpected places. And one never can be sure which glimmering will flare into a beacon that illuminates a larger darkness. Hard to stay strong, but important to keep moving toward the glimmerings of awakening. Kudos to the Nebraska legislators who moved this, and to everyone inside the USA working against the death penalty and the prison-industrial complex everywhere.
I wish it were that simple and unambiguous. The sticking point here is who declared them innocent and on what grounds. There have been cases where the executed have been posthumously pardoned, or where key evidence was shown defective, or where testimony was dubious, or recanted, or where serious questions were raised about the fairness of the jury's interpretation of whether a killing constituted murder, but many supporters of the death penalty still confidently maintain that nobody has been "proved" innocent after execution.
These are some of the strongest cases, and even for these, capital punishment advocates consider them open to interpretation:
Shame on you. AND you are wrong. DNA evidence has in fact exonerated very real people--well over 100--who were otherwise held on death row for crimes they never committed.
The fine film "The Exonerated" charts the stories of several of these persons. Apprise yourself of the Truth and DARE to become enlightened. That is, if some Prison firm isn't paying you to troll here.
First, those people were not exonerated after they were executed, which doesn't even address the claim that nobody has been proved innocent after being executed. And second, DNA testing can only establish that a given collected sample did not come from a certain individual. That is not the same thing as proving innocence. If, for example, a man were to participate in a gang rape where he was the only one who wore a condom, a DNA test might exclude him as being one of the contributors, but that wouldn't establish his innocence.
You seem to be suggesting that because their INNOCENCE has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt then it likely they guilty.
That is NOT how the law works. You have not PROVED you have never committed any of the crimes listed that hardly suggests you likely to have committed any of them.
"It seems odd that a state as closely identified with its homegrown
religion as Utah would be so quick to insure it is not found wanting
when it comes time to rid itself of the unwanted. "
I beg to differ. Mormonism is not a religion, it is a cult that worships the god of money. As far as capitalism is concerned, they are all with the program. As far as capital punishment is concerned, I can never imagine my ever forgiving a Utah judge and member of the cult for presiding over the murder of Joe Hill. A "Mormon" and a "promoter of labor's just interests" are an oxymoron.
Also, if there must be capital punishment for the blood-thirsty masses, it can be achieved somewhat humanely. I have a friend who was confronted a few days ago with the need to euthanize her pet rabbit because of a terminal, painful condition. The vet first gave the animal a drug to put it to sleep, and then administered a drug that stopped its heart. If the vet can do it so painlessly, why can't the prison executioner troglodytes do it.
It's the nuke prison that we all live in that is paying him, SR. We are all sentenced to slow death by low-level radioisotope leaks....
Leave it to the biggest denier of the Cancer-making industry to champion "guilt by association".
Have you sir, never heard of the concept of "presumption of innocence"? If DNA is not there, we presume neither was the assailant. Hair falls out, skin flakes off, a wipe of the floor would show he was there, if the cops are competent. If not, the man should be set free, if only circumstantial evidence places him there. For all we know he was begging the others to stop.
The only exception is the nuke industry. We know they are always lying... We can presume them always guilty....
Government today is so dishonest. I don't trust them on any thing. I don't want the government killing anybody. God knows they kill thousands of innocent people around the world every day..... and then lie about it.
Enemy Combatants are everyone unfortunate to be standing in the "Kill Zone"? Huh, Mr. Obomb'em?
Actually, the way the law works, once you are convicted, it is the conviction which is presumed just until proven otherwise. In effect, the burden of proof reverses after conviction.
But more to the point, what I'm suggesting is that the claim that nobody has been proved innocent after being executed is not countered by showing that there should have been basis for reasonable doubt, or alternate interpretation of intent were possible, or by the issuance of pardons. And yes, in the minds of many capital punishment advocates, lack of proof of innocence means the executed may have been guilty, and from that it is just a small leap to concluding they probably were guilty, even if that wasn't proved beyond all reasonable doubt in court (which they often consider "rigged" by the rules in favor of the accused).
You are using one of the very arguments used by death penalty advocates. A DNA exoneration only means that the specific sample collected doesn't match. That still leaves open the possibility that a different sample might have proved the accused's guilt if the police had been competent in collecting it.
I regularly deal with supporters of capital punishment, and these people are true believers in the rightness of their position. (Something I have experience with on several fronts.) Like I said, I would love it if someone declaring an executed person innocent was all it took to convince these people that the executed actually was innocent, but it just doesn't work that way. They demand proof, and in a system where police, and prosecutors, and judges have a vested interest in not appearing fallible, and where the crucial evidence is held and controlled by the police, and is routinely destroyed after each execution, it looks like the State has so far succeeded in preventing the establishment of actual innocence after execution. (And when I point out the cases where innocence was established before execution, death penalty advocates say that only shows that the system works.)
This article should have included the state of Oklahoma because it just made the use of "Nitrogen-induced hypoxia" a legal form of execution!
If Nebraska Governor, Pete Ricketts does veto the life in prison bill, he should be held along with the judge, prosecutor and police legally responsible for the execution of any inmate who is later absolved of the crime they were supposed to have committed, for their personal dereliction of duty to find the truth! Not absolving police, prosecutors and judges from lackadaisical handling of capital cases is the one way to make sure that the state is not depriving a citizen of their life and/or liberty without just cause! That, or as the Nebraska legislature determined, just drop the death penalty altogether!