Let me stray aside from my previous
blogs and say that I do support the death penalty. As Shelly York
mentions in her blog, the problem with our capital punishment system
is that the appeals process can be very expensive and time consuming.
There has been a lot of talk mostly in other states about ending the
death penalty all together. Proponents argue that the costs of
keeping our capital punishment system outweighs the benefits. The
appeals process is the reason why it costs considerably more to
execute a criminal than house them for life. The current appeals
process was created a long time before advanced technologies have
come to light. Requiring DNA testing before a death penalty trial
begins is a step in the right direction towards improving an archaic
system. It would cut through a lot of bureaucratic red tape and speed
up the process while reducing costs.
Like Shelly I feel a very strong sense
of righteousness when it comes to punishing hardened killers and
rapists. Why should a criminal who is undeniably guilty beyond all
reasonable doubt be allowed to compete for the same resources needed
by those who have been convicted on less than concrete circumstances?
When I say undeniable, I mean having been captured committing the
crime on video or linked through DNA. I leave out confessions because
of the Tulia incident which comes to mind. To quote William
Blackstone, it is "better that ten guilty persons escape than
that one innocent suffer." In this respect I agree
wholeheartedly, but we are living in a different era. We have access
to technology that goes beyond eye witness accounts or confessions.
However, in circumstances involving less than concrete empirical
evidence, those who are and tried and convicted should have full
access to the appeals process without having to compete with
criminals who are absolutely guilty.
There has been much discussion over the past couple of decades whether or not states should continue to use the death penalty for charged criminals. Some states have already decided to outlaw the morbid procedure while some are still taking the time to discuss all of the benefits and negative consequences. An appeals process meant to help those who believe they are not guilty was enacted long before technology could easily identify a killer by a speck of blood. As of right now, DNA testing is not required before the death penalty has been given.
ReplyDeleteJake, over at Eyes of Texas Blog believes requiring DNA testing before a subject is put to death should be mandatory. I agree with many points he makes in his post on Fixing the Capital Punishment System. He brings up the incident in Tulia, TX where several people were arrested and convicted without evidence actually linking them to their crimes. This is a wonderful example of why this conviction process needs to change. I do agree those have been convicted should be able to appeal the decisions of the courts, but they should be able to do so in a just and timely manner. Unfortunately, this is not the case today. Hopefully the Texas legislature will hear the public’s cry for change and reform the ridiculous and costly system in place today.