Talk:Wrongful execution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Law Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
???	This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.

This page was created with source-supported sections which keep getting removed from the Capital punishment article, not as a content fork, but as a separate article to keep them online in main article space. --James S. 19:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics?

Does someone else think it might be good to have statistics on wrongful executions? E.g. how many death sentences are wrongful?

LinuxMercedes (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be stunned if you could find statistics about which people could come close to agreeing. atakdoug (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Broken Link to the major source -- I can't find the article

The link to the "25 Cases" article at Capital Defense Weekly is broken, and can't find the article we're trying to link to. As this article seems to be the principal source for the information in the body of this page, can someone give a shot at finding it? atakdoug (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've now changed the link to be to an archived version of the page, but it could still be improved by finding the real source -- the link is to a draft only. atakdoug (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

http://capitaldefenseweekly.com/innocent.html updated 2007 (bottom of page) MilesAgain (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. atakdoug (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Actual Innocence versus unconvictability

In adding to this page (as I assume some editors are going to do), do try to distinguish between executions that are wrongful because the person executed didn't commit the crime at all, and those that are wrongful because the conviction was in some other way unfair. Verifiable claims of the actual innocent of executed people appear to be exceedingly rare, and if you're going to say otherwise, be sure to back it up with solid facts. Even the two cases detailed in the article as it stands are not clear instances of actual innocence.

Remember: the death penalty may be cruel, inhumane, racially biased, or otherwise flawed, but that doesn't mean that the people executed didn't commit the crimes of which they were convicted. You can argue (though you shouldn't in a NPOV encyclopedia, but I'm not holding my breath in the expectation of a fully neutral page) that executions are wrongful even without a demonstration of actual innocence (as in cases of serious prosecutorial misconduct sufficient to obscure the facts, which therefore remain unknown), but at least try to be clear about what you're saying. atakdoug (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"the death penalty may be cruel, inhumane, racially biased, or otherwise flawed, but that doesn't mean that the people executed didn't commit the crimes of which they were convicted" -- what are you trying to say here? Do you think the DNA exonerations don't show a substantial number of wrongful executions?

Also, I don't understand what you mean about "a demonstration of actual innocence." Do you live in a country where defendants are required to prove their innocence? In my country, the prosecution is required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before sentence can be passed. MilesAgain (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No, in fact my point was that the prosecution's failure to prove its case does make an execution wrongful, but my and most everyone else's standards, even if the accused commited the crime, but that that failure does not make him innocent, just unconvictable. Before I edited it a bit, the article did not make this distinction, skipping blithely from cases of prosecutorial misconduct to claims of "innocence". I'm just pointing out the potential problem with the wording. A person who cannot be convicted on the basis of the evidence that can be legally presented is not necessarily "innocent"; he's "not guilty" (a distinction the US Supreme Court held to be very importnat -- US defendants are not even allowed to plead "innocent").

As for the DNA exonerations, I haven't been through the data but I was under the impression that the clear DNA cases, the ones that show that the accused really didn't do it, were death row cases, not post-execution (though I assume there are some exceptions). I didn't realize that there were cases in which DNA showed convicts who'd already been executed were actually innocent of the crimes in question. If I'm wrong, that's cool, but I think that in that case the article should cite some of those cases. atakdoug (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to add: the "actual innocence" issue has legal import as well: in some federal (US) habeas corpus proceedings, a death penalty petitioner must show that the evidence he wishes to present on collateral review would demonstrate that he really didn't do it, not just that he shouldn't have been convicted. This is considered acceptable because he's already been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt -- remember, it's for habeas, not initial appeal. Yep, I agree it's unfair, and I admit it's been a while since I worked on such cases and I know the law is now somewhat different, but in some cases, actual innocence does matter.

In any case, my reference to "demonstrating" actual innocence wasn't to defendants' having to demonstrate it, it was to the writer having to demonstrate that it has happened before he claims that innocent people have been executed. atakdoug (talk) 08:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)