Mike Rosoft

But let’s look at a concrete case. Brown was convicted of stealing cars. The maximum sentence for this is (let’s say) ten year in prison. The ten years are now up, and Brown has been a model prisoner. But a "reform verification" board has determined that Brown probably hasn’t reformed: it’s likely that he’ll steal a car again if he’s released. So they decide to keep him in prison until he has reformed.

I should have stated my position more clearly. As you probably know, I was referring to murderers in my argument, and not to thiefs.

Stealing is not punishable with life imprisonment. There are various reasons for that; one of them may be because stealing is not as dangerous to society as murder, another one that it would help very much. (Several hundred years ago steling was commonly punished with death, and it didn't work either: crowds watching the public execution of a thief only gave his comrades even more opportunities.)

Let's get to a more relevant scenario. Supposed that person X committed murder and was sentenced to ten years of jail. If he wasn't reformed after serving his term and is still likely to commit murder again, should he remain in prison? In theory, yes; in pracice, no.

Once again, there are good reasons why prison terms can not be wantonly prolongued. (If such a thing was possible, your freedom would depend on whim of a group of people.) On the other hand, the court had a plenty of opportunity to choose a longer sentence ten years ago.

What this example shows is that, if we’re interested in justice, locking people up cannot be justified on the basis of what they are or are not likely to do in the future; it must be based on what they have done in the past.

Agreed, not just on these grounds.

Now let’s turn to your first statement, and consider the case of a criminal who can be reformed. Heck, forget about “can be”; let’s look at a prisoner who unquestionably has reformed. Two years ago Applebee kidnapped a young girl, abused her sexually in unspeakable ways, tortured her, and killed her. He was convicted a year ago and sentenced to life. but now he’s a changed man. Everyone agrees that he’s genuinely remorseful about what he did; that he’s wracked with guilt over it. Moreover, he’s now know as a man of the utmost integrity and even moral wisdom. His concern for the welfare of all of the other prisoners if manifest, and no one has the slightest doubt that it’s real. Should he be released on the grounds that he’s no longer a danger to society?

Once again, the answer is "in theory, yes; in practice, no."

I didn't say that a reformed criminal ought to be set free immediately; this is why I said "to deny chance of release", rather than "to deny release". On the other hand, if he is released some twenty years from now, I will have no problem with that.

There are laws about when a criminal sentenced to life imprisonment can be relesed. (In Czech Republic there is no death penalty or life imprisonment without parole; a person imprisoned for life can be released after after twenty years.) Again, they exist for good reasons.

There is at least one thing what your example has achieved: it helped to demonstrate my case. Possibility that such a thing can happen (please forgive my ignorance, but are you describing a real situation, or is it as imaginary as your first example?) are the reason why I don't support life imprisonment without parole, and one of the reasons why I oppose death penalty.

I’m afraid not. He’s barely begun to pay the price for what he did.

Now what do you mean by "began to pay the price"? I thought you were arguing against absolute morality.

It all boils down to the questions: "What is the purpose of justice? Why is it necessary for the state to send criminals to jail?" One of the reasons is to remove criminals from society so that they don't endanger other people. Another one is to punish and hopefully reform them. Next one could be to deter other people from comitting crime. You may come with other ones.

To return to your example, releasing a brutal murderer - even if he is reformed and no longer a threat to society - too early would send a message "if you commit murder, you can be free after two years of jail", which is highly undesirable. I agree, it is not an ideal situation when someone remains in jail just in order to deter. But in an ideal world, there would be no murders.

Just as in Brown’s case, we cannot base the decision as to whether to release him on what he’s likely to do in the future; it must be based on what he did in the past.

Please don't tell me that the criminal's possible or actual reformation is irrelevant either in sentencing the criminal or in considering his conditional release. It is just as important as what the criminal comitted.

In Czech Republic (I am once again using laws I am familiar with) one can be sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, or for intentionally causing death during the course of several other crimes (such as terror or genocide) if the crime's danger to society is exceptionally high [...], and if either such a sentence is required to ensure safety of society or if there is no chance that the perpetrator could be reformed by a lesser sentence.

Who said anything about overturning convictions? I say only that they have the time and opportunity to make their case.

Now I don't understand what you mean. The opponents of death penalty do look for cases when they strongly suspect that the an innocent person has been executed. (The study I referenced to you is an example; you may dispute the accuracy of its statements, but you can't say that they are unable to make their point. There is a more recent project, "Reasonable Doubts" available on Internet.) If you want them to actually prove that a particular executed person was innocent, I don't see how they are supposed to do that if not by having the sentence overturned by a court.

Proving that innocent people have been executed does help those who are now on death row. If they can come up with a significant number of such cases, it will almost certainly lead to the abolition of capital punishment. Don’t you think they know that?

Finding evidence of that an executed person was innocent might save people in the future. But finding evidence of innocence of someone who is alive will save his live and liberty, and this must be a priority.

Proponents of death penalty will claim that when people are released of death row after they are found to be innocent, it is a sign of a working system. But I say that it is a sign that the system doesn't work. There have been several cases of them coming within days from execution; they would have been put to death had not volunteers investigated their cases and proved their innocence.

Tell me: how many innocent people had no such luck?

Perhaps you can show me the connection between Britain’s abolishing CP and the discovery that at least one innocent person was executed. Are you saying that this wouldn’t have happened if Britain had retained CP? If so, on what grounds?

United Kingdom abolished death penalty five years ago; last execution took place there in 1964. Now tell me: how many cases of execution of innocents in UK were discovered and proven beyond reasonable doubt when executions were still taking place? And if the answer is "none", is there a reason for that?

Ah, yes. This is a famous (or notorious) study. Since you seem to attach so much importance to the possibility of executing innocents, I’m going to discuss it at length.

First, here are some comments from Dudley Sharp of Justice for All:

I see. So this is where at least some of your arguments - and not just against the Radelet and Bedau's study - come from. The article points out supposed errors in the study. But since I don't have the study available (I was unable to find it online), I am unable to defend it effectively.

A few points anyway:

The study concluded that 23 innocent persons had been executed since 1900. However, the study's methodology was so flawed that at least 12 of those cases had no evidence of innocence and substantial evidence of guilt.

Cannot comment on this, since I don't have the study available.

Not only were they at least 50% in error with their 23 "innocents executed" claim, but 211 of those 350 cases, or 60%, were not sentenced to death.

So what? The study dealt with people sentenced for or charged with capital crimes, and not necessarily sentenced to death. (See the name of the study.)

In arguing the innocence of Joseph Hillstrom, executed for murder in 1930, for example, Bedau and Radelet cite a novel portraying Hillstrom as innocent.

Again, so what? I don't believe that they would base claim of innocence on a work of fiction; rather, they included it to demonstrate their case.

Bedau and Radelet dismiss the confession of another executed man on the grounds that it was "coerced." The confession, they write, was given only "after being held incommunicado for 32 days after his arrest." They neglect to mention that the allegedly innocent man had issued a constant stream of confessions, not only 32 days after being arrested, but also the day after the crime.

Very good. And I am supposed to look for details of trial of "another executed man", in order to find out who is right.

Moreover, Bedau and Radelet cite but a single allegedly erroneous execution during the past twenty-five years -- that of James Adams. A dispassionate review of the facts of that case demonstrates, however, that Adams was unquestionably guilty

Do you mean this James Adams? And is this clear evidence that he was guilty?
Additionally, when was the response written? (The study was written in 1987. Naturally, it cannot deal with any more recent cases.)



Mike Rosoft