...you misunderstand my argument in a few key places (not surprising given the rapid and careless nature of my responses).
You can argue that people should hold the value that not a single innocent person should be killed, but you can't use this case as "evidence" except to say that in this instance the person would not have died.
It is also evidence which establishes as fact that the current justice system has convicted someone of a capital crime who was later conclusively demonstrated to be innocent. Its evidentiary value is that is demonstrates the inadequacy of the current system when held to a standard of inerrancy. Establishing this fact is important as there exist many who argue that the current system is adequate to ensure that nobody convicted of a capital crime is, in fact, innocent of that crime.
There are much better examples of administrative ineptitude than this one (from the reports I've read about this case, the guy never told the judge that he was innocent) anyway.
Agreed, if for no other reason than because Lloyd never really faced the death penalty because it was not in effect at the time of his conviction. What it does conclusively show is that a conviction, which currently could result a death penalty, was falsely obtained.
As for the claim that Lloyd never proclaimed his innocence, it's nothing but a rationalization on the part of the judge. The defendant technically maintained his innocence by pleading not guilty.
If you hold the value that no innocent person should be put to death, you're not making a "logical point" at all by using this case as an example, except to show that if you hold the value that no innocent person should be killed, then the man in this case should not be killed.
Agreed, my contention that no innocent person should be killed stands apart from this or any example. It is an assertion which, as I indicated, I employ axiomatically.
In essence, you need to make a different argument if you want to convince people that they should hold the value you've espoused here.
I've, as yet, offered no argument to substantiate the assertion that no innocent person should be killed. I apologize if I was unclear.
But the case itself does not a priori mean that the answer to the question above must be "no."
Agreed and, again, I never intended to claim that it did.
This one case does not prove that the liklihood is high. If out of every M cases, N were later shown to be innocent, and N / M is greater than some acceptably "high" amount (20%? 10%?) then you could certainly make that argument. However, by the knowledge that we have from this case alone we can only possibly conclude that, given that all other cases resulted in convictions of guilty people, the liklihood of the justice system executing an innocent person is very low.
What this case, in itself, demonstrates is sufficient cause to not assume the given you present: that all other cases resulted in convictions of guilty people. Further, when one takes into account the fact that this is the 110th case of someone cleared of a capital crime after conviction by exculpatory DNA evidence, the likelihood of a false conviction does indeed seem high. High, of course, being a subjectively determined threshold.
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera
[ Parent ]