Craig and I have had many discussions about whether the death penalty is appropriate and how it should be implemented.
Pro-Death penalty advocates claim that having capital punishment serves as a deterrent to crime.
Pro-Life advocates claim that all life is sacred and that we don't have the right to end anyone's life no matter how cold-blooded they might be.
A recurring argument is that the justice system allows too many truly innocent people be executed. This is one reason some State Governors have suspended capital punishment in their States pending further review.
Add to all this the times the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has weighed in to determined whether capital punishment violates the "cruel or unusual punishment" clause in the Constitution. What is a pragmatic citizen to do?
How does the State choose between the principles of Justice and the Sanctity of Life? There will never be peace while the majority imposes the primacy of one over the other. I could write an in-depth treatise on this subject, and hopefully one day I will do just that, but for now, what action remains?
I suggest an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that reflects the following intent:
States shall not impose Capital punishment without the testimony of two credible individuals who identify the accused as responsible for the death of another person, including by bearing false witness.
The idea is by having this in the Constitution, States have more leeway around 'cruel and unusual punishment' on one hand. On the other hand, by setting the legal bar very high, requiring two witnesses to the crime (mirroring the current constitutional bar for finding a person guilty of treason), we take away the vast majority of cases where the potential to execute the innocent exists.
Thus, our society will be saying that we believe in Capital punishment as well has 'innocent until proven guilty' and define the interaction explicitly. If two people conspire to frame someone for a capital crime there is only so much the State can do to protect society from those evil few who would bend the State's power do their personal bidding. When these false-witnesses are revealed, the State still will have the possibility of extracting Justice for the innocent. By explicitly giving the States the power to impose Capital punishment, we allow those States that so desire the option to use Capital punishment while allowing the People of any State the power to renounce it as they will.
This is just the sort of approach that seems to be right at home in the design of our framework for governance.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
I agree with the sentiment behind this proposed amendment, though the wording seems a bit awkward, especially at the end at the "including by bearing false witness" clause. I know you're saying that a witness or witnesses who lie in collusion to bend the power of the State to have an innocent person executed could also be subject to capital punishment, but the wording comes across as confusing.
The following is not a complete answer for amendment wording, but how about something based on the current constitutional standard for a treason conviction:
No Person shall be convicted of a capital offense unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Not sure how to add in the bit about the two Witnesses bearing false witness...
Post a Comment