4 ms·

Would it be possible to pass a law where judges and prosecutors are punished if someone is executed and it’s later found they were not guilty? Would it be a go

Would it be possible to pass a law where judges and prosecutors are punished if someone is executed and it’s later found they were not guilty? Would it be a good or bad idea?

Semaphor 5y ago
I mean, that would essentially be a law that makes executions illegal. Which is a law that most civilized countries have.
- gbrown 5y ago
  It would still allow them to go after notorious people caught in the act where there really is no risk of confusion. I mean, better to just ban it entirely, but I’d take culpability as a half measure.
- fossislife 5y ago
  It's a law that all civilized countries have. Allowing executions while dismissing evidence makes you uncivilized.
foepys 5y ago
It's easier to just get rid of the death sentence all together.
momothereal 5y ago
If the country in question has a good track record of punishing judges, prosecutors, and LEA, then it would be abolishing the death penalty _de facto_, as no-one would take that sort of risk over just imprisoning the person for life. If the country does not have a good track record, it doesn't really change anything.
- logicchains 5y ago
  There are sometimes sitautions where someone's guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt; I don't imagine prosecutors would be particularly afraid to pursue the death penalty for someone like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik (who got 21 years in jail for the murder of 77 people).
  - alex-yark 5y ago
    Whilst that's the maximum permissible sentence in Norway it's worth highlighting that it can be extended indefinitely if he is considered still a risk to society - the requirement to review the need to continue detaining him (on a semi frequent basis) being considered a human right. Based on his activity since being convicted I doubt he'll be released for significantly longer than his minimum sentence.
    - beerandt 5y ago
      That doesn't sound like much of a "human right" to me, if a maximum sentence can be extended by a parole board.
      - GavinMcG 5y ago
        What if it was rephrased as an indefinite sentence, but a minimum of 21 years? (If the law doesn't permit a longer minimum, then 21 years is the "maximum sentence" in that there cannot be a longer mandatory period imposed.)
        beerandt 5y ago
        Yeah- I mean I get that's what happening here. It's just weird to me to consider it a "right." I just don't see how it's fundamentally any better than the US system of minimum and maximum sentences, with some possibly some provisions for early parole reviewed every year or two after some portion "X" of the sentence has been served.
- OJFord 5y ago
  Well, GP didn't say what the punishment might be. Could be say X strike(s) and you can no longer preside over such cases. (Just devils' advocate, I live in a country without it or a need for it.)
- coldtea 5y ago
  You could punishes judges even for harsh senteces (of people later exonerated), doesn't have to be just about the death penalty. And to make it more balanced, you could also punish them for exonerating someone later found guilty (with the available evicence at the first trial re-examined). Just rough ideas, which might not work at all, but still, as it is judges have no skin in the game (not even their reputation, sometimes it's even the inverse: some judges purposefully give harsh senteces, e.g. to blacks to score political points they'll later exploit).
  - frosted-flakes 5y ago
    No one would ever want to be a judge then. And your second paragraph is very much in conflict with the tenet that everyone is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
    - coldtea 5y ago
      >No one would ever want to be a judge then. I doubt that. People can be punished if they fail badly, or even die if they make a mistake in all kinds of jobs, and they still do them. >And your second paragraph is very much in conflict with the tenet that everyone is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Well, if there really wasn't a "reasonable doubt" (as deemed on a second look) and the first judge decided it was, then it's on them...
nabla9 5y ago
No. It's not possible. It would be horrible idea. Law is a process, punishing people who do their duty for the errors in the process when they have not been involved in misconduct would not be justice. Death penalty itself is wrong.
- coldtea 5y ago
  >Law is a process, punishing people who do their duty for the errors in the process when they have not been involved in misconduct would not be justice. There are tons of ways to perform badly without misconduct. Companies punish/fire/demote/etc employees who underperform all the time, for example. Or who make bad decisions consistently. Or even a single costly bad decision. Why should "life of death judging" officials, highly paid at that, get a free pass?
  - teachingassist 5y ago
    The judge's job is to make a decision based on the evidence in front of them. The judge has to weigh the evidence based on their training and knowledge. That decision might prove in hindsight to be incorrect, based on new information or a fresh perspective. The judge cannot be held accountable for that. We accept this as part of the job, that difficult decisions cannot always be made perfectly within any legal framework, but still need to be decided. If this results in disproportionate punishment, the system is at fault - the system of laws - not the judge, who was doing their job. The judge's decision might alternatively prove to be corrupt, in that the judge has been influenced by something outside of their training, knowledge of the law, and the evidence. The judge should be held accountable for that.
    - coldtea 5y ago
      >The judge's job is to make a decision based on the evidence in front of them. The judge has to weigh the evidence based on their training and knowledge. That decision might prove in hindsight to be incorrect, based on new information or a fresh perspective. The judge cannot be held accountable for that. Well, I already covered that in another comment: we could still hold them accountable for decisions deemed later to be incorrect with the same data available at the time.

Would it be possible to pass a law where judges and prosecutors are punished if someone is executed and it’s later found they were not guilty? Would it be a good or bad idea?

Semaphor 5y ago

I mean, that would essentially be a law that makes executions illegal. Which is a law that most civilized countries have.

gbrown 5y ago
It would still allow them to go after notorious people caught in the act where there really is no risk of confusion. I mean, better to just ban it entirely, but I’d take culpability as a half measure.
fossislife 5y ago
It's a law that all civilized countries have. Allowing executions while dismissing evidence makes you uncivilized.

foepys 5y ago

It's easier to just get rid of the death sentence all together.

momothereal 5y ago

If the country in question has a good track record of punishing judges, prosecutors, and LEA, then it would be abolishing the death penalty _de facto_, as no-one would take that sort of risk over just imprisoning the person for life. If the country does not have a good track record, it doesn't really change anything.

logicchains 5y ago
There are sometimes sitautions where someone's guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt; I don't imagine prosecutors would be particularly afraid to pursue the death penalty for someone like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik (who got 21 years in jail for the murder of 77 people).
- alex-yark 5y ago
  Whilst that's the maximum permissible sentence in Norway it's worth highlighting that it can be extended indefinitely if he is considered still a risk to society - the requirement to review the need to continue detaining him (on a semi frequent basis) being considered a human right. Based on his activity since being convicted I doubt he'll be released for significantly longer than his minimum sentence.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    That doesn't sound like much of a "human right" to me, if a maximum sentence can be extended by a parole board.
    - GavinMcG 5y ago
      What if it was rephrased as an indefinite sentence, but a minimum of 21 years? (If the law doesn't permit a longer minimum, then 21 years is the "maximum sentence" in that there cannot be a longer mandatory period imposed.)
      - beerandt 5y ago
        Yeah- I mean I get that's what happening here. It's just weird to me to consider it a "right." I just don't see how it's fundamentally any better than the US system of minimum and maximum sentences, with some possibly some provisions for early parole reviewed every year or two after some portion "X" of the sentence has been served.
OJFord 5y ago
Well, GP didn't say what the punishment might be. Could be say X strike(s) and you can no longer preside over such cases. (Just devils' advocate, I live in a country without it or a need for it.)
coldtea 5y ago
You could punishes judges even for harsh senteces (of people later exonerated), doesn't have to be just about the death penalty. And to make it more balanced, you could also punish them for exonerating someone later found guilty (with the available evicence at the first trial re-examined). Just rough ideas, which might not work at all, but still, as it is judges have no skin in the game (not even their reputation, sometimes it's even the inverse: some judges purposefully give harsh senteces, e.g. to blacks to score political points they'll later exploit).
- frosted-flakes 5y ago
  No one would ever want to be a judge then. And your second paragraph is very much in conflict with the tenet that everyone is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    >No one would ever want to be a judge then. I doubt that. People can be punished if they fail badly, or even die if they make a mistake in all kinds of jobs, and they still do them. >And your second paragraph is very much in conflict with the tenet that everyone is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Well, if there really wasn't a "reasonable doubt" (as deemed on a second look) and the first judge decided it was, then it's on them...

nabla9 5y ago

No. It's not possible. It would be horrible idea. Law is a process, punishing people who do their duty for the errors in the process when they have not been involved in misconduct would not be justice. Death penalty itself is wrong.

coldtea 5y ago
>Law is a process, punishing people who do their duty for the errors in the process when they have not been involved in misconduct would not be justice. There are tons of ways to perform badly without misconduct. Companies punish/fire/demote/etc employees who underperform all the time, for example. Or who make bad decisions consistently. Or even a single costly bad decision. Why should "life of death judging" officials, highly paid at that, get a free pass?
- teachingassist 5y ago
  The judge's job is to make a decision based on the evidence in front of them. The judge has to weigh the evidence based on their training and knowledge. That decision might prove in hindsight to be incorrect, based on new information or a fresh perspective. The judge cannot be held accountable for that. We accept this as part of the job, that difficult decisions cannot always be made perfectly within any legal framework, but still need to be decided. If this results in disproportionate punishment, the system is at fault - the system of laws - not the judge, who was doing their job. The judge's decision might alternatively prove to be corrupt, in that the judge has been influenced by something outside of their training, knowledge of the law, and the evidence. The judge should be held accountable for that.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    >The judge's job is to make a decision based on the evidence in front of them. The judge has to weigh the evidence based on their training and knowledge. That decision might prove in hindsight to be incorrect, based on new information or a fresh perspective. The judge cannot be held accountable for that. Well, I already covered that in another comment: we could still hold them accountable for decisions deemed later to be incorrect with the same data available at the time.