Dean Dankelson’s defense of the death penalty in his July 26 “As I See It” ignores the real arguments against it.
He ignores the fact that dozens of innocent citizens have been exonerated by DNA after having been sentenced to death by his “unbiased” system of “safeguards.” How many were executed before this technology was available?
He ignores the fact that prosecutors often use the threat of the death penalty to avoid trials by coercing pleas of guilty from defendants, or to obtain favorable (but not always reliable) testimony against one defendant from accomplices.
He ignores the fact that it allows a prosecutor to “death qualify” a jury — eliminating anyone with a dislike for the death penalty, and assuring a pro-prosecution jury panel.
His example of horrendous crime is a strong argument against the death penalty. Such terrible crimes create social and political pressure on police, prosecutors, judges and even juries. Rational, unbiased action is made far more difficult in such cases.
Who would not want to avenge the horrible crime he describes?
I certainly would. And that very understandable desire for vengeance is what most threatens to warp justice.
Philip F. Cardarella
Kansas City
Let me assure you that should any of you find yourself on the wrong side of a court room, wrongly accused of a crime you know nothing about, and fighting for your life, you will develop a very jaded view of our criminal justice system. BEEN THERE, DONE THAT!
Posted by: Agro1981 | July 31, 2010 at 07:47 AM
As long as there is the chance of the death penalty murdering an innocent person, it should be outlawed as murder is. Rick, I'm sure you agree.
Posted by: ggbridge | July 30, 2010 at 08:13 PM
But the recidivism rate is sooo low.
Posted by: Bill Moses | July 30, 2010 at 06:30 PM
Cardarella is some piece of work. He cries for murderers but will justify the legality of abortion, which kills a MILLION AND A HALF a year.
EVERY DAMN YEAR. OVER 45 Million since Roe v Wade; more every year than all the American Military deaths n the 20th and 21st century.
But, what the heck.
They aren't really human are they?
(Didn't Hitler label his enemies "subhuman" so he could wipe them out? Just a thought.)
Posted by: Rick | July 30, 2010 at 05:05 PM
If I'm not wrong, the council for the defense has the right of peremptory challenge also. He makes it sound like only the prosecution has that right.
Posted by: Moje | July 30, 2010 at 12:51 PM
No i agree everyone gets an opinion. I actually agree with him. Jsut seems prudent to let people know you have a dog in the fight.
Posted by: Zeno | July 30, 2010 at 12:21 PM
Of course, the author of the original column was a lawyer and, regardless of one's own view, it was a thought-provoking (pro-death penalty) plea.
As was Cardarella's critical response.
Posted by: JoCo | July 30, 2010 at 10:29 AM
Everyone is allowed their opinion the matter. Even lawyers.
Posted by: T. Hanson | July 30, 2010 at 09:52 AM
I wonder why he does not tell us he is a defense attorney in his letter?
Member at the firm Philip F. Cardarella
Areas of Practice
Criminal Defense; Personal Injury; Traffic Violations; International Torts; Business Torts
Admitted
1973, Missouri
Posted by: Zeno | July 30, 2010 at 09:34 AM