Today was only the second time I can remember when an execution was commuted because just maybe the convict was innocent. Because a slight chance of innocence is not, as far as I know, one of the official "mitigating circumstances" that is normally considered when a decision is being made between life without parole and death.

I have written several times over the years that a very small chance of innocence, perhaps as little as one in a thousand in most people's opinions, should indeed be an official mitigating circumstance that results in a life sentence only. Especially because the "pot odds" risk versus reward equation tilts so heavily to that result. If you execute an innocent man that is a calamity. If you imprison for life, a guilty person who deserves death in the minds of capital punishment proponents, that is a "mistake" that pales in comparison to the first one. And at least twice a governor has realized this and commuted a sentence for that reason.

So why hasn't the common sense idea that a death sentence should not be carried when guilt is not beyond a "shadow of doubt" been instituted? I can think of three reasons. One involves the fact that the original guilty verdict is supposedly beyond a "reasonable doubt". No number is officially put on that but I think it is around 2 to 5 percent. We would like to think it is smaller but we know it really isn't. But because the general public doesn't want to be reminded that innocent people are sometimes convicted, they are averse to the shadow of doubt criteria to stop an execution of convicted prisoners because, if it is invoked for a particular prisoner, he is marked as one of those who has at least a 2% chance of being innocent. People don't like the idea that such people are in prison.

(Math note: The fact that someone who has a 2% chance of being innocent is convicted, does NOT mean that 2% of those convicted of murder are innocent. Two different things. Do you see why?)

Another reason that this obvious shadow of a doubt criteria is not invoked is that too many people simply do not want probability or almost any math to be given this much importance in day to day life. Which of course is one of the main reasons this country is in trouble.

Finally, there are people who fully realize this criteria is a good one and would almost certainly save lives, but will still not advocate for it. They are similar to those who try to dampen the enthusiasm for promising covid treatments. They fear that it will make their other goal less likely to occur. Vaccine compliance in one case. The total elimination of capital punishment in the other. I have no strong opinion as to whether this attitude, (of which there are many other examples) is a good one. But I think I know how innocent convicts on death row feel about it.

David,

What you say is correct mathematically, but any attempt to operationalize a distinction between "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "really, really, really beyond a reasonable doubt" is doomed to fail. It's an exercise in illusory precision.

The only practical way to really address the problem of occasionally executing someone who is factually innocent is to abolish the death penalty.

I think those in the system are vested in getting each others back.

The police bring the case and even if flawed other cops and the prosecutors generally got their back. Lets all do what is necessary to WIN.

The prosecutors, prosecute and the judges generally have their backs, if a conviction is won.

The Politicians then have the judges and Prosecutors backs.


it isn't, imo them so much concerned about an innocent wrongly convicted (I think they take all day, everyday if no one knows) and moreso about wanting to protect their image as you touch upon of looking infallible.

I posted cases in another thread of people exonerated of their crime by DNA evidence or a dirty cop caught for framing them and many others, and instead of the Prosecutors just going to the court to get them let out, they will almost always first seek to get some type of sign off by the innocent that they were in fact guilty before agreeing to let them go. The threat/incentive is a bargain that 'sure you may be innocent as we all know now, but I can still make this process difficult and time consuming for you to get out. Just sign here you are guilty and I will get an immediate release and the rest of your sentence commuted'.

To me that type of offer should be illegal but they do it all the time. And i think that speaks to your question.

They could care less generally about innocent people convicted and it is only pubic blow back that maybe can get them to act.

An ex-colleague of mine, who was a project manager, referred to estimates that were quoted to a much higher degree of precision than was warranted by methodology used to arrive at them as "the false comfort of spurious detail".

can someone tldr this jones situation? why is there talk about him not getting the death penalty but instead life since h might be innocent???? what happened

It really is false comfort.