Capital shame

Troy Davis's execution in the States has renewed the capital punishment debate.

I find several arguments against the death penalty overwhelming. Firstly, the view that society is significantly morally diminished when it gets into the business of executing people.

Secondly, there must be a possibility that those facing a capital trial will receive undue lenience. At the margins of judgement am I not likely to be sitting on the jury erring on the side of acquittal unless I am extraordinarily sure of guilt?

Even if I think the man facing me undeniably guilty do I not perhaps think about the kind of world he grew up in? Who did what to him somewhere along the road? In short, do I not start to make allowances?

Thirdly, the tricky issue of manslaughter versus murder. Manslaughter (perhaps the wife who after incessant abuse plunges the bread knife into her husband after his final violent assault) will probably be a non-capital offence compared with murder carrying the death penalty.

For some cases it will be a difficult call between the two. The risk of a poor defence lawyer is there in all cases of course but when it comes to capital crimes the consequences can be somewhat final.

Which brings me to a case that exemplifies perhaps the most powerful argument of all against capital punishment.

Released last year, Sean Hodgson spent 27 years in prison after wrongful conviction for rape and murder. His innocence was proved through a DNA test on an exhumed body. The final words of the statement of this man who spent the prime of his life incarcerated for something he never did were rather prosaic, given the enormity of what had been done to him. He said simply, 'you cannot undo what has already been done.' Quite.