Death Penalty

[stanfr]

One of the major objections to the death penalty is always the fact that we know innocent people are executed.

I would like to see actual data that would let us look at for example how many murders convicted murderers go on to commit after their conviction. We say that we are wary of the death penalty as we know mistakes have (and will be) be made and an innocent person could be killed, but would it change your mind to know that convicted murderers commit further murders?

To simplify it for discussion's sake - if we have data that shows 1 in 100 executed people are innocent, but convicted murderers go on to commit one additional murder at a rate of 2 for every 100 convicted murderers therefore we would have saved 2 innocent people for every 1 innocent person we execute (because of course the executed murderer cannot commit any further murders).

Would that make you reconsider your objection to the death penalty that was based on mistakes will happen because by not executing a murderer one additional innocent is killed?

That's an incredibly simplistic hypothetical. If you want rational data based decisions, then you need to be specific. Are you implying that *all* murderers should get the death penalty? Because, obviously there is a wide range of homicides and factual circumstances. The death penalty in this country is (generally) reserved to a very small number of heinous crimes, so that your hypothetical would fail from the start since those very small numbers would not be recurrent offenders (since they'd have life in jail as a sentence anyways). So what are you proposing as grounds for the death penalty? That has to be determined before we can even begin to look at the data.

 

[stanfr]

Since I worked for 5 years as a public defender, I have an opinion on this topic..

Aside from the arguments based on false convictions etc, I've always been anti DP based on philosophical grounds that the state should not have the authority to kill people...

As for deterrence arguments, something not often discussed is the psychology of violent criminals. It has been my experience that many (not all) of the most heinous criminals who are generally charged with some horrific crime against another individual(s) have little or no respect for their own life. Which is why I saw so many of them immediately put on suicide watch while waiting for court proceedings. If they don't care about their own lives, then certainly the DP will not be a deterrent to them, if anything it would be an incentive.

 

[arthwollipot]

An odd argument, really. Emotion certainly is important in a bunch of ways. The issue is more that rationality is far better for some things and that neglecting it in favor of letting emotion rule in those ways is not a good thing.

And that is exactly the kind of argument that leads to the false opposition of emotion and reason.

Allowing one's decisions to be guided by both is absolutely not the same thing as "letting emotion rule".

 

[arthwollipot]

It seems to me that you are saying "it's a hard question, so we should just go with our feelings". That feels wrong to me.

There's a reason it feels that way to you. Because it is wrong.

In fact I don't agree. I think my opinion that there should be no death penalty is based entirely on rationality and not emotion (although I accept I could be wrong).

I guarantee that it is not, and you are. No human is capable of complete disinterested reason, especially on subjects as inherently emotional as death, murder, and justice. It's just not in our nature.

 

[Aridas]

And that is exactly the kind of argument that leads to the false opposition of emotion and reason.

Allowing one's decisions to be guided by both is absolutely not the same thing as "letting emotion rule".

*shrug* Emotions certainly have their place. Few things will actually happen without emotion driving them, after all. With that said, when people think that public policy should be based upon deeply flawed emotional arguments, with reason only getting the barest nod, the result of policy choices will very often be problematic and any description of that as "allowing one's decisions to be guided by both" ends up as something of a mockery.

 

[Darat]

That's an incredibly simplistic hypothetical. If you want rational data based decisions, then you need to be specific. Are you implying that *all* murderers should get the death penalty? Because, obviously there is a wide range of homicides and factual circumstances. The death penalty in this country is (generally) reserved to a very small number of heinous crimes, so that your hypothetical would fail from the start since those very small numbers would not be recurrent offenders (since they'd have life in jail as a sentence anyways). So what are you proposing as grounds for the death penalty? That has to be determined before we can even begin to look at the data.

"To simplify it for discussion's sake "

 

[Chris_Halkides]

testimony regarding propensity for future violence

Reporters for the Chicago Tribune wrote, In at least 29 cases, the prosecution presented damaging testimony from a psychiatrist who, based upon a hypothetical question describing the defendant’s past, predicted the defendant would commit future violence. In most of these cases, the psychiatrist offered this opinion without ever examining the defendant. Although this kind of testimony is sometimes used in other states, the American Psychiatric Association has condemned it as unethical and untrustworthy."

James Grigson's testimony against eventual exoneree Randall Dale Adams is the most obvious example of a problem, but this article provides food for thought in other cases and other issues as well.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Beatrice Six case

"The “Beatrice Six” are six innocent Nebraskans who spent a combined 77 years in prison for a murder they didn’t commit. They confessed to the crime after being threatened with the death penalty. “We were all scared of it. They were all threatening us with it,” said James Dean, one of the five who was exonerated. Ada Joann Taylor, another defendant, said, “They told me they wanted to make me the first female on death row.” 5 confessed, and their confessions were used to convict the sixth defendant, whose fight for his exoneration led to the DNA testing that freed all six.[6]" Link

This is anecdotal evidence, but it is consistent with a problem of the death penalty that I have discussed before, that can drive wrongful convictions. For those wanting to take a deep dive into the case of the Beatrice Six, John Ferak's book is very good.

 

[ahhell]

"The “Beatrice Six” are six innocent Nebraskans who spent a combined 77 years in prison for a murder they didn’t commit. They confessed to the crime after being threatened with the death penalty. “We were all scared of it. They were all threatening us with it,” said James Dean, one of the five who was exonerated. Ada Joann Taylor, another defendant, said, “They told me they wanted to make me the first female on death row.” 5 confessed, and their confessions were used to convict the sixth defendant, whose fight for his exoneration led to the DNA testing that freed all six.[6]" Link

This is anecdotal evidence, but it is consistent with a problem of the death penalty that I have discussed before, that can drive wrongful convictions. For those wanting to take a deep dive into the case of the Beatrice Six, John Ferak's book is very good.

As I said before, I wouldn't be opposed to the death penalty but for this. We get these convictions wrong so often, I don't know how folks can justify support of the death penalty knowing this. To support it I'd also put other limits on it, namely, I'd only apply it to murders when the murder is specifically meant to cover up other crimes and possible laying wait. But again, not knowing that we convict the wrong people so often.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Oklahoma, OK?

Professor Austin Sarat wrote, "Bizarre or not, when the court gets around to deciding the case, it needs to face the fact that the Oklahoma legal system failed Glossip. Prosecutors withheld evidence that Justin Sneed, the star witness against Glossip, was taking medication for bipolar disorder. They also allowed him to lie on the witness stand. The prosecutors said nothing to the court or to Glossip’s lawyers about Sneed’s testimony." Mark Joseph Stern wrote, "'What are we to do with the point that they make that they were frozen out of the process?' he [Justice Thomas] asked."

Justice Thomas seemed unable to accept the fact that the two prosecutors were interviewed in one way or another; why he would not is difficult to fathom. There is a separate thread that covers the specifics of the Glossip case, but the questions raised in these two articles belong in the DP thread IMO.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Meanwhile in Murdock

After Wayne and Sharmon Stock were murdered outside of Murdock Nebraska in 2006, police began to suspect nephew Matthew Livers. Katherine Ramsland wrote, "Livers took a polygraph. The inexperienced administrator scored it incorrectly, claiming Livers had failed. Investigators threatened him with the death penalty. A confession was his only way out. It’s fascinating, if also horrifying, to read the excerpts. Even a layperson could spot the errors." This is another instance in which the threat of the death penalty became part of a wrongful accusation.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

I think if the US is to keep tge death penalty it would be only fair that if a miscarriage of justice is found out, the prosecutor and judge involved and the state governor signing off on it are automatically sentenced to the same fate as the convicted, viz they get the death penalty, even if their victim is exonerated before execution. This sentence should be automatic and immediate, and also cover anybody found deliberately covering up the miscarriage of justice or creating it in the first place.

If you're willing to put somebody else's life on the line in an extremely flawed system, then you should be willing to put your own on it too.

 

[jimbob]

I think if the US is to keep tge death penalty it would be only fair that if a miscarriage of justice is found out, the prosecutor and judge involved and the state governor signing off on it are automatically sentenced to the same fate as the convicted, viz they get the death penalty, even if their victim is exonerated before execution. This sentence should be automatic and immediate, and also cover anybody found deliberately covering up the miscarriage of justice or creating it in the first place.

If you're willing to put somebody else's life on the line in an extremely flawed system, then you should be willing to put your own on it too.

It would certainly concentrate the mind

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Funny how the same Republicans who insist on the supremacy of State's Right believe they can overrule when a State does not make to carry out an execution.

Well, not really funny.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

AP news reported, "[Richard] Moore’s clemency petition said his attorneys didn’t provide him with the best defense at his 2001 trial. They include a different analysis of the crime scene along with Moore’s version of what happened that shows the clerk pulled a gun on Moore after the two argued because he was 12 cents short for what he wanted to buy. Moore said he wrestled that gun from the clerk’s hand and Mahoney pulled a second weapon. Moore was shot in the arm and fired back, killing Mahoney with a bullet to the chest. Moore then went behind the counter and stole about $1,300. No one else on South Carolina’s death row started their crime unarmed and with no intention to kill, Moore’s current attorneys said."

Another news outlet indicated that Mr. Moore shot another customer, but I am not sure what the outcome of this was. I don't know the details of South Carolina law, but this is an unusual case.

 

[Nessie]

In the UK, if someone's conviction is overturned, meaning it is no longer beyond reasonable doubt that they committed the crime alleged, to get compensation, they have to prove they did not commit the crime they were accused of, so they are set a legal hurdle higher than the one used to convict them.

The criminal justice system does not like to be proved wrong, which is another reason why death penalties are a bad idea, because politics comes into play. There are police and lawyers who would rather see people die than admit they were wrong.

 

[HansMustermann]

AP news reported, "[Richard] Moore’s clemency petition said his attorneys didn’t provide him with the best defense at his 2001 trial. They include a different analysis of the crime scene along with Moore’s version of what happened that shows the clerk pulled a gun on Moore after the two argued because he was 12 cents short for what he wanted to buy. Moore said he wrestled that gun from the clerk’s hand and Mahoney pulled a second weapon. Moore was shot in the arm and fired back, killing Mahoney with a bullet to the chest. Moore then went behind the counter and stole about $1,300. No one else on South Carolina’s death row started their crime unarmed and with no intention to kill, Moore’s current attorneys said."

Another news outlet indicated that Mr. Moore shot another customer, but I am not sure what the outcome of this was. I don't know the details of South Carolina law, but this is an unusual case.

Unfortunately, I must introduce you to the doctrine of "felony murder" in the USA. If anyone gets killed while you were doing a felony, it automatically gets upgraded to first degree murder. Not only it doesn't matter if the clerk shot first, it doesn't even matter if you're the guy who pulled the trigger. This is not hyperbole, nor hypothetical. There have been cases where one robber shot a clerk, and got a plea deal, while the getaway driver who didn't even KNOW about the shooting before the cops showed up got the death penalty.

So, yes, there have been people who started AND ENDED a felony unarmed and with no intention to kill, and who got executed anyway.


Don't get me wrong, I'm against the death penalty on more grounds than that, but just wanting to state another quirk of the US legal system which seems strangely less known to a lot of people, especially outside the USA. You'd think it would be better known since it's even in some series, like Justified season 1.


Mandatory disclaimer: this is not legal advice. If you plan on robbing a store, please consult with your local lawyers' guild first

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Unfortunately, I must introduce you to the doctrine of "felony murder" in the USA. If anyone gets killed while you were doing a felony, it automatically gets upgraded to first degree murder.

I need no introduction to the concept, but the facts are a little gray. Mr. Moore was unarmed and intended to buy something. The felony (of taking the money) occurred after the shooting. CNN reported, "Moore was convicted of killing a White convenience store clerk, James Mahoney, during a 1999 robbery. Moore, who entered the store in Spartanburg County unarmed, pulled Mahoney’s handgun away from him. Mahoney then grabbed a second gun and shot Moore in the arm before Moore fired a fatal shot at Mahoney, prosecutors asserted." Even if this were felony murder by the legal standard, Mr. Moore is not the worst of the worst IMHO.

 

[Chanakya]

I think if the US is to keep tge death penalty it would be only fair that if a miscarriage of justice is found out, the prosecutor and judge involved and the state governor signing off on it are automatically sentenced to the same fate as the convicted, viz they get the death penalty, even if their victim is exonerated before execution. This sentence should be automatic and immediate, and also cover anybody found deliberately covering up the miscarriage of justice or creating it in the first place.

If you're willing to put somebody else's life on the line in an extremely flawed system, then you should be willing to put your own on it too.

That's ...cathartic, I suppose, that idea, but probably too far-fetched to ever make for serious consideration. But certainly, those involved, like the prosecutors, judges, so forth --- the individual policemen as well, maybe, if their role is standout in the miscarriage of justice, as sometimes/often does happen --- should be penalized, and penalized seriously. Not just a rap on the knuckle, but certainly dismissal without benefits, as well as being barred from holding positions of similar responsibility, as well as actual jail time, not just some token thing but serious jail time, like maybe a year or two or similar.

 

[HansMustermann]

@Chris_Halkides
Err, no, that's the alternative version argued by his defence.