Death Penalty

[Bob001]

It's a somewhat tangental argument, but court costs and time are not extreme. It's the lawyers, experts etc who jack them both into oblivion, and force people to forfeit their rights because they can't afford to do otherwise. A wholesale streamlining of the process is long overdue.
.....

What do you mean by "streamlining?" The system is already heavily "streamlined" in favor of the prosecution. Many accused criminals don't even go to trial. The take a deal "or else." The appeals process starts with the premise that the accused has been found guilty, and it's up to him to prove otherwise. How would "streamlining" benefit somebody who has been falsely accused or overcharged or whose rights have been violated?

 

[sackett]

Well hell, if we're going to keep the death penalty, let's see if we can make it pay for itself.

As we know, DP advocates love to cry out their old cliché, "and I'd th'ow the switch m'self!" I think they are, most of them, perfectly sincere about that.

So let's have a lottery for the privilege of executing criminals. Not just by selling cheap scratch-offs, but charging several thou per ticket. Winners could (and would! and how!) be media stars, on talk radio & Facebook & Twitter & tv & Mar a Lago. Heck, they might even get laid.

The grand payoff would come when they discover that they have been taken to meet the condemned man alone and barehanded in some quiet place, and that they must wreak justice then and there, or forfeit everything.

Provided the condemned man agrees.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

About one in nine death row inmates

What do you mean by "streamlining?" The system is already heavily "streamlined" in favor of the prosecution. Many accused criminals don't even go to trial. The take a deal "or else." The appeals process starts with the premise that the accused has been found guilty, and it's up to him to prove otherwise. How would "streamlining" benefit somebody who has been falsely accused or overcharged or whose rights have been violated?

Indeed AEDPA is a major impediment to those who have been wrongfully convicted, and citations may be found upthread.

Regarding the question of winning the lottery, since 1973, for every eight death row inmates executed, one is released from prison. Individual states vary. "For every three people executed in Florida, one innocent person on Death Row has been exonerated and released."
EDT
See comment #207 for a couple of good links that discuss AEDPA.

 

[Bob001]

Indeed AEDPA is a major impediment to those who have been wrongfully convicted, and citations may be found upthread.
....

Okay, I'm convinced.
https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2021/dec/15/aedpa-forgotten-catalyst-mass-incarceration/

 

[Suddenly]

What do you mean by "streamlining?" The system is already heavily "streamlined" in favor of the prosecution. Many accused criminals don't even go to trial. The take a deal "or else." The appeals process starts with the premise that the accused has been found guilty, and it's up to him to prove otherwise. How would "streamlining" benefit somebody who has been falsely accused or overcharged or whose rights have been violated?

It's odd. There is merit to streamlining the process as what forces a lot of pleas is how expensive and time consuming it is to actually litigate a case. However, it needs to be accompanied by a more restorative outlook on the remedial consequences and removing a lot of the adversarial aspects of the system. Just removing safeguards for the accused without addressing the picture as a whole is regressive policy masquerading as efficiency.

 

[arthwollipot]

Not addressed to me, but how about public tax savings in the upkeep of a citizen who has basically no rights and is treated like an unloved pet? There is a school of thought that thinks that is torture.

The answer to that is that incarcerated criminals are entitled to the same basic human rights as everyone else and should never be treated like an unloved pet or subject to torture.

 

[Thermal]

Indeed AEDPA is a major impediment to those who have been wrongfully convicted, and citations may be found upthread.

Regarding the question of winning the lottery, since 1973, for every eight death row inmates executed, one is released from prison. Individual states vary. "For every three people executed in Florida, one innocent person on Death Row has been exonerated and released."
EDT
See comment #207 for a couple of good links that discuss AEDPA.

That 1 in 9 number is pretty sensationalistic. The article flubs it, calling it 1 in 8, which you rightly corrected, but most sources (who cite their work) peg it as more like 1 in 25. Still frighteningly high, but an organization dedicated to the matter shouldn't be quite that far off the mark if it wants to be considered credible or authoritative?

https://www.newsweek.com/one-25-executed-us-innocent-study-claims-248889

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a double shot of sobering numbers

I do not take the 1 in 9 number as an error estimate. I usually refer back to Samuel Gross's work in this area, which suggests a 4% error value in death penalty cases. There is also an interview with Professor Gross (U. Michigan law) here. "Remember, the people who were exonerated in 2016 were not convicted in 2016. The convictions occurred on an average about 8 and a half to 9 years earlier." This is a sobering number in a different way.

He continued, "This [the existence of wrongful convictions?] is a serious problem. Maybe 2% of convicted criminal defendants are innocent, maybe it’s 4% or 3% or criminal convictions – we don’t know – but it’s a lot of people. Even if it’s 1%, that’s tens of thousands of innocent defendants convicted each year across the country. The exonerations that we know about are only a small proportion of the wrongful convictions that occur."
EDT
While we are on the subject of "sensationalistic" and just plain wrong numbers, it is worth recalling that Scalia quoted a NYT Op Ed indicating that the rate was 0.027%. As stated in the PNAS article linked above, "In fact, the claim is silly. Scalia’s ratio is derived by taking the number of known exonerations at the time, which were limited almost entirely to a small subset of murder and rape cases, using it as a measure of all false convictions (known and unknown), and dividing it by the number of all felony convictions for all crimes, from drug possession and burglary to car theft and income tax evasion." See this link for more discussion.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

De Santis and the requirement for unanimous juries

""If just one juror vetoes it, then you end up not getting the sentence," DeSantis said during remarks delivered at the Florida Sheriffs Association Conference. "Maybe eight out of 12 have to agree, or something, but we can't be in a situation where one person can just derail this."" . At [URL="https://reason.com/2023/01/24/ron-desantis-says-florida-shouldnt-require-unanimous-juries-in-death-penalty-cases/?utm_medium=email"]Reason Eric Bohm wrote, "But strong emotions are not the best guides for policy making—and that's especially true in situations where the stakes are quite literally life and death. As Reason's CJ Ciaramella noted in 2020, Florida has had more exonerations of death row inmates than any other state in the country: roughly one for every three executions carried out. That ought to inspire more humility, not aggressiveness, in deciding when the state should be allowed to kill."

The Guardian wrote, "Referring to Parkland, DeSantis said, wrongly: “And so I think you had an 11 to one decision, where the 11 said he should get capital punishment. One said no. And we don’t know what went into that. But I do think there are people who get on these juries who never intend to administer capital punishment.”" (highlighting mine). From what I have read the vote was 9 to 3 in favor of the death penalty for Mr. Cruz.

 

[ahhell]

""If just one juror vetoes it, then you end up not getting the sentence," DeSantis said during remarks delivered at the Florida Sheriffs Association Conference. "Maybe eight out of 12 have to agree, or something, but we can't be in a situation where one person can just derail this."" . At [URL="https://reason.com/2023/01/24/ron-desantis-says-florida-shouldnt-require-unanimous-juries-in-death-penalty-cases/?utm_medium=email"]Reason Eric Bohm wrote, "But strong emotions are not the best guides for policy making—and that's especially true in situations where the stakes are quite literally life and death. As Reason's CJ Ciaramella noted in 2020, Florida has had more exonerations of death row inmates than any other state in the country: roughly one for every three executions carried out. That ought to inspire more humility, not aggressiveness, in deciding when the state should be allowed to kill."

The Guardian wrote, "Referring to Parkland, DeSantis said, wrongly: “And so I think you had an 11 to one decision, where the 11 said he should get capital punishment. One said no. And we don’t know what went into that. But I do think there are people who get on these juries who never intend to administer capital punishment.”" (highlighting mine). From what I have read the vote was 9 to 3 in favor of the death penalty for Mr. Cruz.

There's a point there when it comes to lesser crimes and sentences. I spent a week on a jury once becasue 1 of 12 people wouldn't change their mind. The first vote was 10-2, the seconde was 11-1. It was a relatively petty crime.

A. We should not use the Death Penalty.
B. If we continue to, we should the unanimous requirement for murder convictions.

 

[mgidm86]

There's a point there when it comes to lesser crimes and sentences. I spent a week on a jury once becasue 1 of 12 people wouldn't change their mind. The first vote was 10-2, the seconde was 11-1. It was a relatively petty crime.

A. We should not use the Death Penalty.
B. If we continue to, we should the unanimous requirement for murder convictions.

I agree with A.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

penalty phase

I think that DeSantis was just concerned about the penalty phase of the trial. I still don't much care for his use of alternative facts.

 

[Samson]

I do not take the 1 in 9 number as an error estimate. I usually refer back to Samuel Gross's work in this area, which suggests a 4% error value in death penalty cases. There is also an interview with Professor Gross (U. Michigan law) here. "Remember, the people who were exonerated in 2016 were not convicted in 2016. The convictions occurred on an average about 8 and a half to 9 years earlier." This is a sobering number in a different way.

He continued, "This [the existence of wrongful convictions?] is a serious problem. Maybe 2% of convicted criminal defendants are innocent, maybe it’s 4% or 3% or criminal convictions – we don’t know – but it’s a lot of people. Even if it’s 1%, that’s tens of thousands of innocent defendants convicted each year across the country. The exonerations that we know about are only a small proportion of the wrongful convictions that occur."
EDT
While we are on the subject of "sensationalistic" and just plain wrong numbers, it is worth recalling that Scalia quoted a NYT Op Ed indicating that the rate was 0.027%. As stated in the PNAS article linked above, "In fact, the claim is silly. Scalia’s ratio is derived by taking the number of known exonerations at the time, which were limited almost entirely to a small subset of murder and rape cases, using it as a measure of all false convictions (known and unknown), and dividing it by the number of all felony convictions for all crimes, from drug possession and burglary to car theft and income tax evasion." See this link for more discussion.

Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsberg would attend opera together. Conviviality between friends where one is objectively "beyond the pale" is commonplace enough, but Scalia seems really nasty as a human being.

 

[Norman Alexander]

I think that DeSantis was just concerned about the penalty phase of the trial. I still don't much care for his use of alternative facts.

He's the sort of low bastard who just wants to see people die, one way or another. If it isn't COVID or guns or hurricanes, it will be forcing death penalties for littering.

 

[Bob001]

Some profiles of innocent people sentenced to death.

Since 1973, more than 8,700 people in the U.S. have been sent to death row. At least 182 weren’t guilty—their lives upended by a system that nearly killed them.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...ocent-these-are-stories-of-justice-gone-wrong

The strongest argument against the death penalty is the simplest: Sometimes the system makes mistakes.

 

[ahhell]

Some profiles of innocent people sentenced to death.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...ocent-these-are-stories-of-justice-gone-wrong

The strongest argument against the death penalty is the simplest: Sometimes the system makes mistakes.

This. In principle, I no have issue with the death penalty in some cases. I've got no problem with the state killing Ted Bundy. I have a problem with the state killing people who did not commit the crime they've been convicted of and that happens way to often.
Its one of the issues I actually remember that I've changed my mind on.

 

[Nessie]

Some profiles of innocent people sentenced to death.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...ocent-these-are-stories-of-justice-gone-wrong

The strongest argument against the death penalty is the simplest: Sometimes the system makes mistakes.

Since 1970, 149 people in the UK have had their murder convictions overturned. If we still had the death penalty, how many of those innocent people would now be dead?

https://evidencebasedjustice.exeter.ac.uk/miscarriages-of-justice-registry/the-cases/overview-graph/

The criminal justice system is too unreliable to risk having the death penalty.

 

[The Don]

The new deputy chairman of the Conservative Party in the UK is enthusiastically pro death penalty:

The new deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, Lee Anderson, has said he would support the return of the death penalty.

In an interview with the Spectator before he was appointed to the role, he argued "nobody has ever committed a crime after being executed".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64580487

The PM said neither he nor the government shared Mr Anderson's stance.

I doubt that they'll be too unhappy about the deputy chairman pandering to their base though.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

sound bite

One response to "nobody has ever committed a crime after being executed" is to say that some of them did not commit a crime before they were executed. But a subject as serious as this one deserves better than trading one sound bite for another.

 

[ahhell]

The answer to that is that incarcerated criminals are entitled to the same basic human rights as everyone else and should never be treated like an unloved pet or subject to torture.

To be fair, this is, on its face, false. If nothing else, incarcerated prisoners don't have the basic human right of....well, freedom. Of movement, atleast. So, the question is really what rights do they or do they not retain.

The obvious answer is, it depends.

 

[ahhell]

One response to "nobody has ever committed a crime after being executed" is to say that some of them did not commit a crime before they were executed. But a subject as serious as this one deserves better than trading one sound bite for another.

To be fair, very few of those committed of murder did not commit any crime before conviction. One of the reasons we do convict so many "innocent" people is they are not so innocent and its easy for juries to think they actually committed the crime in question.

And, frankly, I admit that is a fairly pedantic point.

 

[arthwollipot]

To be fair, this is, on its face, false. If nothing else, incarcerated prisoners don't have the basic human right of....well, freedom. Of movement, atleast. So, the question is really what rights do they or do they not retain.

The obvious answer is, it depends.

Which should, if nothing else, suggest the question of why this right is being infringed in the first place. What purpose does infringing the right to freedom of movement serve? How well does it serve that purpose?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

And at what expense?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Raheem Taylor case in Missouri

To be fair, very few of those committed of murder did not commit any crime before conviction. One of the reasons we do convict so many "innocent" people is they are not so innocent and its easy for juries to think they actually committed the crime in question.

And, frankly, I admit that is a fairly pedantic point.

I just started a thread about the execution of Raheem Taylor in "Trials and Errors." It illustrates your point, in that Mr. Taylor was a criminal. However, it also has strong preliminary indications of a wrongful conviction. However, some people who are wrongfully convicted (also including those sentenced to long prison times as well as those sentenced to death) have no prior criminal record of which I am aware. For example I do not recall that Mr. Willingham had been convicted of anything.

 

[theprestige]

And at what expense?

I've never understood the reasoning behind this question. Whatever our concept of justice is, we should not abandon it to save money.

 

[ahhell]

I've never understood the reasoning behind this question. Whatever our concept of justice is, we should not abandon it to save money.

Opportunity costs, diminishing returns, false dichomoty. We don't have to abandon a project to save money, but we might have less costly alternatives that achieve the same or close to the same results.

You position is effectively, "if it saves just one life, its worth it?" That all depends on what you have to give up to save that one life.

 

[ahhell]

Which should, if nothing else, suggest the question of why this right is being infringed in the first place. What purpose does infringing the right to freedom of movement serve? How well does it serve that purpose?

That's the question isn't it.

 

[theprestige]

Opportunity costs, diminishing returns, false dichomoty. We don't have to abandon a project to save money, but we might have less costly alternatives that achieve the same or close to the same results.

You position is effectively, "if it saves just one life, its worth it?" That all depends on what you have to give up to save that one life.

No, my position is effectively, "we should not abandon justice to save money."

If you believe that it is just, to execute people for committing certain crimes, then you should not refrain from executions because it's expensive to do the job properly.

On the other hand, you might believe - as I do - that while the death penalty is just for certain crimes, the current system is not reliable enough to be considered just, and so the death penalty should be shelved at least for now.

Obviously if you don't believe the death penalty is just for any crime, then you don't have to worry about this particular conundrum. But whatever your concept of justice is, you should not betray it as a cost-saving measure.

 

[arthwollipot]

That's the question isn't it.

Yes, which is why I asked it.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Which should, if nothing else, suggest the question of why this right is being infringed in the first place. What purpose does infringing the right to freedom of movement serve? How well does it serve that purpose?

Are you suggesting there is no good reason to imprison people?

Might make another interesting discussion.

 

[arthwollipot]

Are you suggesting there is no good reason to imprison people?

Might make another interesting discussion.

I'm suggesting that given the inherent infringement of a fundamental human right, it's important to be sure that you're doing it for the right reasons, and that it achieves the goals you intend for it.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

What goal do you need other than to restrict the movement of people with criminal intentions? That is one goal that it actually achieves.

 

[arthwollipot]

What goal do you need other than to restrict the movement of people with criminal intentions? That is one goal that it actually achieves.

Why is that the goal? Just stop them moving about for a specified period, then let them go? Is that the only purpose of imprisonment?

 

[theprestige]

What goal do you need other than to restrict the movement of people with criminal intentions? That is one goal that it actually achieves.

What goal? The community's perception that justice is being served. Take that away, and the community resorts to vigilantism and indulges in increasingly lawless behavior. All this business of rehabilitation, deterrence, and bloody constraint is beside that central point.

 

[Suddenly]

What goal? The community's perception that justice is being served. Take that away, and the community resorts to vigilantism and indulges in increasingly lawless behavior. All this business of rehabilitation, deterrence, and bloody constraint is beside that central point.

I tend to agree.

If we remove retribution from the analysis we still wind up with some level of liberty restriction necessary. Maybe even capital punishment has a role. Revenge is so tightly woven into our policy that it takes some doing to grasp the nature and degree of change that would result.

Take something as simple as making college classes available to prisoners. In the big picture there is no reason to not do this. It makes recidivism drop like a stone, and even acts as a carrot to get prisoners to behave and that saves all sorts of money and trouble by making prisons generally more tranquil.

However, it makes a lot of people mad. Mostly because nobody ever sees the crime that was never committed because some ex-con has a sense of accomplishment and investment in society that comes with earning an associate degree in something. All they see is other people getting free stuff and not suffering enough.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

That seems consistent with malignant narcissism.

Capital punishment makes me uneasy because I can imagine myself in the role of one about to be executed, especially if I were innocent. I don’t even like to watch depictions of executions in movies. But it’s easy to see a malignant narcissist being unable to feel empathy for the condemned.

Then again, it seems like hangings and beheadings and stonings have historically been somewhat popular events for the general public, so I guess a certain blood lust might be more widespread than I’d imagine, not needing pathology to explain it.

 

[slyjoe]

That seems consistent with malignant narcissism.

Capital punishment makes me uneasy because I can imagine myself in the role of one about to be executed, especially if I were innocent. I don’t even like to watch depictions of executions in movies. But it’s easy to see a malignant narcissist being unable to feel empathy for the condemned.

Then again, it seems like hangings and beheadings and stonings have historically been somewhat popular events for the general public, so I guess a certain blood lust might be more widespread than I’d imagine, not needing pathology to explain it.

Not sure who said it or where I read it, but the argument is that you SHOULD televise executions, and make them gruesome. That is the quickest way to end capital punishment.

Right now, the public knows about executions in a non-visceral way.

 

[Foster Zygote]

That seems consistent with malignant narcissism.

Capital punishment makes me uneasy because I can imagine myself in the role of one about to be executed, especially if I were innocent. I don’t even like to watch depictions of executions in movies. But it’s easy to see a malignant narcissist being unable to feel empathy for the condemned.

Then again, it seems like hangings and beheadings and stonings have historically been somewhat popular events for the general public, so I guess a certain blood lust might be more widespread than I’d imagine, not needing pathology to explain it.

The case of Cameron Todd Willingham is a classic example of the zeal people can have for executing someone they have already decided is guilty. Hell, one of the reasons the jurors decided he was guilty was because photos taken in the house during the investigation showed Iron Maiden posters on the wall, and the good, upstanding, evangelical, Texas morons weighing the evidence just knew that that meant Willingham was a Satan worshipper. Poor Willingham was not a bright man, but can you imagine having your guilt or innocence decided by the sorts of idiots who live in a real life Chick Tract?

I oppose the death penalty not out of some sympathy for ****-bags like Ted Bundy or Dennis Rader. I oppose it because I know there are people who are wrongfully convicted, and because it is applied far more often for cases where the convicted is poor and/or an ethnic minority. Trump is utterly vile. The only difference between him and people like Pol Pot and Reinhard Heydrich is that he hasn't been put in a position where he can fully act on his savagery. I have no doubt that Trump would look for a way to personally profit from such public executions. He'd market them like the ******* Apprentice. The same way we now have a multi-billion dollar private prison industry lobbying lawmakers for more draconian drug laws so they can keep their prisons packed and profitable, Trump would have Fox doing the same so they could sell televised executions like the ******* Superbowl.

 

[Stacyhs]

The case of Cameron Todd Willingham is a classic example of the zeal people can have for executing someone they have already decided is guilty. Hell, one of the reasons the jurors decided he was guilty was because photos taken in the house during the investigation showed Iron Maiden posters on the wall, and the good, upstanding, evangelical, Texas morons weighing the evidence just knew that that meant Willingham was a Satan worshipper. Poor Willingham was not a bright man, but can you imagine having your guilt or innocence decided by the sorts of idiots who live in a real life Chick Tract?

I oppose the death penalty not out of some sympathy for ****-bags like Ted Bundy or Dennis Rader. I oppose it because I know there are people who are wrongfully convicted, and because it is applied far more often for cases where the convicted is poor and/or an ethnic minority. Trump is utterly vile. The only difference between him and people like Pol Pot and Reinhard Heydrich is that he hasn't been put in a position where he can fully act on his savagery. I have no doubt that Trump would look for a way to personally profit from such public executions. He'd market them like the ******* Apprentice. The same way we now have a multi-billion dollar private prison industry lobbying lawmakers for more draconian drug laws so they can keep their prisons packed and profitable, Trump would have Fox doing the same so they could sell televised executions like the ******* Superbowl.

I agree. Some people deserve to die, but not a single innocent person should die because some scumbags deserve it. There is zero doubt that innocent people have been executed and will continue to be. I guess that makes us 'bleeding heart liberals' as some idiots call us. Fine by me.

 

[Stacyhs]

That seems consistent with malignant narcissism.

Capital punishment makes me uneasy because I can imagine myself in the role of one about to be executed, especially if I were innocent. I don’t even like to watch depictions of executions in movies. But it’s easy to see a malignant narcissist being unable to feel empathy for the condemned.

Then again, it seems like hangings and beheadings and stonings have historically been somewhat popular events for the general public, so I guess a certain blood lust might be more widespread than I’d imagine, not needing pathology to explain it.

I agree on all points.

There is an ugly streak in a large part of human people that enjoy seeing others in pain. The Roman emperors used to keep the populace happy by handing out free bread putting on huge spectacles of gladiators in the amphitheatres, especially the Colosseum in Rome. Bread and Circuses (Blood). The executions of criminals were often part of the spectacle.

Executions in many places in Europe as late as the 19th century were public events that people took their children to while having a picnic. Tyburn Hill in London was very popular entertainment until the late 18th century. Even today, some countries hold public executions.

Personally, I can't even stand boxing because of the brutality. Yes, I know...it's about the boxers' skill, but gladiators were also skilled.