Death Penalty...Yes, No or Undecided?

[Tmy]

The CJ system certainly results in far more minorities winding up in prison, than their representation in society at large woulld suggest should be there.

But how do you get racist out of the *death row* numbers?

"Of persons executed in 2003:
-- 41 were white
-- 20 were black
-- 3 were Hispanic (all white)
-- 1 American Indian

Of persons under sentence of death in 2003:
-- 1,878 were white
-- 1,418 were black
-- 29 were American Indian
-- 35 were Asian
-- 14 were of unknown race."


Now this is out of a total prison population:

"At midyear 2004 there were 4,919 black male prison and jail inmates per 100,000 black males in the United States, compared to 1,717 Hispanic male inmates per 100,000 Hispanic males and 717 white male inmates per 100,000 white males."

Source: BJS, USDOJ Office of Justice programs.

I think better stats whould be the race of those WHO DID NOT get the death penalty.

Again i point to Susan Smith. Lets say her bogus story was true and some black guys had carjacked her and killed the kids. You think they wouldve avoided the DP????

 

[Skeptic]

Do some people deserve to die, morally speaking? Yes.

Do I think that opposing the death penalty in principle--as a matter of "human rights", "respect for life", "inherent racism", etc. is reasonable? No.

Do I think the death penalty system as it exists can be trusted? Not sure, tending to "no".

For this last reason, I reluctantly opposed capital punishment as it is currently administered.

 

[Skeptic]

Again i point to Susan Smith. Lets say her bogus story was true and some black guys had carjacked her and killed the kids. You think they wouldve avoided the DP????

Quite possibly, since only a small minority of those who commit capital crimes are ever sentenced to death, let alone executed.

Also, she didn't get the death penalty due to the insanity defense. This is based on the fact that she killed her own children. I have very serious reservations about this sort of defense, but that aside, it would be much harder for an actual carjacker to claim insanity in such a case.

So your analogy doesn't work out as intended.

 

[Suddenly]

LegalPenguin,

Let's sum up here, shall we?

Translation: let me see if I can restate things in a way that makes you look bad and me good.

If a question or a point is uncomfortable to you, you merely deem it "irrelevant". You want to decide on what terms we debate.

It isn't uncomfortable. That is an unsupported assertion. That most if not all other western countries have abandoned the death penalty is meaningless unless it is shown that these countries have some sort of moral authority. I don't find that to be supported by evidence.

It really doesn't bother me that a bunch of other "good" countries don't have the death penalty. It isn't uncomfortable... these countries do all sorts of goofy things. Who cares...

When you are asked to explain what a violent crime is, you give me your opinion and not the legal definitions.

Because it wasn't used as a legal term. A violent crime is a crime of violence, which is a crime that involves violence. You see, if violence occurs during a crime, it is a crime of violence.

Even when it is used as a legal term in court it doesn't have a more precise definition that that, unless some states that I'm not aware of has attempted to categotrize crimes. I have practiced before judges that have considered Driving Under the Influence to be a crime of violence. Some that think delivery of a controlled substance is a crime of violence.

Some ignore the type of crime and just ask if violence occured during the commission, so there are two different schools of thought. It is important in deciding questions relating to parole and sometimes when considering habitual criminal status.

You can't prove that the death penalty is a deterrent. You even ask why you should provide it. You merely say it is.

Wait a minute... Again, as I can point out from your words in the first post:

There is no evidence that it serves as a deterrent.
If people think it should act as a deterrent, then the deaths should be as gruesome as possible. But people don't want to see it when people die, and it has to be as painless as possible. It is hypocritical.

My respone began: "Perhaps, but so what? "

Later I mentioned that "First, the painless and private way these executions are carriied out have not been shown by you to decrease the detterence aspect, but I'm feeling nice and just giving you that even though I suspect it is a load of crap...."

Which is a mild misunderstanding of your original post. I didn't realize that somehow you are using lack of gruesomeness as evidence that deterrence isn't even being attempted, which seems inane and not connected to the base claim (lack of evidence). I tried to make an interpretation that now on reflection appears to be incorrect, and I apologize...

Anyway, this is not a claim that there is a deterrent effect, rather a mention that I think you haven't proved a claim that I now recognize you were not making.

So, I have not claimed the Death Penalty is a deterrent. The only claim is the one of yours that there is NO evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent.

Which is untrue... there is some evidence out there...

Evidence on the deterrent effect of capital punishment is important for many states that are currently reconsidering their position on the issue. We examine the deterrent hypothesis using county-level, post-moratorium panel data and a system of simultaneous equations. The procedure we employ overcomes
common aggregation problems, eliminates the bias arising from unobserved heterogeneity, and provides evidence relevant for current conditions. Our results suggest that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect; each execution results, on average, in 18 fewer murders%97with a margin of error of plus or
minus 10. Tests show that results are not driven by tougher sentencing laws, and are also robust to many alternative specifications.

http://www.ipba.net/pubs/emory.pdf

So, the claim that there is no evidence seems to be in error.

To review: You made a claim. I did not. I have now bothered to show your claim was at best a huge exaggeration and at worst completely false.

You can't provide evidence that nobody has ever been killed unjustly (death penalty cases).

Again, this is a claim I have not made.

To the contrary, I will stipulate that it has happened. It will happen. No system is perfect. The issue is whether that risk of error by itself a blanket reason to eliminate the death penalty. I don't. Now, seeing that if you have read my other posts you would know that I personally oppose the death penalty under present conditions, and that error plays a part in my position, but it is not an essential one.

You think it is OK to execute people if they have committed a violent crime.

Um... that is a rather imprecise statement, as it is not always the case. Not all violent crimes. At this point I think violence is a condition precident. I may change my mind in the treason context, as I generally think treason should be punishable by death.

You think it is OK to execute people for treason, despite that they have not committed a violent crime.

Your claim that treason is not a violent crime is not supported.

If a death occurs as a result of the treason, it is a violent crime as far as I am concerned, as it is a crime resutling in violence, the death of another. Perhaps there may possibly be an example of a treason where people are not harmed or put in grave danger of harm. In that case I would likely oppose the death penalty, although maybe not.

You think that the death penalty is a deterrent, yet we don't see people stop committing the crimes that can get them executed - far from it.

Again, I have made no such claim. See above.

And that's it. I don't think we will get any further, especially because you want to be the sole arbiter of what we can discuss or not. I am not allowed to bring up points which I feel are relevant. I don't play that game.

I have addressed all points. The game you play seems to be one where you feel free to misrepresent and concentrate on what my position is. A small hint: even if you prove that my position is totally bunk, that doesn't make any of your claims true...

So again, if you categorically reject vengence as a legitimate reason for punishment (If that is incorrect straighten me out) then what was your point when you said:

Quite contrary, keep the buggars alive for as long as possible. To some, death is even a relief (Look up Albert Fish). Sure, by keeping them locked up forever, they can watch TV and read books, while sucking on the government tit. Know what? I got two words for you: Cavity searches. (I also got two more: Bubba's Bitch) Think that's a life? Anyone here want to swap their lives for that kind of life?

Plus, are you going to retract your "no evidence" claim as to deterrence? I tend to agree that deterrence isn't served by capital punishment, but I think a claim that there is "no" evidence is unfounded and quite false...

 

[Suddenly]

This is an incredibly inane rationale. Gee, 25 years in prison would really suck if you were found out to be innocent so it's better that you be put to death many years earlier.

It would be an incredibly inane rationale if one were to claim that death is better for the innocent. As I pointed out in my response to V.1, that isn't what I was getting at.

So, what if an 18 year old is convicted of a crime, sentenced to life, but is found innocent after 10 years in prison. If he had been given a death sentence he might have been dead before he was vindicated.

Sure.

Hmm, he would be 28 years old. Sure, nothing is going to give him back those 10 years, but he can still live a long, fulfilling life. Not so easy to do when you are dead.

Also true.

Can you imagine telling a family "Well, granted, we did make a mistake by putting your relative to death, but keep in mind that 25 years in prison would be really unpleasant, and it's better for him that he was executed after serving 7 years on death row. Yes, we realize that if we hadn't executed him you could be sitting talking to him right now, enjoying life, reminiscing, etc. But, gee that 25 years in prison would have really sucked so let's all be glad he's dead."

Maybe. But I'm sure there is someone out there that would rather have died, but I accept that this would be the usual result.

As long as there exists even a small chance that an innocent person can be put to death, then I say error on the side of caution and abolish the death penalty.

What about the small chance that an innocent person spends life in prison without parole? Should that be abolished? Where is the line drawn and why?

Unfortunately there is no perfect system that can guarantee no free person will ever be convicted. But at least by abolishing the death penalty, no free person will be put to death.

No... they just often spend the rest of their lives in prison. Which I occasionally call "Death by age, stress, and bad nutrition" instead of life. Same end result.

And it's not as if the alternative to the death penalty is freedom. Can anyone tell me why life in prison isn't a pretty effective form of punishment?

I can't. I think it is effective.

However, the point is the following: A person put on death row has the conviction looked at many times, the case is investigated and re-investigated. By the time an execution occurs the system is as sure as it can possibly be that there is guilt.

A person sentenced to life doesn't get the same review. They will almost certainly die before their conviction is reviewed as thoroughly as the person recieving death.

Under current conditions, I am tempted to speculate that an innocent person is better off getting the death penalty that life, because the full mandatory review makes it more likely for error to be caught... I only say speculation because there is no hard evidence.

Here is my point, as clearly as it can be made:

There is a difference in the severity of a death sentence and a life sentence without parole.

There is also a difference in the amount of tolerance of mistake for a sanction to be applied.

I think that the difference in tolerance is wildly disproportionate to the difference in severity. If anything, I am negatively responding to the casualness in which life sentences are handed out in our system when in practical reality the sentences are pretty close in severity to death. (not so close in Texas, almost identical in California).

 

[Suddenly]

I'm against the death penalty.

The judicial system is not infallible.

The death penalty does not deter violent crimes.
Proof? There are still violent crimes still being committed.

That isn't proof. That isn't even evidence.

To deter something is not the same as eliminating it.

 

[Suddenly]

Am I correct in assuming here that your saying that if a society is not affluent enough to humanly imprison a violent criminal that it is acceptable to execute him?

More or less, unless some other means of protection exists.

Would not the fallible judicial system argument appy here?

I'm not sure what the argument is, but if it means that a less affluent society is also justified with a lesser percision, sure. A system can only give the due process it can afford. Perfection is impossible.

Otherwise, we end up with an absurd claim that a primitive villiage is barbaric for not requiring the same level of due process that modern America would use when removing the risk of someone who has demostrated a willingness to rape and kill children....

Which countries that exists now are not affluent enough to support a encarceration facillity?

I dunno. Maybe a bunch. Maybe none. That one may or may not exist in the present isn't really is not relevant to the idea that affluence is a key principle in determining the morality of a form of punishment.

 

[Beth]

Legal Penguin,

I just wanted to say thanks for your thoughtful posts. You've given me some new ideas to think about in regards to this issue. I hadn't ever considered the difference of level of scrutiny of the convinction as a factor in this issue.

Beth

 

[KelvinG]

It would be an incredibly inane rationale if one were to claim that death is better for the innocent. As I pointed out in my response to V.1, that isn't what I was getting at.

Fair enough. We both agree that death is not better for the innocent. And also totally undoable!

What about the small chance that an innocent person spends life in prison without parole? Should that be abolished? Where is the line drawn and why?

It's a no brainer as far as I'm concerned. Abolish the death penalty and no one will ever be executed by the state. As for the chance that an innocent person spends the rest of their life in prison? I totally agree this is not a pretty proposition. And, I'm sure it's happened. I wish there was a perfect system where we could be 100% sure that no one is ever wrongfully convicted. If someone can propose how we can ever secure such a guarantee, I'll be happy to listen.
But, since there is no such guarantee the least we can do is eliminate possibility of wrongful executions.
I don't think someone wrongfully spending life in prison in any way speaks in favour of the death penalty. It simply shows that no system is perfect and mistakes will happen.

No... they just often spend the rest of their lives in prison. Which I occasionally call "Death by age, stress, and bad nutrition" instead of life. Same end result.

Yes, but it's not a willfull and meditated death that execution is. Your sole argument seems to be that some of the alternatives to execution (life in prison, dying in prison) are almost as unpleasant as execution itself. Is this somehow supposed to speak in favour of the death penalty? If so, I'm not getting it.

However, the point is the following: A person put on death row has the conviction looked at many times, the case is investigated and re-investigated. By the time an execution occurs the system is as sure as it can possibly be that there is guilt.

A person sentenced to life doesn't get the same review. They will almost certainly die before their conviction is reviewed as thoroughly as the person recieving death.

Under current conditions, I am tempted to speculate that an innocent person is better off getting the death penalty that life, because the full mandatory review makes it more likely for error to be caught... I only say speculation because there is no hard evidence.

This may or may not be true, as you have pointed out. If it is true, then it's a problem with the way the legal system is conducted. Again, it in no way speaks in favour of the death penalty itself. It only shows how the playing field is not level in the way appeals are handled with death row prisoners and lifers. Of course, I have to wonder, do lifers really have less opportunity and resources when it comes to appeals? Perhaps it seems that way since death row cases seem to have much more profile in the media. You have said you are only speculating.

Here is my point, as clearly as it can be made:

There is a difference in the severity of a death sentence and a life sentence without parole.

There is also a difference in the amount of tolerance of mistake for a sanction to be applied.

I think that the difference in tolerance is wildly disproportionate to the difference in severity. If anything, I am negatively responding to the casualness in which life sentences are handed out in our system when in practical reality the sentences are pretty close in severity to death. (not so close in Texas, almost identical in California).

Even if your points are valid, they seem to address the way sentences are handed out and the way appeals are handled. You don't seem to really address the morale implications of the death penalty. i.e. executing an innocent person. I have stated that the risk is far to great. Only one single person has to be executed wrongly and it's tantamount to murder. With the stakes so high, I don't think it's worth the risk. You raise some interesting points, but you seem to be evading the very core of the issue.

As for the casualness that life sentences are handed out? This might be true, but again, is kind of irrelevant to the current argument.
I'm sure there are lots of things wrong with the legal system, but I don't think pointing out those flaws somehow makes the death penalty OK. It's almost like your argument is "The whole system is f*cked so why not have the death penalty." I'd rather see the death penalty abolished, and measures taken to fix the other problems you take issue with.

 

[shanek]

That most if not all other western countries have abandoned the death penalty is meaningless unless it is shown that these countries have some sort of moral authority. I don't find that to be supported by evidence.

It really doesn't bother me that a bunch of other "good" countries don't have the death penalty. It isn't uncomfortable... these countries do all sorts of goofy things. Who cares...

As much as I'm against the death penalty, I just have to agree with this. Something isn't morally wrong because of what a majority of people or governments our countries do. That's just argumentum ad populum.

To the contrary, I will stipulate that it has happened. It will happen. No system is perfect. The issue is whether that risk of error by itself a blanket reason to eliminate the death penalty.

I say that, when we're talking about taking a human life, we'd better bloody well be sure that there's no chance at all of getting the wrong guy. If someone has broken into my home while wielding a machete and he starts chopping my daughter to bits, and I shoot him dead right then and there, there isn't anything that makes me wonder if I got the right guy or not. But months after the fact, how can people who weren't even there be sure to anywhere near that same level?

Your claim that treason is not a violent crime is not supported.

The second part, giving aid and comfort, might be fudged around into being nonviolent, but how can the first part, "waging war against the US," possibly be nonviolent?

 

[Zep]

I don't see the death penalty as punishment, personally. Lacking an afterlife, I think the death penalty is much kinder than a life sentance.

But being kind or cruel to the prisoners is not my concern in the matter of the DP. There are certain elements of society that are bad for the whole. Many end up convicted and imprisoned for life. Now, the society has to support them until they die, and that individual, who has already caused harm to the society, has become a burden to society with no possibility of giving back in the future.

Of course, we're not talking about deadbeat dads here. Someone who is convicted of murder could be written off as having made a mistake, but someone who is convicted more than once, or someone who is convicted of rape more than once, and so on, should be looked at with an eye for their overall value. Will imprisonment accomplish anything beyond making the victim feel better now that the bastard is off the streets?.

I'm not drawing lines here, or setting requirements for the DP, just pointing out that there are numerous criminals in prison who will either never get out, or will never be more than a burden to society even if they do get out. I don't see a reason for keeping them around. I'm not talking revenge or an eye for an eye or any of that. I'm saying that if Johnny kills again, we can safely say that Johnny should be evaluated to see if there is any reason to keep him around long enough for parole to come up again.

If someone needs to be removed from society... Remove him. Hell, I think criminals should be able to enter a "guilty on conditions of Death" plea if they want. Judge says "Are you sure?", Criminal says "Yup", and the trial is over; off to the gas chamber with the convict.

But, rest comfortably, knowing that I'll never be a politician in position to make these decisions.

You and I are thinking along similar lines here, but with an exception at the end: If someone needs to be removed from society, then actually remove them. You separate them out and take them away. You don't kill them, or even need to incarcerate them, just physically distance them. The French did this reasonably successfully with Devil's Island (http://www.answers.com/topic/devil-s-island).

 

[gnome]

As much as I'm against the death penalty, I just have to agree with this. Something isn't morally wrong because of what a majority of people or governments our countries do. That's just argumentum ad populum.

Agreed, but it doesn't seem improper to look at the nations which align with you, and be uncomfortable with the company you're keeping, so to speak.

I don't take it so much as an argument, as a reason to consider one's POV carefully.

 

[Suddenly]

Yes, but it's not a willfull and meditated death that execution is. Your sole argument seems to be that some of the alternatives to execution (life in prison, dying in prison) are almost as unpleasant as execution itself. Is this somehow supposed to speak in favour of the death penalty? If so, I'm not getting it.

I'm not so much making an argument in favor of the DP as much a criticizing an anti-DP argument.

Of course, I have to wonder, do lifers really have less opportunity and resources when it comes to appeals? Perhaps it seems that way since death row cases seem to have much more profile in the media. You have said you are only speculating.

I'm not really speculating about that. When the DP was abolished as it existed by the Supremes back in the early 70's, (ushering in what can be called the modern era of US DP law) part of the new requirement was that the cases had to have mandatory review. I handle appeals in a state with no death penalty, and most people tend to be shocked at the low level of review.

Here, we have only one appeals court, and that court is discretionary. At the time of this writing (I'm working on it ), a defendant can be convicted at trial, sentenced to life/no parole, and not get an appeals court to consider the appeals on the merits. To make things worse, any post-conviction petition (habeas corpus) is also discretionary and will be heard if at all possible before the same trial judge... good luck getting him to admit mistake. Then, the appeals court may refuse to review that ruling again... game over.

Unless you have a Federal Issue, and the odds of the US supremes caring on direct review, or a district court on Habeas is quite remote.

The kicker being is there is no right to counsel after the first appeal. My state sometimes appoints counsel for habeas corpus. The feds rarely do, so the defendant is on his own in figuring out the procedural pitfalls...

Meanwhile, the DP guy gets review on the merits at all levels, with counsel...

Even if your points are valid, they seem to address the way sentences are handed out and the way appeals are handled. You don't seem to really address the morale implications of the death penalty. i.e. executing an innocent person. I have stated that the risk is far to great. Only one single person has to be executed wrongly and it's tantamount to murder. With the stakes so high, I don't think it's worth the risk. You raise some interesting points, but you seem to be evading the very core of the issue.

Actually, I think the morality is beyond the point. I think it is, at the core, an economic issue as I referenced in a different post. I think it gets dressed up as a "moral" issue because, quite frankly, it sounds crass to consider it as an issue of societal prosperity...

Unfortunately, there is a tendency to only look through the lens of how things are at present. I agree that under those circumstances that the DP is a bad idea.

But not always.

 

[Suddenly]

I say that, when we're talking about taking a human life, we'd better bloody well be sure that there's no chance at all of getting the wrong guy. If someone has broken into my home while wielding a machete and he starts chopping my daughter to bits, and I shoot him dead right then and there, there isn't anything that makes me wonder if I got the right guy or not. But months after the fact, how can people who weren't even there be sure to anywhere near that same level?

Given the value our present society can afford to place on human life, the cost of mistake is much higher. As a result, the costs of sufficent due process exceeds any benefit of execution. Plus, we can imprison in such a way that we can be virtually sure that dangerous felons will not escape....

As to present conditions I agree with your position.

However, under different conditions, say around the time of Ratification when many were struggling to just sustain themselves....

Maybe not. I don't see it so much as a purely moral issue past the general principle that all things being equal the least severe method of punishment should be used...

 

[varwoche]

Originally posted by LegalPenguin Actually, I think the morality is beyond the point. I think it is, at the core, an economic issue as I referenced in a different post. I think it gets dressed up as a "moral" issue because, quite frankly, it sounds crass to consider it as an issue of societal prosperity.

I assume that an overwhelming majority of people charged with capital crimes are guilty of (or complicit in) the crime. If that's a fair assumption, and if morality weren't part of the equation, the extensive appeals process would be illogical. I'll bet the money spent on appeals could/would save more lives if applied towards any number of purposes, i.e. vaccinations for poor children.

Aren't these costly protections a manifestation of our morality*?

*Whatever the hell that is.

 

[Tmy]

Again i point to Susan Smith. Lets say her bogus story was true and some black guys had carjacked her and killed the kids. You think they wouldve avoided the DP????

Quite possibly, since only a small minority of those who commit capital crimes are ever sentenced to death, let alone executed.

Also, she didn't get the death penalty due to the insanity defense. This is based on the fact that she killed her own children. I have very serious reservations about this sort of defense, but that aside, it would be much harder for an actual carjacker to claim insanity in such a case.

So your analogy doesn't work out as intended.

Ummm no. She was found guilty of murder. Not guilty due to insanity. It may have been a defense but they didnt buy it. Otherwise shed be in a looney bin. She shouldve gotten death.

 

[crimresearch]

Was Susan Smith the one where the jury rejected the insanity defense, but then sentenced her to life instead of the death penalty because 'she didn't know what she was doing'?

 

[Glacian]

I chose undecided. I'm not against the death penalty, per se, just how exactly it is done in the U.S.:Costly, inefficient, and ineffective.

I've had this idea to make a gladatorial arena and have all the prisoners fight, and the death row ones would move right up to the front, having to fight massive bodybuilder prisoners to the death. I'd put it on pay-per-view or something, then use the money collected from people watching prisoners get ripped apart to build a better educational system and improve the environment. Call me unethical, but that's something I wouldn't mind being done to pedophiles and other types of heinous criminals. To hell with their rights, they certainly don't give a damn about anyone else's. That, or I'd find some other way to make use of them (which they do, fortunately).

I suppose that's just the sadistic portion of me, though. I can be quite Janus-faced about the issue and at the same time I think an idea like the one above would be interesting I'm also inclined towards promoting justice. I suppose I'm for justice, I just don't hold the general populace in particularly high regard. Also, I personally consider life imprisonment to be a worse punishment than the death penalty (at least it would be to me, anyway), so...meh, undecided.

 

[Suddenly]

I assume that an overwhelming majority of people charged with capital crimes are guilty of (or complicit in) the crime. If that's a fair assumption, and if morality weren't part of the equation, the extensive appeals process would be illogical. I'll bet the money spent on appeals could/would save more lives if applied towards any number of purposes, i.e. vaccinations for poor children.

Aren't these costly protections a manifestation of our morality*?

*Whatever the hell that is.

Well... the "*" seems to be important.

Because we have prosperity, life is more certain and thus more valuable, and thus we want to take extra steps to protect it.

In a way, the appeals process is not to ensure guilt, as much as to ensure that the process used to determine sufficent probablility of guilt (beyond a reasonable doubt) was proper.

While just taking the money and using it for something else might seem like a better use, the damage cause by having a legal system that places a lower value on life then the society holds would probably develop deeper problems that wipe out the short term gains. In other words, if the police can just shoot you if they think you deserve it, the economy is not exactly going to thrive as people aren't going to want to leave the house.

So, we want a level of due process that allows for the removal of threats to security without itself becoming a threat to security....

While at the same time our prosperity defines the stakes of the whole deal... being executed is less of a loss when there is a good chance you were going to die from typhoyd within the next year anyway....

 

[gnome]

I've had this idea to make a gladatorial arena and have all the prisoners fight, and the death row ones would move right up to the front, having to fight massive bodybuilder prisoners to the death. I'd put it on pay-per-view or something, then use the money collected from people watching prisoners get ripped apart to build a better educational system and improve the environment. Call me unethical, but that's something I wouldn't mind being done to pedophiles and other types of heinous criminals. To hell with their rights, they certainly don't give a damn about anyone else's.

The problem with this scenario is not lack of deserving criminals to put through it, but that it feeds an unhealthy desire in the spectators.