Ban The Death Penalty
A Bloomberg editorial has some strong arguments for this:
After the U.S. Supreme Court lifted a four-year ban on capital punishment in 1976, 32 states brought the death penalty back. The results can't be called a success. There's no good evidence that the death penalty has deterred the worst crimes, and it has been dispensed inequitably. Innocent people may well have been put to death -- a mistake, unlike wrongful imprisonment, that cannot be corrected. Executions should be banned by act of Congress for this simple reason: Experience has shown that the death penalty doesn't serve the cause of justice.If capital punishment deterred the most awful crimes any better than decades of imprisonment, that would be an important fact. A century of research has failed to produce convincing evidence that it does. Comparing murder rates in states before and after the death penalty was reintroduced can't filter out other influences on crime, such as changes in demographic and economic conditions. Comparing states with and without capital punishment is also inconclusive; in death-penalty states, capital crimes can be punished by long terms in prison instead, so their respective effects can't be untangled.
How likely is it, really, that a killer will be more deterred by the risk of the death penalty than by having to spend the rest of his life in prison? The claim fails the test of common sense. Criminologists and police chiefs say the death penalty just doesn't influence murderers -- partly because its application is so haphazard.
This arbitrariness, of course, is a gross injustice in its own right. As well as being confined to people who live in certain states, the death penalty has been imposed disproportionately on the poor and uneducated, on defendants with substandard lawyers, and on those whose victims were white. A study in Maryland found that a black killer of a white victim was 11 times more likely to be sentenced to death than a white killer of a black victim. These disparities violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law.
Worst of all, execution risks imposing the ultimate and irrevocable punishment on the wrong person. The 18th century English jurist William Blackstone wrote that it is better that 10 guilty people escape than that one innocent suffer. A system that accepts any risk, however small, of putting the innocent to death should provoke special revulsion.
It is studiously ignored that CERTAINTY of guilt exists in numerous cases.
Felons now in prison have killed more Americans than died in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan combined - Americans who, through circumstance, could not defend themselves.
Radwaste at March 17, 2014 3:22 AM
Create a fast track system all the up through the Supreme Court. Jail prosecutors that withhold evidence. Free 'em or kill 'em w/in 24 months.
No need to waste money if the evidence truly shows they are guilty.
Bob in Texas at March 17, 2014 5:58 AM
So here's the problem: As Barbara Oakley has taught us, some people are born incorrigible. Unless they are removed from society, they will commit serious crimes, with 100% certainty. And my personal theory is that the amount of crime caused by such people is proportional to their absolute number, which means that as the overall population grows, the amount of trouble caused by incorrigibles and sociopaths grows disproportionately.
What, then, shall we do with such people? It appears that the only two choices we have are life imprisonment and execution. The various problems with the death penalty are well enumerated in the Bloomberg article, and I won't dispute any of it. However, life imprisonment hasn't worked out very well either. As Raddy notes, lifers often commit additional crimes in prison, because at that point, what do they have to lose? There's also the problem of gonzo judges who insist on releasing violent criminals from prison, out of a perverted sense of social justice or bureaucratic stubbornness. The death penalty is the one way to ensure that the perp never commits another crime.
And there's an additional social factor: our journalists and media people have a reverent fascination with violent criminals. I think they see violent criminals as the type of person that they want to be but don't have the guts to carry out. And when a violent criminal is sentenced to life imprisonment, it guarantees that he will be a media fixture, constantly thrown in our faces, for as long as he lives. 47 years after the Sharon Tate murders, you still can't get away from Charles Manson. Similarly, James Earl Ray was in the newspapers daily for over three decades until he died. A lot of sociopaths are expert media manipulators and they use the media to torment their victims from behind the prison walls. They keep the focus on the facade-image they build for themselves, diminishing the magnitude of their crimes and causing the victims to be forgotten.
And, what purpose is really served by keeping a person sentenced to life imprisonment alive? What kind of life will they live? How does it help either the perp or anyone else? It's just an expense and a source of trouble. The person has to be fed, clothed, sheltered, and constantly watched over for the rest of his life. That's not only a big expense, but it's corrosive to the people who have to carry out those functions.
Now, having said all that, I will say this: I'm generally opposed to the death penalty. I'll yield the floor to the next commenter to elaborate on what's wrong with it.
Cousin Dave at March 17, 2014 6:56 AM
The British had a good idea with Australia....
Seriously though, although I dislike the idea of the death penalty because, well, people wind up dead, really when you look at it from an ethically responsible point of view it's kinder in the long run to kill them.
Assuming that they are in fact proven beyond a shadow of doubt to have committed heinous crimes, and did actually you know, do them....it's kinder to kill them then to let them languish in prison for the next 60 or so years on the taxpayers dime, waiting to die. (I say assuming because the difficulty when dealing with the death penalty is that people wind up, you know, dead, and you can't take it back.)
Assuming you're dealing with a convicted pedophile, it's kinder by far to kill them than to let them continue suffering and try to rehabilitate them.
I think of these people like wounded animals. Better by far to shoot them.
wtf at March 17, 2014 7:08 AM
I'm against the death penalty and always will be. I do take some issue with this statement: "Innocent people may well have been put to death -- a mistake, unlike wrongful imprisonment, that cannot be corrected."
I think "corrected" is the wrong term. You cannot "correct" wrongful imprisonment. You cannot give them back their lost time, which they might have enjoyed with their loved ones, nor can you erase any experiences they might have had in prison.
You can "compensate" them, perhaps fairly, and thus mitigate the damage, but "correcting" wrongful imprisonment is an utter impossibility.
Patrick at March 17, 2014 7:24 AM
I'm ok with ending the death penalty.
But I do have a condition: those who would be eligible for the DP should never ever be allowed to walk free ever, unless the conviction was overturned in court.
No commutations.
No pardons.
No time off for good behaviour.
No release because you have a fatal illness - you will die in prison.
I R A Darth Aggie at March 17, 2014 7:26 AM
"I think 'corrected' is the wrong term. You cannot "correct" wrongful imprisonment." - Patrick
My thoughts, exactly. You beat me to this, Patrick.
Fayd at March 17, 2014 8:45 AM
I support the death penalty, but only in cases not relying on circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence and eyewitness testimony.
And I only support it for murder and perjury in murder trials
lujlp at March 17, 2014 9:26 AM
That the death penalty does not deter is not a reason to abolish it. It ensures that that particular killer will never kill again, and that's enough.
That the death penalty is applied unequally is not a reason to abolish it; it's a reason to learn the source of the disparity and correct it if indicated.
That the death penalty kills innocent people is not a reason to abolish it, but it is a reason to apply a stricter standard of proof before imposing it. If any part of the prosecution's case depends on witnesses who could be lying or mistaken, the DP should be off the table.
Rex Little at March 17, 2014 9:37 AM
Maybe we could establish a program where those that are opposed to the death penalty can 'adopt' a lifer and pay a modest monthly fee to support them for the decades they are imprisoned.
They can receive monthly newsletters about how well their studies in court appeals are going, how their weight lifting program is improving, and how their showers are improving now that 'Butch' is helping them.
Bob in Texas at March 17, 2014 9:55 AM
If they are caught red-handed, or admit it with enough evidence behind it I see no problem with the death penalty.
Look at this case. That guy is a waste of space and oxygen. Give me a good reason for him to continue to live.
Then there is the argument that it costs much more to apply the death penalty than to imprison them. The reason is that there will be the three to five trials and hearings at the state level, if not more. Then it is repeated again at the federal level.
The husband of the woman who died in the bathtub -- that should not be a death penalty case. But there are so many that might are a walking crime wave.
Jim P. at March 17, 2014 11:20 AM
Remove the death penalty? Sure, okay; but then life in prison means you DIE in prison. None of this get out early crap.
Charles at March 17, 2014 12:02 PM
I think the best kind of death penalty is the one where the criminal is shot dead by the home owner or the business owner in the act of committing the crime.
Once the crime gets into court, it doesnt really matter. Death penalty or no death penalty, I am fine with either.
Enough "instant death penalties" and most of the violent criminals left will be the smart ones.
Crime has been dropping like a rock in most of the US over the last twenty years. A big part of that is relaxed concealed carry laws.
Isab at March 17, 2014 12:39 PM
so, depriving someone of their freedom, and the meaning for existence is less morally objectionable, than just killing them?
and why is that?
Some of these jokers should NOT be put to death, rather they should sit in solitary until they go insane. This is PUNISHMENT... the arguments about deterrence, were always spurious... in that moment, criminals don't actually care about consequence.
Premeditated Murder, should be a capital crime... prolly not anythin else, though.
With modern DNA techniques, it should be easier to figure this out. But these should be going forward rules, not applicable to a guy that's been on death row for 10 years, and there isn't DNA, and such.
If you plead reason of insanity, there should be a whole prison wing for that, since you are STILL a threat to everyone.
SwissArmyD at March 17, 2014 4:03 PM
One thing I can't stand about death penalty cases is how the defense attorneys keep going on and on in the press about how their clients are innocent. This is even after the accused are convicted, sentenced and lose appeal after appeal. If all you did was listen to the defense attorneys rant, you would think that every single person convicted of murder was actually innocent and the real killers are still out there, continuing to murder people and seeing to it that innocent people are getting blamed. It would be a nice standard of conduct that after five years, if you haven't proven your client's actual innocence, you need to shut up. Eliminating the death penalty would get rid of all that nonsense.
Fayd at March 17, 2014 4:53 PM
So just to make sure I'm clear on where we stand:
We don't trust the government with our private conversations and personal data but we do trust the government to tell us who's guilty enough to be killed in our collective name?
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at March 17, 2014 7:37 PM
Gog: "We don't trust the government with our private conversations and personal data but we do trust the government to tell us who's guilty enough to be killed in our collective name?"
Exactly. For some heinous crimes the death penalty would serve justice. But I'm opposed to it because you can't trust the dishonest and/or incompetent bastards - police, prosecutors, judges, expert witnesses, investigators, technicians - whose input would contribute to it being carried out.
Ken R at March 17, 2014 8:49 PM
SwissArmyD: "With modern DNA techniques, it should be easier to figure this out."
It should be. But the problem with DNA tests or any other laboratory test is that the quality of the report you get is a function of the diligence, competence and honesty of the individuals conducting the test.
Corrupt Crime Labs:
http://reason.org/news/show/north-carolina-corrupt-crime-lab
Ken R at March 17, 2014 9:19 PM
"We don't trust the government with our private conversations and personal data but we do trust the government to tell us who's guilty enough to be killed in our collective name?"
Sorry, that's a false dilemma – a fallacy.
The "government" we object to is the unaccountable bureaucracy, exercising its powers by impersonal policy. There is no valid comparison to criminal court. No jury, for instance, moderates the NSA or TSA.
Radwaste at March 18, 2014 6:47 AM
"We don't trust the government with our private conversations and personal data but we do trust the government to tell us who's guilty enough to be killed in our collective name?"
Well, that's the thing. Now, there is a place where We the People have direct input to the process -- there is no state where a person can be sentenced to death (or life imprisonment, for that matter) without a trial by jury. But jurors can only make decisions based on what's presented in the courtroom, which is not always the whole story. And we all know that, for a variety of reasons, juries can be rather random at times.
And related to this point: there's a third alternative that we haven't discussed: personality-altering psychological/neurological treatments. And the thing is, this one actually has some potential of solving the problem: alter a person's behavior and personality such that they won't commit any more crimes. But I don't think many people want to go there, for the very reason Gog mentions: do we really want the government to have the abiity and authority to do that? There's a reason why science fiction often uses words like "brainwipe" to describe it.
Cousin Dave at March 18, 2014 7:15 AM
And related to this point: there's a third alternative that we haven't discussed: personality-altering psychological/neurological treatments. And the thing is, this one actually has some potential of solving the problem: alter a person's behavior and personality such that they won't commit any more crimes. But I don't think many people want to go there, for the very reason Gog mentions: do we really want the government to have the abiity and authority to do that? There's a reason why science fiction often uses words like "brainwipe" to describe it.
Posted by: Cousin Dave at March 18, 2014 7:15 AM
Somehow I suspect, a psychopath or a schizophrenic with a "brain wipe" might retain the brain characteristics that make them so dangerous in the first place.
Isab at March 18, 2014 1:02 PM
Leave a comment