On few issues do I get as much crap from fellow conservatives as my stance on the Death Penalty.
I support the death penalty for every possible reason, except one; the likelihood of executing the innocent. And that, as it happens, is dispositive to me. Since an equally-safe-to-the-public method – life in Supermax – exists, there is no moral reason to use the death penalty until such a time as humans are very nearly perfect.
And as Flash shows in the latest of the over fifty cases such cases that have cropped up since the return of the Death Penalty in 1977, we’re nowhere close to perfect yet, citing a WaPo article on a stay of execution in the case of Troy Davis, who was scheduled to die…today.
Oops. That coulda been embarassing:
The prosecution’s case against Davis, 38, has crumbled in the 16 years since he was sentenced to death for shooting a police officer working a security detail in Savannah. Most of the key witnesses in Davis’s trial have recanted their testimony, and some have said they lied under police pressure.
Given that Death Row is no more secure than Supermax, what precisely does the public lose by demanding “perfection” – guilt beyond a rational doubt – in such cases? Or abolishing capital punishment altogether?
We lose justice. A person who has willfully taken the life another for personal reasons is guilty of murder. Justice demands that their life be forfeit.
Nope. Justice demands that we not make the horrifying, irreversible error of executing innocent parties
Thus, the bar for execution should be set very, very high, or as Mitch says, “beyond a rational doubt.”
There’s some evidence that the death penalty does have a deterrent effect: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/11/AR2007061100406.html
The big question is whether that’s enough of a deterrent to justify executing someone, especially if there’s a chance that person is innocent.
Because of the possibility of executing an innocent person, I’d be in favor of precautions such as not allowing the death penalty in cases where the evidence against someone consists solely, or largely, of one eyewitness account. Something along those lines.
But I wouldn’t want to do away with the death penalty all together, especially in cases where guilt is incontrovertible.
The government should never, under any pretext, become comfortable with the act of executing its own citizens.
Historically governments that do become comfortable with the idea of terminating expendable citizens often develop very fluid definitions of who belongs in the disposable/expendable categories.
I don’t see how you can be “against” the death penalty and then qualify it by saying “unless guilt is beyond a ratonal doubt.” That is, as far as I know, and always has been the proper standard for the death penalty. It is the only appropriate penalty for some crimes, and on some occasions that isn’t even enough. I would make one change if I could. First, I would permit no more than 2 years of appeals (or some arbitrary number), but not indefinite stays. It shouldn’t be necessary where guilt is so obvious.
If you really want to eliminate the death penalty, then you have to find some way that society can rid itself of these rabid animals without giving them free room and board for life. Devil’s Island comes to mind.
That is, as far as I know, and always has been the proper standard for the death penalty.
And yet roughly every nine months, somewhere in the US, an innocent person is released from Death Row. Not commuted to life, not given a new trial – released.
Because they were innocent.
In some cases, years after they might have been executed, but for the slow pace of death row cases.
Executing the innocent is a double crime; it kills an innocent person (when a rational alternative is available that would prevent it), and it lets the guilty go free.
But Mitch, you seem to be making an absolute statement that is based on a contingency: The death penalty is always wrong because at times in the past people we know were innocent were given a capital sentence.
Ted Bundy was guilty of many terrible, sadistic murders. His guilt is unquestionable. Was it unjust to execute him? What purpose in justice would have been fulfilled by keeping him alive in a Pelican Bay facility?
Terry,
People have a hard time separating the issues.
Think of it this way: Child support and visitation/custody are two separate issues in a divorce with children. They are both intricately relative to children and divorce, and are both handled by the county, but are not dealt with at the same time in a court. If you have a slumlord who will not fix the water pipes and you feel that until you have water, you should not have to pay rent and withold it and your slumlord files a writ on you, you will go to court and the judge will probably tell you that you owe the rent and that you have to file to dispute the reasons why on a different date.
When it comes to the death penalty there are many relative issues to be weighed and considered, so cross-arguing these aspects just mess things up. Where do they all weigh in – or how do they all weigh in is a good question.
As for the general statement Mitch is making, I think it is a valid argument because it a fact that human beings are flawed and mistakes will be made. If you are a hard righter, you should be concerned about these wrongful convictions because in being wrongfully convicted, an innocent person’s constitutional rights have been violated.
As for the absolutely guilty like Bundy? Well, then you can go to numbers – dollars and in fact, it is cheaper to keep them alive in Pelican Bay than to execute. On the emotional side of things, there are secondary victims of crime on Bundy’s side of the fence as well as the victims. They are real victims. In a wrongful conviction, their loved one is being murdered. What the heck would that do to your sense of justice?
Mitch is right. There are no do-overs.
What is really fascinating is this blood lust. What is the difference in society between what a murderer does or what we legally do if we are so willing to be possibly wrong and then simply say oops, and pass it off as being the “best for society”. Thats so whimpy.
Jay,
The article you mentioned – there are plenty of studies that will tell you the exact opposite and probably from the same institutions.
Check this out: http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/death/issues.html#deterrence
There is so much controversy over this that the entire nation and SCOTUS is continually looking and evaluating…
The bottom line in the end is WHY are we so worried about whether we kill these people or let them be alive. ?? If you can’t decide on the dollars end of it, then I guess I would have to ask myself why I get so passionate about killing them. You could look to the victims and claim they need it for closure. But do they? There are alot of opponents to the DP that are secondary victims. Even that doesn’t answer the question of why is our anger only satisfied with another death.
Gives me the creeps.
PB-
Please stop being Carmelita.
Come on Terry, that can’t be all you’ve got.
Mitch, I struggle with this one too but not for the same reason.
Being pro-life, I have sometimes questioned whether we can ever take another person’s life for any reason.
I have been somewhat comforted by the fact that there is scriptural support for the death penalty and I hate the idea of taxpayer-paid room and board for life.
I have to wonder which is the more merciful, putting someone in a living Hell with no hope for the rest of their lives (perhaps decade after miserable decade) or a quick, painless death.
Executing the innocent is a double crime; it kills an innocent person I’d be careful of the term innocent. Many have been found not guilty, which does not mean that they are innocent. Many death row inmates have long records and should be removed from society regardless.
As a society, we must have the ability to exact the ultimate penalty for the ultimate crime, to do any less is to elevate the life of the criminal over the life of the victim. Justice is not perfect, nor will it ever be, nothing on this earth is. But, just beause our system is imperfect doesn’t mean we should scrap it. Continuous improvement is what we need and what we are doing in some cases.
Why no discussion of the murders who walked free for years and are finally convicted on DNA evidence? While not a one to one balance, doesn’t this inject some parity into the system?
Of course, Prosecutors that knowingly tried to convict innocent people, like Mike Nifing, should rot in jail for a very, very long time.
I’d be careful of the term innocent. Many have been found not guilty, which does not mean that they are innocent.
In the cases in which people have been released from Death Row – in many cases, after decades – though, it does mean they did not commit the crime for which they were sentenced.
Many death row inmates have long records and should be removed from society regardless.
Tracy, do you see the slippery (and eminently leftist) slope you’re on, here? You sound like Catherine “Wrongly Convicting Some Men of Rape Teaches Other Men A Lesson” McKinnon! The rule of law – expressed as invididual laws – MUST NOT be about “shoulds” that society would like; it’s about did, or did not.
As a society, we must have the ability to exact the ultimate penalty for the ultimate crime, to do any less is to elevate the life of the criminal over the life of the victim.
And if an someone who didn’t commit the crime is executed for a crime they didn’t commit, the life of the victim is just as unavenged…no, less atoned for than if nobody was executed! Someone who didn’t kill the victim’s loved one has paid for the crime, and the guilty will likely go free forever (because how likely is it that someone’ll investigate a crime for which someone, oops, has already been executed?)
Justice is not perfect, nor will it ever be, nothing on this earth is.
Exactly. And so when an alternative to death – the supermax – exists which provides both justice for the guilty and the inevitable wrongly-convicted, that – rather than plugging our ears and pleading “imperfection” – is the rational course.
But, just beause our system is imperfect doesn’t mean we should scrap it.
It’s not a “death or nothing” proposition, though. Life in Supermax without parole is a third option that splits the difference fairly for everyone.
Continuous improvement is what we need and what we are doing in some cases.
And yet, four a year on average, somewhere in the US someone is sprung from Death Row after it’s determined they didn’t commit the crime for which they were convicted and sentenced.
Why no discussion of the murders who walked free for years and are finally convicted on DNA evidence? While not a one to one balance, doesn’t this inject some parity into the system?
Convicting the wrongly-free is important, sure.
But I don’t believe in any mythical mystical karmic “balance” between rights and wrongs. Law is, and must be, a matter of individual responsibility. The individual should not be expected, fairly, to pay with his/her life for a group principle, especially – I repeat – when a rational, just and safe alternative exists.
Of course, Prosecutors that knowingly tried to convict innocent people, like Mike Nifing, should rot in jail for a very, very long time.
Of course.
But there are many Mike Nifongs out there, and they’ve put plenty of people on Death Row who were just as innocent as the Duke Three.
The sanctity of the life of an innocent person (innocent of a capital crime, if you want to split hairs) should be the most sacred commandment of our judicial system.
Mitch said:
“The sanctity of the life of an innocent person (innocent of a capital crime, if you want to split hairs) should be the most sacred commandment of our judicial system”
But that sanctity would drive the other part of the argument too. For some, the “supermax” option is inadequate punishment for those who desecrate the sanctity of the life of an innocent person.
That certainly does not address the “imperfect justice system” problem. I agree that those who would not “suffer murderers to draw breath” should make damn sure they are punishing actual murderers. The question is, in my mind, how close to perfect does “damn sure” have to be for a person.
If the answer is “entirely perfect” it brings to my mind a politician stating “if only one persons life is saved by this legislation, we should make it law”, which leaves me a bit cold. My opinion might change if I, or a loved one of mine, were affected by this imperfection, but there you have it. *shrug*
But that sanctity would drive the other part of the argument too. For some, the “supermax” option is inadequate punishment for those who desecrate the sanctity of the life of an innocent person.
Right. “For some”, burning at the stake, boiling alive and stoning are the only adequate punishments for murder; I know that if someone harmed my kids, I might trend toward any of them; hence, we have an Eighth Amendment.
Justice involves compromises; when weighting the compromises that are needed to HAVE a justice system, to me, giving “sanctity of innocent life” more weight than “taking revenge on criminals” makes sense, PROVIDED that the criminal can still be removed from society. Which they demonstrably can!
The question is, in my mind, how close to perfect does “damn sure” have to be for a person.
By avoiding the death penalty, it’s a moot question.
If the answer is “entirely perfect” it brings to my mind a politician stating “if only one persons life is saved by this legislation, we should make it law”, which leaves me a bit cold.
Right, but that academicism covers the fact that it’s not just one person’s life involved. As Learned Foot pointed out, in 30-odd years there’ve been 120-odd releases from Death Row, only a few of them due to DNA, and the pace isn’t slowing one bit over time!
My opinion might change if I, or a loved one of mine, were affected by this imperfection, but there you have it. *shrug*
I’m human. I’m a father; I have a daughter. I won’t protest the night they finally off Alphonso Rodriguez, or the piece of vermin that buried that girl in Florida alive. There’s no chance either of them is innocent.
But that’s also what a jury said, unfortunately, about every single one of the 120-odd people released from Death Row around the country this past 30 years.
If someone killed someone I loved, I’d surely want them to die; if it were up to me, it’d probably involve both flames and power tools. But if I later found that they’d executed the wrong person for killing my loved one, that’d be much worse.
I know killing people innocent of a crime they have been condemned for is the height of injustice, and the very idea should give a proponent of the death penalty pause, but as I understand it, these 120-odd people were almost killed, but were not.
How many innocents have been killed?
I guess my point would be that wanting murderers to suffer the death penalty need not involve a wish for revenge upon them. If a person holds life to be sacred, what punishment is equal to the crime of taking that sacred thing away forever? I think that they might justly be expected to forfeit something sacred of their own. As a matter of policy, in the interest of serving justice.
Of course, if “serving justice” are not just meaningless words, then you probably don’t want to kill any innocent people in it’s pursuit. *shrug*