As has been noted many times in this space, I suppor the death penalty for every possible reason except one – the possibility, indeed (given human nature) likelihood of executing the innocent.
And that is the only problem that matters; since life incarceration without parole is every bit as secure as the death penalty, and gets the prisoner just securely off the streets as death – and is reversible, if an error happens – then as much as I believe some criminals genuinely deserve death, it is the only genuinely moral approach.
Especially given this bit of news; DNA testing has just yielded its’ 200th complete exoneration:
The details of the latest exoneration are typically nightmarish: Jerry Miller served 25 years for a rape conviction and had already been paroled when DNA tests showed he could not have been the man who attacked a woman in a Chicago parking garage.
What’s also troubling is how common these exonerations have become since the first reversal in 1989. It took 13 years to reach the first 100 DNA exonerations, but just five to double that number. For prosecutors and judges, as well as defense attorneys, the exonerations raise a larger question: How many others, innocent of their crimes, are behind bars?
Advocates for extensive changes in the way cases are investigated and prosecuted see the 200 as the tip of a huge iceberg and use the word “epidemic.”
And if it’s truly that big a problem (and I allow in advance that it is in the various DNA, anti-death-penalty and reform advocates’ interest for us to think that it is), doesn’t that strike hard at the validity of the death sentence, at the very least? If not the way prosecuting attorneys handle cases on a shockingly broad basis?
I understand your reasoning, as it applies to normal crimes such as garden variety rape. Not sure I agree with it, but it’s understandable.
But what would you do about heinous crimes where the DNA showed the perp DID commit the crime? Would you be willing to send the innocent home but the confirmed guilty to the death chamber? Or would you still hesitate?
I have an even harder time with terrorists. If we capture a terrorist and hold him alive, he becomes a treasure for other terrorists to ransom. Most recently, see: Iran – Britian – sailors – exchange for Iranian spymaster Sharafi. If he were dead, that problem would have died with him.
.
I agree with Nate. How about slam-dunk, Alphie Rodriguez type cases? O.J. walked on double murder even with DNA evidence. Short of having a “Pre-Crime” squad, how do we get justice? Is it just to let the Green River killer live to a ripe old age in prison?
Welcome to the light Mitch.
Mitch has been in the light for quite a long time actually: ) As for the rest of the concerns about the slam dunk cases of sure guilt. The main purpose of death in a case of that nature is revenge? I’d have to wonder about US since we would be mimicking the behavior of the perp. The criminal justice perspective is to protect society from these people – something they can do alot cheaper with LWOP than by execution.
What is this idea that justice equals revenge? Death is clearly not a deterrent according to the numbers. So why do we cling to this mentality? The majority of the western world sees it as repugnant to a higher sensibility? Sorry if that seems insulting, but it’s the truth. We are in a class with Iraq, Iran, China and Russia. Wowee.
There is no arguing with numbers anymore.
What’s also troubling is how common these exonerations have become since the first reversal in 1989. It took 13 years to reach the first 100 DNA exonerations, but just five to double that number.
I’m not sure that 200 “exonerations” out of how many MILLIONS of convictions over a period of 18 years qualifies as “common.”
DNA is a new science. They keep coming up with better and different versions of it. There are a couple of points to make. First, as they mentioned, in the last 5 years, they have doubled the rate of exonerations. Secondly, and most importantly I think, is that during all of that time, it has been an incredible struggle to get the courts to allow it. Bush made it available for all Federal cases, but we know that there are far more capital convictions at the state level, and that each state has it’s own take on when and how to use it. Judges can allow it and send it to a lab that isn’t equipped to do the correct testing for example and it has happened. More than once. It costs, and only the ones who have had the financial backing to do the testing AFTER having won the right in court to get it done in the first place. If we used this science regularly, sure it would cost. But, would it cost as much as years of appeals? Would it be worth it not to send someone to their death wrongfully and equally importantly…to allow the real killers to be free and kill again?
I don’t think there is any question that the reason they are kicking so hard against accuracy in previous cases is because of the potential financial and political hit that these attorneys who prosecuted would take – and the states as well. There are states that are attempting to regulate payouts for these people. So much per year, so much more per year if it’s a capital offense….take a look at PA.
There is no question that eventually, this has to happen. I think that the real issue lays with states getting their ducks in a row and trying to figure out damage control. …I mean, if it’s accuracy and safety for the public you want, this is the best way we scientifically have to get it. Anyone could see that. So why not use it? You do the math….
Thoroughly Wasted said: “I’m not sure that 200 “exonerations” out of how many MILLIONS of convictions over a period of 18 years qualifies as “common.” ”
Thorley, your Venn diagram starts with the vast number of convictions, for every crime apparently, in the last 18 years. You need to narrow your circle.
DNA evidence is available in only a minority of cases, typically sex crimes or murders that include sex crimes. Reduce your universe further to comprise only the cases in which DNA evidence is preserved and made available for defendants to test. Reduce that number to the group that some public-spirited group of lawyers and students are able to take on for free.
You’re a lawyer, aren’t you? Any idea how much effort it takes to reverse a murder or rape conviction, even with a definitive DNA test in hand? Or are you one of those guys s who moves commas around for whatever bank is willing to pay you the most?
Most people are guilty of the crimes for which they’re convicted. Lots aren’t. You’re being morally obtuse in trying to pretend the “millions” of convictions that haven’t been overturned has anything to do with the discussion.
OK, how about a new policy: If we have solid DNA evidence firmly linking some scumbag to a murder and a jury finds them guilty can we fry their ass then?
I understand that some people have a fundamental problem with giving government the power to decide who lives and who dies, often on religious or from libertarian grounds. If you’re absolutely anti-death penalty under all circumstances, fine with me, but this conversation doesn’t include you.
This conversation is among people who think the government should impose the death penalty sometimes; the question is when and how. What’s enough evidence and what are sufficient procedures? Corroborated eye witness testimony? Incontrovertable DNA evidence? Conviction affirmed after appeallate review?
So let me ask this a different way: Mitch, under what circumstances would you be willing to support the death penalty?
.
One further question for Carmelitta and the Angry Clown. If we stipulate that the people exonerated by DNA should be freed and compensated; would you also stipulate that the people NOT exonerated should be executed?
Example: Smith was long ago convicted of raping Jones. DNA testing has recently become available. The DNA test confirms the conviction. Should Smith die?
If not, why not?
.
You can’t do that, Nate. We have a Constitutional protection against double jeaopardy. Unless you’re on stage with Alex Trebek.
In my opinion….
There is one and only one time when it is permissable to kill someone:
When you see someone killing, or attempting to kill any one else who is not capable of defending themselves, or when someone is attempting to kill you…you should feel free to do whatever you can to stop that person.
After you have someone in handcuffs, your “window of opportunity” to “fry someone” has closed.
I wonder how many people would suddenly come to the conclusion that million to one odds are unacceptable when they were *the one*.
I think it is an inescapable conclusion that states have executed innocent people..but never with my consent.
One more thing.
There is no one who rejects the “community of victimhood” more than I. However, only a fool could argue that our system of justice does not revolve around ability to pay.
I’m not complaining, it’s still the best system any society has fielded, but I cannot ignore the fact that 99% of the people on death row had to rely on a publicly provided lawyer.
As conservatives, can anyone here tell me any other instance when you have found public *anything* worth a damn? Would *you* want to bet your lives on a *public defender*?
As conservatives, can anyone here tell me any other instance when you have found public *anything* worth a damn?
The military comes to mind. The public library system in Minnesota and our State Parks are second to none. I’ve never had any major problems with my public utilities (at least none that I could attribute to the government) compared to dealing with a lot of private organizations (e.g. my parent’s internet provider, getting someone from Microsoft to help with problems with their software, or an issue with my credit card) and my garbage and recycling have consistently been picked up without incident.
But then, Thorley, your life (military notwithstanding) doesn’t depend on any of the above.
Nate:
Smith was long ago convicted of raping Jones. DNA testing has recently become available. The DNA test confirms the conviction. Should Smith die?
In your specific example? Rape isn’t usually a capital crime.
More broadly? I’m not sure. DNA seems, at this moment in history, to be pretty foolproof. Maybe it is. Thirty years ago, “hair strand analysis” was deemed foolproof, too; many death sentences were handed down over hair strand analysis. In recent years, it’s been almost completely debunked, of course. It is likely that at least one innocent person (IIRC) was executed over hair strand evidence that was deemed, at the time, foolproof.
Will DNA go the same route? Or (perhaps more realistically) will there be some wrinkle in the mechanics of DNA analysis that changes how we view its application in forensics? We don’t know. Until we do, I’d as soon err on the side of caution.
Some will respond “your standards are unrealistically complex and high”. Nonsense. “Do not execute the innocent” is simple, airtight, achieveable, and (as it happens) every bit as safe to society as the death penalty. It lacks only revenge. And in this case, I think protecting the life of the innocent more than mitigates that.
Thirty years ago, “hair strand analysis” was deemed foolproof, too; many death sentences were handed down over hair strand analysis.
I thought hair strand analysis was used to detect whether someone had used illegal drugs over a period of time (3-90 days IIRC). If that’s the case, even if one believes it is no longer considered “reliable,” I don’t think that would be useful in establishing whether someone committed a capital offense – only whether they had used an illegal drug which AFAIK isn’t an element in any capital offense.
Okay, Mitch, rape may be a poor crime to use in my hypothetical. But it was the crime you linked to, and which served as a springboard for the death penalty discussion. If you don’t want to use that crime, pick a different crime and assume the DNA test does NOT exclude the convict. Same question: would you support execution under those circumstances? Under any?
Based on your concluding paragraph, I’d have to say the answer is “No.” Which is fine – people are entitled to oppose the death penalty – but I question whether your rationale ends there.
If we can’t execute people because we can never achieve cosmic justice (Thomas Sowell), can we at least torture convicts until they die? Perhaps by locking them in small cages, subjecting them to a lifetime of homosexual rape and beatings, denying them contact with family and friends, making them work at meaningless tasks, for nothing, until they finally get old and sick and die?
If our legal system isn’t perfect enough for the death penalty, is it perfect enough for life imprisonment without hope of parole, as it exists in America today? Seems like a stretch to distinguish them solely on the grounds that one punishment is somehow worse than the other because it’s final.
And what about captured terrorists – where do they fit in your scheme of perfect justice? Same benefits as wrongfully convicted citizens?
I need a little more clarity here.
I thought hair strand analysis was used to detect whether someone had used illegal drugs over a period of time (3-90 days IIRC).
It’s still used for that.
But the analysis of hair strands found at the crime scene was once the subject of a large, elaborate body of science. Which, it turns out, has been pretty well shredded.
“I wonder how many people would suddenly come to the conclusion that million to one odds are unacceptable when they were *the one*.”
Not me.
I never liked the “if we can save one life, it must be worth it” line of reasoning.
Cops mistakenly shoot and kill innocent people. Therefore, the police must be disarmed, right?
If not, why not?
Cops mistakenly shoot and kill innocent people. Therefore, the police must be disarmed, right?
If not, why not?
The situations aren’t close to analogous.
Cops are acting in good faith, but in a situation driven by snap judgement calls rather than informed deliberation. The consequences of disarming the police are potentially death to the police and innocent people. In our society, we’ve deemed the risk of the occasional accident to be acceptable enough to have indemnified the police, largely, against them, given the greater good we obtain from arming the cops. While accidents are inevitable, nobody assumes they are acceptable.
A death penalty trial is – or is supposed to be – the absolute opposite: deliberative to a fault, with all evidence weighted cooly and dispassionately, and with both sides competently represented and given avenues for appeal (although that’s not necessarily as reassuring as the layman might think). The consequences of eliminating the death penalty as an option are…beyond the survival of the accused, nil.
Cops sometimes shoot and kill innocent people when they are acting during the one (according to me) time it is acceptable to use deadly force. Therefore, there is no inconsistency in my argument.
Mistakes happen in all endeavors, that is life (and death) in the big leagues. However, it is my assertion that some endeavors are not acceptable in the first place.
Nate said:
“If our legal system isn’t perfect enough for the death penalty, is it perfect enough for life imprisonment without hope of parole, as it exists in America today? Seems like a stretch to distinguish them solely on the grounds that one punishment is somehow worse than the other because it’s final.”
That’s easy to say when it is not you being offered the choice of imprisonment, with it’s inherent time to prove your innocence (parole or not) or a nice quick death.
I’d like to add something here. There have been several instances in which a conviction was overturned after it was discovered that a prosecutor or cop had deliberately hidden crucial, exculpitory evidence from the defense.
I think that in these cases, a defendant should be able to sue the persons who acted illegally under color of authority. And further, I think there should be a median “per year” figure that a successful suit would bring a person wrongly convicted directly from the pockets of those who so misuse their positions of trust.
I think that in the case of someone who was sentenced to death being exonerated under such circumstances the prosecutor or cop should be sentenced to the same length of time the exonerated defendant had spent in prison in addition to financial reparations.
We as a society agree to invest certain persons with incredibly broad authority on our behalf. When that trust has been found to have been violated, extreme punishment is warranted.
“The situations aren’t close to analogous.
Cops are acting in good faith…”
Presumably so is a jury. I’m more comfortable relying on 12 people’s collective judgement than one officer’s.
“… but in a situation driven by snap judgement calls rather than informed deliberation.”
I agree. Again, I’d rather have the opportunity to defend myself, present evidence, etc. than not.
“While accidents are inevitable, nobody assumes they are acceptable.”
On a micro level, no. I don’t think policy should be dictated by the micro, however. There is a macro benefit to not having a speed limit of 15mph, even though there is a micro benefit that lives (it could be you!) would be saved.
Remember, I was challenging the “if it saves one life” assertion. If that were the goal, and I think that the odds of *me* dying in error at the hands of the government via an errant cop’s bullet are tremendously greater than being unjustly condemned (and the chances of either happening are so small as to be virtually nonexistent), why can’t I use Swiftee’s rationale to say we should go the way of the UK and have unarmed patrolmen?
mike said: “Presumably so is a jury. I’m more comfortable relying on 12 people’s collective judgement than one officer’s.”
I guess that puts Mike firmly against tort reform.
Also, why is Swiftee acting like such a pussy? Since when is he against indiscriminate slaughter?
Hair strand analysis – are you talking about mitchondrial DNA testing? …?
Anyhow, I am back to view this thread, and what strikes me the most is that the conversation always sequays into something else…which is fine, but it is curious to me why it is so difficult to separate issues. There are aspect of the topic that need to be separated and looked at logically. Emotional – retribution? Recividism is not really a part of the picture. Someone will probably bring up the guy in WI who was exonerated of one crime by DNA just to have him turn around and murder someone else, but the fact remains, he was not guilty of the first one. Then there is financial aspect. The one thing that I think no one wants to really be logical about is the use of science. Why in the world is that? No one is suggesting that we allow people who are dangerous to walk free. So what is the big “whether or not” question – what is the foundation for it?
Why would the American Bar Association fully back moratorium? They see a PROBLEM and they believe there is serious room for improvement. So, since they are far better equipped to make a judgement like that, why don’t the American people pay attention to their opinion? Their position supports neither prosecutors, nor defense attorneys…neither does it pamper convicted inmates.
As we develop better sciences for medicine, don’t we use that? When we have better sciences for fuel consumption don’t we use that? Don’t textbooks regularly get updated and new versions are published? Growth of any kind costs money. Some argue the cost of DNA testing, but is that really it? The powers that be have shown that LWOP is cheaper. So isn’t the argument really an emotional one based on what you believe to be the definition of justice? So be it.
Meanwhile, lets use our developments in science. Where is the problem? I think if people could separate the issues surrounding capital punishment, things would move alot faster and there would be so much less confusion.
Oh, and a quick reply to Nate from way up in the thread – again, these are two separate issues. If someone is found to be guilty by DNA, then the question becomes a weighing of societal values. Do we value the financial benefit of LWOP or the emotional retribution by execution more? There will be arguments on both sides for that until the cows come home. I would say though, that there is value in paying attention to what the victims have to say, because financially, I think the facts firmly support LWOP. So then, this becomes retribution. For who? We have to consider society, but we’ve never seen a link to deterrence that was in any way impressive. Society is protected either way by death or LWOP. So that leaves the victims.
Interestingly, in Iran if the victim wishes to spare the life of a condemned person, they can and the execution does not take place. Does it mean the guilty person walks away? I don’t think so.
PS – On cops. There are dirty cops. There are dirty correctional officers. For that matter, there are dirty priests, ministers, politians, lawyers and taxi drivers. How can you base an argument on the death penalty based on this? No question that eye-witness testimony is unreliable. We are human with the ability to choose to be schnooks no matter who or what we are. Whats the argument there? You can pull out cases of injustice due to any given situation. That brings me back to science. For crying out loud. Isn’t it obvious how much GOOD USING it would do to end controversy – whenever possible?
“why can’t I use Swiftee’s rationale to say we should go the way of the UK and have unarmed patrolmen?”
Until no one is armed (never happen), the cops must be armed. Again, using deadly force to protect yourself or others is perfectly acceptable. But once you have a guy physically restrained the threat is removed and so is the justification for killing him…imo of course.
Assclown, don’t confuse my stance against the death penalty with any lack of zeal when it comes to a good maiming where moonbats gone wild are involved.
I can’t wait to watch the carnage on the streets of St. Paul in ’08…I think I might get a big screen TV to enjoy the scene in high definition!
It looks like I haven’t made my point clear. I’m not saying we should take away the cop’s gun. I’m not even taking a side in the death penalty debate. I’m simply saying I don’t like appeals to emotion such as…
“I wonder how many people would suddenly come to the conclusion that million to one odds are unacceptable when they were *the one*.”
…because if that’s to be the criteria in judging the merits of policy, then I can point to endless examples where the public faces far greater “risk” than they do of being unjustly executed.
I can point to endless examples where the public faces far greater “risk” than they do of being unjustly executed.
Right. One has a vastly higher chance of being shot by a cop, for example.
BUT – people, and society, take prudent measures to mitigate these risks. Cops, for example, receive a lot of training to help mitigate the risk of shooting someone innocent; it’s not foolproof, but it helps.
As it happens, there’s a way to mitigate the risk of executing the innocent that IS foolproof!
“As it happens, there’s a way to mitigate the risk of executing the innocent that IS foolproof!”
Foolproof, yes. But not riskfree.
If you knew with absolute certainty that there was a greater likelihood that more innocents would die at the hands of “lifers” (either thru escape or fellow prisoners/guards) vs. the number of innocents lost thru wrongful executions, would you still give the benefit of the doubt to the convicts and prohibit capital punishment?
Wouldn’t that be ignoring the only foolproof way of mitigating the risk to the innocent?
It is, if nothing else, an interesting moral dilemma.
Swiftee mewled: “Assclown, don’t confuse my stance against the death penalty with any lack of zeal when it comes to a good maiming where moonbats gone wild are involved.
I can’t wait to watch the carnage on the streets of St. Paul in ‘08…I think I might get a big screen TV to enjoy the scene in high definition! ”
Sure, and if one of ’em commits a mass murder, in full view of all the network cameras, I’m sure you’ll be the first one demanding he gets sent to some progressive reformatory where he can watch cable TV and get a doctorate in basket-weaving at taxpayer expense.
Pansy-ass lefty wimps like you make Angryclown puke, Swiftee.
Swiftee wimpered: “I think it is an inescapable conclusion that states have executed innocent people..but never with my consent.”
Pick up that fancy left-wing thinking during parents weekend at Northwestern, did ya?
“Sure, and if one of ‘em commits a mass murder, in full view of all the network cameras, I’m sure you’ll be the first one demanding he gets sent to some progressive reformatory where he can watch cable TV and get a doctorate in basket-weaving at taxpayer expense.”
If my reserve deputy sheriff application gets approved it’ll never get that far Assclown.
I have proposed a progressive campaign of pre-emptive attitude adjustment that features the clubbing any moonbat that raises it’s arms above it’s navel into grease spots.
To bolster the attractiveness of my application I have volunteered to bring my own “riot stick” (as long as the kids don’t have a baseball game scheduled at the same time).
I can just see myself tossing my tin star onto the gut pile that just moments before was a screaming, spitting, barking moonbat saying “Wyatt, my hypocricy goes only so far”.
Swiftee boasted: “To bolster the attractiveness of my application I have volunteered to bring my own “riot stick””
You call it that cause the ladies laugh at it, Swift One?
Swiftee swiftee…you set yourself up for that one!
Back to exonerations. Don’t you think that weighing a sacrifice of life in a hypothetical situation v sacrificing an innocent life (when we have an empiracle way to avoid it) is rather like playing God? These are human beings. Citizens and voters who, if they are innocent, are just as valuable to society, their families, friends and God almighty as you are. They guy next to you at a Twins game, and who according to the numbers, is likely to also be a parent? Roughly 70% of males incarcerated for any reason are parents. 85% women incarcerated are parents. So. Who qualifies anyone to weigh the value of their life and all of the lives that would ultimately attect – a decision – based on a hypothetical situation. We think we have a right to destroy peoples lives and deny them their constitutional rights unnecessarily based on what ifs? I’m sputtering now. You would hollar bloody murder if someone tried to deny you ANY of your rights based on that criteria, much less deny you your right to BREATHE. Think about your own kids and family. These people love theirs no less. THOSE people are innocent.
Come on. Sometimes its okay to conceed a point. This entire situation has a depth that isn’t really being acknowledged. We’re not playing chess here.
“You call it that cause the ladies laugh at it, Swift One?”
I dunno..Mrs. Assclown “took it” pretty seriously!
carmelitta,
Who’s playing God? Mitch said that he supports the death penalty. The only reason he wouldn’t implement it is that he cannot justify the possibility of an innocent person being executed. Swiftee warned that any of us could be *the one*.
I don’t doubt Mitch’s sincerity, but I think he’s focused too much on one side of the equation. He is obviously correct that no capital punishment means no unjust executions. It is also true that once someone has been put to death, they are no longer a risk to society.
As of January 1, there were 3350 inmates on death row in the US. How many of these do you think are purely innocent of their crime and not merely the victim of an unfair trial? To pick a number, let’s be extremely generous and say 10. What do you think the odds are that remaining 3340 convicts will be responsible for more than 10 deaths during their incarceration (or escape) knowing that no greater penalty can be given them? That’s not playing God, that’s being pragmatic.
As to continued warnings of “wait until it’s YOU!”, once again, who’s positing hypotheticals? In the real world, I don’t do drugs or hang around people who do. You won’t find me on a downtown street at 2:00am. I have no criminal record, and I’m not a violent person. I am much more likely to be hit by a meteor than I am to be the innocent recipient of a death sentence. So are you, Mitch, and 300 million other Americans. It’s a statistical non-issue.
Argue the effectiveness of capital punishment – the deterence value, that it’s methods are cruel, etc. and I’m all ears (although I may not agree).
Mike
>As of January 1, there were 3350 inmates on death row in the US. How many of these do you think are purely innocent of their crime and not merely the victim of an unfair trial? To pick a number, let’s be extremely generous and say 10. What do you think the odds are that remaining 3340 convicts will be responsible for more than 10 deaths during their incarceration (or escape) knowing that no greater penalty can be given them? That’s not playing God, that’s being pragmatic.>
First of all, you need to get your numbers straight. It’s 1 in 7 as it stands right now.
Thats significant. Ignoring that and saying that the ODDS are on the side of justice isn’t good enough for a country that PRIDES itself in the fact that it’s the ONLY country in the world that fight for the rights of the individual. We could get into quoting the Amendments, but instead, let me quote Jefferson for you: “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”
If you would like to talk about deterrence, the numbers show that the death penalty does not in fact affect deterrence. 8th Amendment against Cruel and Unusal Punishment? Well, the ABA is totally behind looking at that issue as well. We have evidence that people are not unconcious but rather unable to convey their pain because of faulty chemical delivery. Morally, we have physicians who refuse to participate in executions any more because they believe participating goes against their hypocratic oath. They know. They’re not stupid.
I don’t really care that Mitch is ready to execute the McVeighs of the world. I hated him too. But not enough to be willing to sacrifice someone else for the sake of getting vengeance on that one guy. I’m not willing to stand in the company of Iraqies who will sacrifice some innocent person and take the position that Allah or God approves. I just can’t. If you want to look at FINANCIAL advantages to LWOP, THAT would be far more pragmatic Mike.
carmelitta,
I would be very interested to see your source for the claim that there are currently nearly 500 people on death row who are innocent of their charges. Not those who can be argued to have not recieved a fair trial. Not “Not Guilty” in the eyes of the law, but Innocent (there is a difference) of the offense. I would like to see how that number was determined.
I’m all for the rights of the minority. I’m opposed to the tyranny of the minority. I think that if you are unwilling to accept the possibility that someone, somewhere will suffer as the result of a policy, you are allowing yourself to be paralyzed, at the risk of giving up a greater good. Again, where do you stop with that line of reasoning?
I appreciate your other points. As to deterrence, I find logic in the concept that it would be greater if the punishment was carried out quickly (rather than after decades on death row). While the ABA may be “totally behind looking into” capital punishment being a violation of the 8th Amendment, it is not the opinion of the Supreme Court that it is. No doubt some doctors are morally opposed to participating in executions (not to mention abortions, euthanasia, etc.). Others are not. They’re not stupid either.
On a personal level, I’m willing to accept the idea that a society can affirm the value it places on life by executing those who commit murder. That’s the basis for any support I have for capital punishment. The details aren’t really important if you don’t share that basic premise. And that’s fine.
Mike,
You can find the numbers anywhere. Did you really have to ask? If you want a good source, check out the Innocence Project at Cardoza in NY. Or for that matter, at Hamline. You can get those numbers at William Mitchell, the U of M or any other law school because they study it. Hard. It is all over the internet as well. The problem with asking for numbers sources is that it is something you should do for yourself. You need to have this information before making an argument and that is one huge flaw that mucks up the discussion every time. You get people who are adamant about their position but can’t support it because they didn’t look. They assumed. We have alot more data now that the entire issue is being looked at and committees are making it their business to nail it down.
As for the Supreme Court, wasnt’ it just two years ago that the Supreme Court acknowledged that executing juveniles under the age of 18 was unacceptable? They based that in part on science showing that the frontal lobes of juveniles – their reasoning ability – is not fully developed until that age and that juveniles operate primarily on the amygdala during development. Development rates vary but they felt comfortable enough with setting that developmental age at 18, while other experts would say it was more like 21. While they also acknowledged that the age of majority varies from state to state, their ruling overruled them in the area of capital punishment of juveniles. They felt that it was important enough to do something they like to stay away from – messing with state juridictions. Two years ago you could have made the argument that the Supreme Court said otherwise.
Do you see where I’m going with this? There used to be Jim Crow laws too that the Supreme Court endorsed.
More numbers…they are finding that the cost of execution is higher than that of housing an inmate. The cost of housing 1600 inmates over a 30 year period is just under 1.9 billion dollars using the rate of 27-37 thousand per cell annually, plus the cost of construction at 75 -125 million per facility. The cost per execution is 24 million. How many people are we currently executing per year? Roughly 100. So if we stay at the rate we’re currently executing, look at those numbers and add 29 more years.
So, you’re saying that if we execute them quickly that we should cut back on appeals. Thats not how our criminal justice system is set up. China is good for that. They lead the world in executions. They have a very efficient system. They take them out to a dirt mound and shoot them in the back of the head. Very cost effective.
Some physicians may not agree with the stance that the majority has taken regarding participating in executions, but as a profession, they have in the last year made a statement.
I don’t share the basic premise that it’s okay to make mistakes in life and death as long as it’s not me. I would bet that you would not personally be willing to climb onto the cross for the sake of “the people”. It doesn’t matter that you’ve never committed a felony. Neither have innocent people being executed.
Here are some more interesting numbers for you. The average person commits in their lifetime approximately 17 offenses that would at this time be considered felonies if they were caught. Thats not part of the argument, it’s just something that I think is interesting.
Anyhow, for someone who shares your opinion, why even discuss this?
Mike, you really want to know why I think the details are important? Because people vote with this information. We had the opportunity to bring back the DP in Minnesota a short while ago and we voted not to. I don’t know if it is because we are bleeding hearts but I doubt it because our historically left state backed a republican governor. I would feel alot more comfortable with whatever happens knowing that we took the responsibility to separate the variables and separate issues and looked at each one of them before we bet on any hand with our vote. None of it is easy. Most people don’t want to mess with it. But there is was on a ballot. I’m so firmly on the side of science and a textural approach when it comes to life and death that it’s hard for me to just accept odds. The odds can come back and bite you in the ass. Why don’t we do our best. I mean, my God…isn’t that what we would hope someone would do for us? Do their best? We kind of take it for granted that thats how it goes. But, when the ABA takes a position on something they directly deal with in their profession – without taking sides and says we need to look at this because WE see something amiss, I’m listening.
Do we have a ruling on whether carmelitta is yet another incarnation of PB?
Just as verbosse, but too smart, I think.
Its the urge to blurt I guess. There is an article on it in the New York Times today under Mental Health & Behavior. “The Urge To Blurt Plagues Imperfect Strangers”
Explains everything.
Pingback: Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » A Firebrand’s Work Is Never Done
Pingback: Limits of Dogma | Shot in the Dark