Death Penalty and Executions

[juliod]

Capital punishment frequently comes up as a topic of discussion in this forum. Typically, most people express dissatisfaction with the current system in the US. I'd like some comments on this proposal for reform.

There are usually two objections to the current system. Advocates of the death penalty think there are two many levels of appeal and that it takes too long and is too uncertain. Opponents complain that too many innocent people are convicted and that executions are often unnecessarily cruel.

My proposal is straightforward. It would be implements at the state level, where most executions take place. Basically it is composed to two provisions:

1) Prior to an execution, the Governor of the state must certify that the convict is in fact guilty and that execution is appropriate considering all the facts and compared to similar crimes. This duty would have to be done by the Governor personally and cannot be delegated.

2) The Governor of the state would personally carry out the execution. The Governor would have to personally operate the mechanism, the switch, button, or level than directly leads to death. The Governor must remain in full view of the prisoner until a pronouncement of death.

My goal is to increase the sense of personal responsability in capital cases. That is what I think is lacking, and what leads to all the problems with the death penalty. The governor is the Chief Executive, let them execute. That will be the motto of our movement.

Why are executions too cruel? It's because no one in actual authority is involved in them. They are carried out by anonymous prison officials who may be sadists in the first place. Even lethal injection, once thought to be a humane method, is now suspected of causing extreme pain and suffering in some, perhaps many, cases. If the Governor were doing the execution directly, they would want to be very sure that things were done right, if only for their own conscience.

Why are innocent people still being found on Death Row? It's because no one in actual authority actually cares. Judges, in my view, are a hopeless case. Politicians, OTOH, often need to make a posturing tough-on-crime stance. They would be less likely to ignore evidence of actual innocence if they had to personally and publicly state they they are convinced of the justice in this specific case. No more hiding behind a jury.

My plan would tie the chief executive more directly to the execution, both in decision and action. Since they would have no simple defense in case the convict were later shown to be innocent, the Governors would take these cases much more seriously and give them greater consideration (and not just whether it makes them look "tough").

Opponents of executions often seem frustrated that as the date of an impending execution comes up it is impossible to get anyone in authority to look at evidence of innocence. Governors won't meet with their representatives. Courts won't grant hearings. The problem is that often the evidence of innocence is quite convincing. If there were a high official who must tie his or her personal dignity, reputation, and honor to the guilt of the condemned, we would not have these issues.

I think if my proposal were implimented it would be very helpful in weeding out those miscarriages that plauge our capital system, and lead to a reduction in the need for multiple appeals and repeated rulings.

DanZ

[Tim the Skeptic]

Interesting post, juliod.

I am torn about capital punishment. There are certain criminals like Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy where I have absolutely not problem with them being executed. On the other hand, it does seem that there are several cases where publicity-seeking prosecutors have hidden evidence in order to get a victory that makes them more electable.

I would make the prosecuting attorney take personal responsibilty that no evidence has been excluded.

I don't agree with the governor proposal. Little too creepy for my taste. Almost like Saddam shooting opponents.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

I have a plan too:




(1) Abolish capital punishment.

[AlAyeti]

Capital punishment frequently comes up as a topic of discussion in this forum. Typically, most people express dissatisfaction with the current system in the US. I'd like some comments on this proposal for reform.

There are usually two objections to the current system. Advocates of the death penalty think there are two many levels of appeal and that it takes too long and is too uncertain. Opponents complain that too many innocent people are convicted and that executions are often unnecessarily cruel.

My proposal is straightforward. It would be implements at the state level, where most executions take place. Basically it is composed to two provisions:

1) Prior to an execution, the Governor of the state must certify that the convict is in fact guilty and that execution is appropriate considering all the facts and compared to similar crimes. This duty would have to be done by the Governor personally and cannot be delegated.

2) The Governor of the state would personally carry out the execution. The Governor would have to personally operate the mechanism, the switch, button, or level than directly leads to death. The Governor must remain in full view of the prisoner until a pronouncement of death.

My goal is to increase the sense of personal responsability in capital cases. That is what I think is lacking, and what leads to all the problems with the death penalty. The governor is the Chief Executive, let them execute. That will be the motto of our movement.

Why are executions too cruel? It's because no one in actual authority is involved in them. They are carried out by anonymous prison officials who may be sadists in the first place. Even lethal injection, once thought to be a humane method, is now suspected of causing extreme pain and suffering in some, perhaps many, cases. If the Governor were doing the execution directly, they would want to be very sure that things were done right, if only for their own conscience.

Why are innocent people still being found on Death Row? It's because no one in actual authority actually cares. Judges, in my view, are a hopeless case. Politicians, OTOH, often need to make a posturing tough-on-crime stance. They would be less likely to ignore evidence of actual innocence if they had to personally and publicly state they they are convinced of the justice in this specific case. No more hiding behind a jury.

My plan would tie the chief executive more directly to the execution, both in decision and action. Since they would have no simple defense in case the convict were later shown to be innocent, the Governors would take these cases much more seriously and give them greater consideration (and not just whether it makes them look "tough").

Opponents of executions often seem frustrated that as the date of an impending execution comes up it is impossible to get anyone in authority to look at evidence of innocence. Governors won't meet with their representatives. Courts won't grant hearings. The problem is that often the evidence of innocence is quite convincing. If there were a high official who must tie his or her personal dignity, reputation, and honor to the guilt of the condemned, we would not have these issues.

I think if my proposal were implimented it would be very helpful in weeding out those miscarriages that plauge our capital system, and lead to a reduction in the need for multiple appeals and repeated rulings

.

Isn't this the descrpition of a King? One man rule has not shown itself well in the history of mankind.

Isn't a jury of peers a better way to decide guilt, innocence and what is to be done to the guilty?

Why not just allow the victims family decide what happens to the murderer of their relative?

Why execute someone anyway? A lifetime locked up is uniamgineable in the scope of human experience? A murderer is going to die anyway? Why not make it as long a process as they denied to their victim?

This would give ample time to provide freedom to the innocent and justice to the guilty? Time is both a friend and foe to the process and especially to the person locked up, it provides either hope or dread. And, is this not what the criminal justice system all about?

[micatala]

Why not make it really interesting. Step 3 should be that if executed person is later found to be innocent, then the governor's life is forfeit.

This would be real accountability.

The scenario as is is interesting, but I fear may sometimes have the opposite effect. I can see a 'get tough' governor using executions as a theatrical event to show how tough on crime her or she is. A real 'terminator'!

[Cephus]

Of course, your idea is silly because the Governor had nothing whatsoever to do with declaring the criminal guilty, nor are they qualified to make the legal determinations. Most governors are not practicing lawyers. They almost certainly did not sit on the jury that convicted the criminal. Why not have the President of the United States fly out and pull the switch, it makes about as much sense.

Now, if you want to have the foreman of the jury that convicted, fine. If you want to have the judge, fine. If you want to have the head lawyer, fine. Those at least might make a little sense. Otherwise this is just silly.

[juliod]

There are certain criminals like Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy where I have absolutely not problem with them being executed.

I think you are 180 degrees off on this. People like Bundy and Gacy are (were) clearly mentally ill. That's what "psychopath" means. In an ideal society there would be sufficient publically-funded mental-health services to identify and treat such people before they start killing people. Given that we lack the wisdom for that, it still is no credit to our society that the best solution we can find to the problem of serious mental illness is the death penalty.

I would make the prosecuting attorney take personal responsibilty that no evidence has been excluded.

I think the law is already clear on this, but excluding evidence is still the rule rather than the exception. Police, detectives, forensics experts, and prosecutors all suffer from the "Policeman's Fallacy". Basically it is that evidence that fails to support the guilt of the suspect is of no value. Therefore it is easy to overlook, ignore, or even hide, perhaps without being aware that you are doing it.

DanZ

[juliod]

I can see a 'get tough' governor using executions as a theatrical event to show how tough on crime her or she is. A real 'terminator'!

I think that is the situation we are in now. Governors have enough involvement to allow posturing. But not so much that they might feel responsible for a false execution. We need to tip the balance.

DanZ

[juliod]

Isn't a jury of peers a better way to decide guilt, innocence and what is to be done to the guilty?

Yes indeed, but there are at least two problem with this.

One is that the jury is never told the whole story. We occasionally see cases where jurors take up the cause of the condemned after the verdict with the complaint "If we knew then what we know now we would never have voted for the death penalty". We frequently see wildly inadequate resources allowed to the defense in capital cases.

Secondly, it has always been the case that the chief executive is the last line of defense aginst a false execution. Ideally, governors should be directly involved in capital cases (once a sentance has been passed), which is what I am suggesting.

Why execute someone anyway? A lifetime locked up is uniamgineable in the scope of human experience? A murderer is going to die anyway? Why not make it as long a process as they denied to their victim?

Gee, you sound pretty liberal on this. That would be the best solution, of course. The punishment is still severe, and if they are later found to be actually innocent they can be released and compensated.

But this is bot a politically possible solution at the current time. Our bloodlust still leads to injustice which we can't put right. I'm suggesting a viable reform.

DanZ

[juliod]

your idea is silly because the Governor had nothing whatsoever to do with declaring the criminal guilty, nor are they qualified to make the legal determinations.

Piffle.

Why do you imagine that we even have an executive branch? Can't you see a link between "Chief Executive" and "execution"?

It is the Governor who has the ultimate responsability for the taking of life by the state. I am suggesting to link the personal honor of the governor to the guilt of the condemned. Why are you against personal responsability?

No one needs to be a lawyer to decide if a sentence is just or not. "The System", the judges, the lawyers on both side, do not care about the guilt or innocence of the defendant. They only care about the "process". Juries, of course, are never told the whole story.

The result is that we still see cases where the actual guilt of a condemned prisoner is still seriously in doubt. This is what causes all the layers of appeal. This is what blocks the speedy execution of people who are obviously guilty and obviously deserve it.

If we could increase the integrity of the system, and the Governor is the person on whom this duty falls, then many of the problems, both pro- and con- would be ameliorated.

DanZ