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

[Cephus]

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.

Exactly why should people who are mentally ill not get the death penalty? I don't think that mental illness should be a defense at all. The question is, did they do the crime? Yes or no. Don't make excuses. I'm sure the murder victim isn't all that concerned whether or not the guy with the chainsaw was nuts at the time, the result is still the same.

Besides, why in the world do we need crazy people running around? If you're criminally insane, that's even a BETTER reason to get rid of you.

[Cephus]

Piffle.

Yes, that describes your argument to a T.

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?

That's why the legal case is always "THE PEOPLE VS. <whatever>", not "The Governor vs. <whatever>", right? It is a matter of society judging an individual guilty and executing them, not one guy. If you haven't figured that out by now, no wonder your argument is so screwed up.

[juliod]

Exactly why should people who are mentally ill not get the death penalty?

It's a general view that anyone with a claim to be civilized, not to say human, does not punish people who are mentally ill. I accept that some people do not want to be viewed as civilized.

If you're criminally insane, that's even a BETTER reason to get rid of you.

Ah, fine. I think it was Nazi Germany that last tried to "get rid" of the mentally ill.

DanZ

[Tim the Skeptic]

In an ideal society there would be sufficient publically-funded mental-health services to identify and treat such people before they start killing people.

I don't know, juliod, that "ideal society" part is a show stopper.

And I believe you have to consider the victim's family. If executing a murderer helps a family get on with their lives in even the smallest way, then I say execute the murderer. The murderer forfeited his/her life when he committed the crime.

[micatala]

Yes, I would agree that at least some murderers 'deserve' the death penalty, and certainly many families of victims feel that execution provides closure or justice. However, I don't think that just because a crimininal deserves death means that it is a good thing for us as a society, or even for the families, to actually do executions.

Sometimes it is better not to give people what they deserve.

Certainly, a central tenet of Christianity is that God provides us with the opportunity for grace and forgiveness, even if we do not deserve it, even if we 'deserve death.' If God is willing to provide forgiveness and life to any and all, why wouldn't we, who are fallible (and arguably unrighteous) by nature?

The death penalty arguably does not provide any measurable deterrant to crime. To execute people because it provides some type of comfort or closure is, to me, saying we should give in to our meaner nature at the expense of our higher nature.

[Cephus]

It's a general view that anyone with a claim to be civilized, not to say human, does not punish people who are mentally ill. I accept that some people do not want to be viewed as civilized.

In other words, you don't have an answer. I'm sick and tired of shyster defense lawyers trying to convince people that their client was insane for exactly the 4.2 seconds that it took to pull the trigger, but not at any other time and therefore, they shouldn't be held responsible. It has nothing to do with being civilized, it has to do with being gullible and stupid.

[juliod]

I don't know, juliod, that "ideal society" part is a show stopper.

Right. We won't ever have an ideal society. But where should be put our resources? Executing the mentally ill? That won't reduce crime nor improve our "civilization".

I've read that 75% of people in prison have diagnosable mental illnesses. Even a modest program to treat the mentally-ill-at-large could have a significant effect on crime.

If executing a murderer helps a family get on with their lives in even the smallest way, then I say execute the murderer.

1) I'm not sure that most families would be helped by the addition of guilt over killing the mentally-ill murderer.

2) In the general case, what happens when the executed person is later shown to have been innocent?

DanZ

[juliod]

To execute people because it provides some type of comfort or closure is, to me, saying we should give in to our meaner nature at the expense of our higher nature.

Good point. And how do you explain to the society at large that killing is wrong if society is doing it themselves? And, as we are today, doing it in an offhand, half-assed, random sort of way?

DanZ

[juliod]

I'm sick and tired of shyster defense lawyers trying to convince people that their client was insane for exactly the 4.2 seconds that it took to pull the trigger, but not at any other time and therefore, they shouldn't be held responsible.

Well, you are right. I have no answer to such a well-reasoned straw man.

DanZ

[Cephus]

Well, you are right. I have no answer to such a well-reasoned straw man.

Then by all means, stop using them and try rationality.