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]

First question: There are lots of people who have mental illnesses who do not commit murder. Which mental illnesses would qualify as an excuse for murder? Does our society have the ablility to treat all mental illness?

Second question: Isn't capital punishment a sign of civilization? My sister-in-law was murdered but no one has ever been convicted. The police are pretty sure they know who did it and he's in jail on other charges. If this wasn't a civilized country, my family could start a blood feud with the murderer's family. We would kill a member of his family to make up for our own. I'm sure they would consider retaliation. And so on and so on. In essence, by executing a guilty murderer, the state becomes a dispassionate arbitrator. He committed the crime, he pays the price, done. The state depersonalizes the revenge. The state does serve a purpose in doing this.

I don't have a problem with defense lawyers putting up a rigorous defense. In fact, one of the main issues I have with the death penalty is the uneveness of the quality of representation an accused murderer gets. If someone is to be executed, we have to be damn sure they did it. If that standard is met, then I don't have a problem with capital punishment.

[juliod]

Which mental illnesses would qualify as an excuse for murder?

None would serve as an excuse. The insane deserve treatment not execution. It's our failing that there are no resources to identify and help these people before they commit a serious crime.

As to which people should not be executed, we need to leave that up to juries and judges. They are miserable at that job, but better than the pandering politicians and bloodthirsty politicians.

Does our society have the ablility to treat all mental illness?

At the very least they can be removed from society and given a supportive, comfortable life, for those who have serious and dangerous conditions.

If this wasn't a civilized country, my family could start a blood feud with the murderer's family. We would kill a member of his family to make up for our own. I'm sure they would consider retaliation. And so on and so on. In essence, by executing a guilty murderer, the state becomes a dispassionate arbitrator.

Sure, that's one way to look at it. I'm not arguing against the death penalty, just suggesting reasonable reforms.

DanZ

[Cephus]

First question: There are lots of people who have mental illnesses who do not commit murder. Which mental illnesses would qualify as an excuse for murder? Does our society have the ablility to treat all mental illness?

Especially since "mental illness" has come to mean "anything that would cause anyone to kill anyone, regardless of circumstances". Drinking Coke makes one insane enough to kill. Don't blame the murderer, blame Coke. Blame video games. Blame the air. Don't want to be held responsible, claim you hear voices. Tell them God told you to do it.

In the end, the person is still dead no matter what happened in your head to "cause" you to do it.

Second question: Isn't capital punishment a sign of civilization?

Of course it is. Civilized societies take out their trash, uncivilized societies refuse to hold people responsible for their actions.

I don't have a problem with defense lawyers putting up a rigorous defense. In fact, one of the main issues I have with the death penalty is the uneveness of the quality of representation an accused murderer gets. If someone is to be executed, we have to be damn sure they did it. If that standard is met, then I don't have a problem with capital punishment.

I have a problem with defense lawyers knowingly defending a guilty client. That's the biggest problem with our legal system today is that it's all about winning, not seeing justice done.

[micatala]

Second question: Isn't capital punishment a sign of civilization? My sister-in-law was murdered but no one has ever been convicted. The police are pretty sure they know who did it and he's in jail on other charges. If this wasn't a civilized country, my family could start a blood feud with the murderer's family. We would kill a member of his family to make up for our own. I'm sure they would consider retaliation. And so on and so on. In essence, by executing a guilty murderer, the state becomes a dispassionate arbitrator. He committed the crime, he pays the price, done. The state depersonalizes the revenge. The state does serve a purpose in doing this.

Well, a reasonably run state death penalty may be more civilized than 'family blood feud justice,' but that does not mean it is the most civilized system we could have. One could say the mafia is more civilized than Al-Qaeda. So what.

[juliod]

Especially since "mental illness" has come to mean "anything that would cause anyone to kill anyone, regardless of circumstances".

All your conservative beliefs are based on straw men, aren't they? No one, not even the damndest of damned defense lawyers, holds that opinion.

Do you hold these views in order to excuse yourself from thinking about difficult issues?

Civilized societies take out their trash

And yet in our rush to execute the mentally ill (and children) puts us in the very worst company in the international arena. I mean, are China, Iran, North Korea, really your view of the highest civilizations?

uncivilized societies refuse to hold people responsible for their actions.

And yet you react hysterically to my very reasonable plan to hold the Chief Executive responsible for the executions done by his/her state.

I have a problem with defense lawyers knowingly defending a guilty client.

Another straw man. I mean, how do you determine whether someone is guilty? And on what legal basis do your determine that so-called "guilty" people are not allowed to defend themselves? What if these "guilty" people are actually innocent?

DanZ

[MagusYanam]

Especially since "mental illness" has come to mean "anything that would cause anyone to kill anyone, regardless of circumstances". Drinking Coke makes one insane enough to kill. Don't blame the murderer, blame Coke. Blame video games. Blame the air. Don't want to be held responsible, claim you hear voices. Tell them God told you to do it.

In the end, the person is still dead no matter what happened in your head to "cause" you to do it.

Have you ever read Herman Melville's 'Billy Budd', by any chance?

If not, I can give you the basic synopsis. The entire story takes place onboard a ship in the Royal Navy during the Napoleonic Wars. The British government has recently passed an act placing more power in the hands of captains to prevent mutiny.

On this particular ship, there is an enlisted man named Billy Budd, the archetype of the 'nice guy'. He's kind, generous, courageous - in short, everything admirable in a human being. He becomes popular with the crew and draws the envy of his superior officer, Claggart, who decides out of spite to conspire against him to make him appear guilty of sedition.

When Claggart presents his fabricated charges to the Captain, Billy Budd is so astounded that his fists fly up in amazement. Long and short of it, one of them strikes Claggart on the nose, killing him. The Captain subsequently holds a drumhead trial that convicts Budd and sentences him to be hanged for killing his superior officer.

Did Billy Budd deserve to be killed, or do the circumstances count? He chose to be shocked by the accusations against him and hit Claggart, and Claggart ended up dead. Just wondering what people would make of this scenario in light of this question of the death penalty.

Of course it is. Civilized societies take out their trash, uncivilized societies refuse to hold people responsible for their actions.

Societies can 'take out their trash' without the death penalty. I wonder whether you are familiar with the history of the death penalty in the United Kingdom, and why they abolished it?

It turns out the infamous 1950 Evans case was the turning point for public opinion in Great Britain about the death penalty. Long and short of it was that a Welshman named Timothy Evans was tricked into confessing to the strangling of his wife and daughter and was subsequently hanged.

The actual culprit, apprehended and executed three years later, was Evans' landlord, John Christie - who had murdered (in addition to Mrs. Evans and young Geraldine Evans) three other women in the same building, including his own wife. He confessed to all but the murder of Geraldine Evans.

But the end result was that a clearly innocent person had died in place of the real culprit, even in one of the most fair and reliable justice systems in the world. As you can well imagine, this entire affair outraged the entire country. The Crown granted Evans a posthumous pardon in 1966, shortly thereafter abolishing the death penalty.

http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.c ... olish.html

I have a problem with defense lawyers knowingly defending a guilty client. That's the biggest problem with our legal system today is that it's all about winning, not seeing justice done.

I agree that it shouldn't be about winning. It should be about seeing justice done, yes, but there is no justice when the facts of the matter have not all been ascertained (which is why our justice system works the way it does).

Also, I would argue that the death penalty is not 'justice' in the way I understand the word. True justice includes punishment and reconciliation both - it's a poor concept of 'justice' that focuses on only the one or only the other, and by a good concept the death penalty universally precludes justice.

[micatala]

I just ran across this article in the St. Paul Pioneer Press.

It is about a single mom, with a long history of being mentally ill with bipolar, who threw her twin 14 month old boys and then herself off a 75 foot bridge into the Mississippi River. A bystander jumped into the river and saved her and one of the boys.

Does this woman deserve the death penalty?

Does it make any difference whether or not there are any friends or family of the victims crying for her execution? Is it OK that one reason she is not on death row is that Minnesota has no death penalty, while if she were in Texas, she very well might be?

[Cephus]

Well, a reasonably run state death penalty may be more civilized than 'family blood feud justice,' but that does not mean it is the most civilized system we could have. One could say the mafia is more civilized than Al-Qaeda. So what.

When you manage to come up with a 'civilized society' where there is no crime, there will be no death penalty.

Get to work.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

The studies are in, and the reports are conclusive: the death penalty does not deter crime. (Refer to the U.S. Thorsten Sellin studies of 1962, 1967, and 1980). Studies in other countries have wielded similar results.

Since 1976 400 people have been conviced of capital crimes, and were later proved innocent. 23 of those were executed.

Capital Punishment costs (on average) 48% more than life inprisonment.



So, just one question. Exactly what is the purpose of the death penalty, aside from serving as a political tool?

Execution is not a rational punishment; enacting it merely projects the never ending cycle of violence.

In regard to the mentally retarded, this is an interesting report I found on NMHA's (National Mental Health Association) site:

It is often difficult for people with a mental illness or disability to fully assess potential outcomes from different courses of action, and many cannot even comprehend the punishment that awaits them. In 1985, Virginia executed Morris Odell Mason who was diagnosed as mentally retarded. On his way to the execution chamber, he told another inmate, "When I get back, Im gonna show him how I can play basketball as good as he can." He was just minutes away from his death and clearly did not understand his impending punishment.

People who have been diagnosed as mentally incapacitated are at a particularly high risk for a wrongful sentence and wrongful execution. Behaviors such as an eagerness to please others are often displayed in people who have mental illnesses or disabilities. This leads them to answer questions that they dont fully understand. In 1983, Earl Washington was arrested for a minor assault. However, during the interrogation, he confessed to several crimes including the rape and murder of a young woman, not understanding the ramifications of his confession. Washington was prosecuted for this crime with his confession being the primary piece of evidence. He was found guilty and sentenced to death. His IQ had been assessed at 57 and 69 at different times, which qualified him as mentally retarded. This was not taken into account during the trial of his case. Within days of his execution, a DNA test revealed his innocence, and Virginia Governor Gilmore pardoned him after an 18 year incarceration on death row

Sorry if it merely re-hashes previous points that have been brought up.

[micatala]

When you manage to come up with a 'civilized society' where there is no crime, there will be no death penalty.

Get to work.

With all due respect, this is a bit simplistic at best, quite flip at worst.

On the face of it, this statement assumes that all the law enforcement tactics, procedures, policies etc. that we currently follow are the ones we should follow as long as there is crime, and let's face it, there will always be crime. Does this mean we should never change our policies based on additional information or other developments?

ANd why use today's policies. Why not go back to previous times? After all, there has always been crime. Using your logic, we might as well go back to the policies of ancient times and revert to stonings for adultery.

It seems to me the death penalty really has very little going for it other than tradition, and the emotional/political appeal it provides to what, are in my view, our baser instincts regarding justice. I don't mean this to sound insulting, but looking at the rhetoric surrounding this issue, I think it is not an unreasonable hypothesis.