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]

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.

Alright, this is getting ridiculous. No offense or anything, but why is it that anti-dp people are so dense? How many times do people have to say that IT DOESN'T MAKE A DAMN BIT OF DIFFERENCE IF IT DETERS ANYTHING?

It's the DEATH PENALTY! It is NOT THE DEATH DETERRENT! It is a PUNISHMENT!

Sheesh.

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

That is solely in legal costs from all the frivilous appeals. Most lifers stop filing dozens and dozens of empty appeals. People on death row don't. Sheesh, it's really ridiculous that this is so hard for people to comprehend.

[juliod]

It's the DEATH PENALTY! It is NOT THE DEATH DETERRENT! It is a PUNISHMENT!

What, in your view, is the point of punishment?

Either you are a sadist and seek to give punishment for your own gratification, or else you are trying to accomplish something with that punishment.

Why are the different punishments for different crimes? Either you'll have to become a theist as say "That's just the way it is" or else you'll have to come up with a rational description of the purpose of punishment.

DanZ

[McCulloch]

Alright, this is getting ridiculous. No offense or anything, but why is it that anti-dp people are so dense? How many times do people have to say that IT DOESN'T MAKE A DAMN BIT OF DIFFERENCE IF IT DETERS ANYTHING?

It's the DEATH PENALTY! It is NOT THE DEATH DETERRENT! It is a PUNISHMENT!

Sheesh.

Excuse me. One of the justifications for the death penalty is that it is supposed to deter those who might think of doing the particular crime. "They killed Raoul for doing that, maybe I should not do it myself." If you think that the penal system if for retribution, then why not just torture killers before you kill them.

Anyway, I think that this brings up a bigger topic. The Purpose of the Penal system

[The Persnickety Platypus]

How many times do people have to say that IT DOESN'T MAKE A DAMN BIT OF DIFFERENCE IF IT DETERS ANYTHING?

It's the DEATH PENALTY! It is NOT THE DEATH DETERRENT! It is a PUNISHMENT!

I was under the impression that the point of punishment was to discourage future crime. If a punishment is ineffective in that manner, then it should be abolished.

Why did your mom spank you for eating cookies before dinner? To keep you from doing it again, and to discourage the other children from doing the same. If you still take the cookies, what good is more spankings? Mom needs a new punishment.

That is solely in legal costs from all the frivilous appeals. Most lifers stop filing dozens and dozens of empty appeals. People on death row don't. Sheesh, it's really ridiculous that this is so hard for people to comprehend.

Then let's compare the overall cost. All sources I have searched claim that capital punishment is more costly than life, all factors considered. Do you have evidence to present that states contrary?

The results of this California study are pretty clear: http://www.deathpenalty.org/index.php?pid=cost

[ShieldAxe]

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.

Alright, this is getting ridiculous. No offense or anything, but why is it that anti-dp people are so dense? How many times do people have to say that IT DOESN'T MAKE A DAMN BIT OF DIFFERENCE IF IT DETERS ANYTHING?

It's the DEATH PENALTY! It is NOT THE DEATH DETERRENT! It is a PUNISHMENT!

Sheesh.

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

That is solely in legal costs from all the frivilous appeals. Most lifers stop filing dozens and dozens of empty appeals. People on death row don't. Sheesh, it's really ridiculous that this is so hard for people to comprehend.

I agree with Cephus on this point. I believe supporters of the death penalty are not really interested in the logic of it (whether it prevents future crime); they are more interested in the emotionality of it (revenge).

[Cephus]

I was under the impression that the point of punishment was to discourage future crime. If a punishment is ineffective in that manner, then it should be abolished.

No, the point of punishment is to penalize someone for commiting a crime. It may or may not have a deterrent effect on others, but honestly, since the death penalty is such a joke in the US as it is, I can't see where anyone would take it seriously. If it takes 20+ years to ever be put to death, how would that deter anyone? I'm sure it would be much more effective if it was mandated to occur in 3 years or less.

Why did your mom spank you for eating cookies before dinner? To keep you from doing it again, and to discourage the other children from doing the same. If you still take the cookies, what good is more spankings? Mom needs a new punishment.

No, she did it because you did something wrong. Otherwise, why didn't she just spank you beforehand to keep you from doing it in the first place? If you continue to do something wrong, the punishment should escalate because obviously, spanking didn't help.

No one who is put to death by the legal death penalty ever eats cookies before dinner again.

Then let's compare the overall cost. All sources I have searched claim that capital punishment is more costly than life, all factors considered. Do you have evidence to present that states contrary?

If you're going to look at the costs of the penalty itself, then it costs about $20 for the death penalty. Strap someone into the electric chair, pull the switch. Cost: electricity. The only thing that is expensive about the death penalty is the insane legal maneuvering of an inmate desperate to stay alive. If you factor out the endless appeals that are charged to the state, then the death penalty is positively cheap.

[micatala]

First you say this:

No, the point of punishment is to penalize someone for commiting a crime. It may or may not have a deterrent effect on others, but honestly, since the death penalty is such a joke in the US as it is, I can't see where anyone would take it seriously. If it takes 20+ years to ever be put to death, how would that deter anyone? I'm sure it would be much more effective if it was mandated to occur in 3 years or less.

So, there seems to be no purpose to the death penalty (or by implication any other state action against criminals) other than punishing them.


BUt then you say this in response to PP.

Why did your mom spank you for eating cookies before dinner? To keep you from doing it again, and to discourage the other children from doing the same. If you still take the cookies, what good is more spankings? Mom needs a new punishment.

No, she did it because you did something wrong. Otherwise, why didn't she just spank you beforehand to keep you from doing it in the first place? If you continue to do something wrong, the punishment should escalate because obviously, spanking didn't help.

I bolded the last part because now you seem to be saying that the punishment should indeed produce some sort of effect, in fact, a deterrent effect.

So, which is it?

You seem to be avoiding the issue that punishment by itself, if it does not or is not intended to produce some sort of positive result, is completely pointless. If there is no desired effect, then we might as well abolish the entire penal and legal system.

[Cephus]

I bolded the last part because now you seem to be saying that the punishment should indeed produce some sort of effect, in fact, a deterrent effect.

Punishment should both penalize the guilty and stop them from commiting the crime again. If you steal cookies after being told not to and get your hand slapped, the next time the punishment should be more severe until you get the idea through your head not to steal cookies.

Some crimes are so heinous that the first time they are commited, the guilty is removed from the gene pool and I have no problem with that whatsoever.

The question of deterrence depends on who you're trying to deter: the criminal or someone else. The death penalty deters the criminal 100% of the time. Whether or not it stops anyone else from commiting the same crime is irrelevant, just like slapping the kid's hand when he takes cookies isn't going to stop anyone else from taking cookies until they get caught and penalized for it themselves. Prison doesn't deter anyone either, they still commit crimes and get locked up. Prison doesn't even deter the criminal, over 50% of prisoners return to crime after they are released, yet you don't see people demanding that prisons be abolished because they don't have any sort of deterrent effect at all.

[Dilettante]

Death penalty cannot be punishment simply because you can't punish a dead person. Once you execute him/her, the punishment cannot be administered. At best, it's a punishment on his/her relatives and friends.

I am therefore not generally in favor of using execution as punishment. But I can support euthanizing certain self-confessed heinous murderers since, were they to realize the enormity of their crimes, snd were they to regain a conscience, they would not be able to live with the guilt.

On the other hand, if they are not capable of empathy at all, and if they are actually proud of their crimes, it would be justified to stop considering them people and to lock them up for life like beasts in a zoo. But perhaps that's more cruel than just putting them down, I don't know.

[Cephus]

Death penalty cannot be punishment simply because you can't punish a dead person. Once you execute him/her, the punishment cannot be administered. At best, it's a punishment on his/her relatives and friends.

Last I checked, the criminal was ALIVE when the death penalty was used on them. Unless they've started executing corpses where you live, that's a bit silly, isn't it?

On the other hand, if they are not capable of empathy at all, and if they are actually proud of their crimes, it would be justified to stop considering them people and to lock them up for life like beasts in a zoo. But perhaps that's more cruel than just putting them down, I don't know.

If faced with the choice between death and spending the rest of my life in a 10x10 cell, I'd pick death every time. I think that's much more cruel than death could ever be, but that's just me.