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]

If this were true, then why do the poor dominate death row.

Because the poor commit more violent crimes, perhaps?

Can you point to any evidence that shows the death penalty is a good deterrent of violent crime?

The death penalty isn't supposed to be a deterrent. That's why it's not called the 'death deterrent'. It is a punishment for those who have commited a crime so heinous that they no longer deserve to breathe the same are as decent people.

You may be unaware of the numerous studies showing that in fact, the death penalty is not a good deterrent.

If they actually USED the death penalty as it should, it might have a better secondary deterrent effect. As it stands now, you stand a better chance of dying of old age on death row than you do of being executed. But regardless, the purpose of the death penalty is not to deter violent crime, it is to punish the guilty.

The death penalty does teach the poor everything about justice, because it gives them first hand experience with how unjust our judicial system actually is.

So it's unjust to expect people to pay the penalty for their crimes.

You have an odd sense of justice.

Setting aside the issue of education, what you're doing here is holding poor people to a higher standard of accountability than everyone else.

No I'm not. I think Paris Hilton is just as accountable for her actions as some skid row single mother. Yes, having money makes stupidity a little easier to handle, but it's still stupidity regardless. Stupidity should not be tolerated from *ANYONE*.

Yes, there is, and it's rooted in your refusal to deal in reality. Theoretical condemnations that are fundamentally separated from the complex reality of the issues we're dealing with is cowardly, disrespectful and irresponsible.

The only cowardly aspect is your refusal to demand responsibility for actions, period. You're just making excuses for people who do idiotic things that ruin their lives and the lives of their children. There's a reason that poverty goes on generation after generation and that's because stupid parents raise stupid kids who don't know any better than the parents did and the cycle continues.

Stupidity and foolish decisions are not something to be shrugged off and accepted because it's easier than dealing with the fact that the only way to break the cycle is to stop the stupidity.

[palmera]

cephus wrote:

Because the poor commit more violent crimes, perhaps?

While the poor are arrested for more crimes, it does not follow- given the reality of our judicial system- that poor people commit more crimes. Even so, you still have not addressed the question presented.

The death penalty isn't supposed to be a deterrent. That's why it's not called the 'death deterrent'. It is a punishment for those who have commited a crime so heinous that they no longer deserve to breathe the same are as decent people.

So your idea of criminal justice is based on retribution. I understand now. Do you understand how dangerous this is? A system based on retribution makes us no different from the criminals we punish. I disagree that the death penalty is not to deter crime. What's the point of punishment if it does not deter crime? Why lock people up but to prevent them from future criminal acts? If the criminal justice system was only used for punishment we would beat criminals, not feed them, and let them rot.

So it's unjust to expect people to pay the penalty for their crimes.

You have an odd sense of justice.

Perhaps you haven't heard of the cheaper more humane method of punishment called life in prison.

No I'm not. I think Paris Hilton is just as accountable for her actions as some skid row single mother. Yes, having money makes stupidity a little easier to handle, but it's still stupidity regardless. Stupidity should not be tolerated from *ANYONE*.

She should but she's not. You're still talking theoretically, talk about reality. In reality justice is not blind, money is more powerful than law and the rich are more equal than the rest of society.

The only cowardly aspect is your refusal to demand responsibility for actions, period. You're just making excuses for people who do idiotic things that ruin their lives and the lives of their children. There's a reason that poverty goes on generation after generation and that's because stupid parents raise stupid kids who don't know any better than the parents did and the cycle continues.

Stupidity and foolish decisions are not something to be shrugged off and accepted because it's easier than dealing with the fact that the only way to break the cycle is to stop the stupidity.

This would be a good point if I had actually refused to demand responsibility for actions... period. Can you show me where I've done this? In what way does talking about the flaws of the criminal justice system justify the actions of criminals? In what way does my attention to the complex reality of our justice system in action give pardon to criminals? Why is my effort to discuss the real underlying issues of crime in America irresponsible?

How do you stop the "stupidity?" [/quote]

[Greatest I Am]

I am reminded of a line from a fairy tale that I heard years back.
The "king" in this tale judged a man guilty of a crime and the sentence read "kill him, that will teach him a lesson.

We as people say that life is the most important thing to us and the strongest laws should be applied to our systems. At the same time we see people like Homolka, free as a bird after just a few years in prison, while her victims are dead. Clearly unfair.
In some countries today, I would spend more time in jail for stealing from you than for killing you. Strange.
My brother says it this way. If you are to shoot someone just don't touch their wallet.

The death penalty should be abolished everywhere. As a deterrent it does not work otherwise after all these years murder would have disappeared or been greatly reduced.
Further killing an innocent person as has been done cannot be condoned by saying that the killing we do is "mostly" of the guilty. There is no lesson being learned by any that commit murder because they are dead.
Further if a Christian is the executioner then retribution from God has to be expected. There is nothing ambiguous about "though shall no kill.

Justice today is slanted against the poor. Granted more poor people will do crimes. This has always been the case, but since they do not have access to the best layers like the rich do, we can fairly say that most justice systems are unfair.

For all of the stated anomalies I think the killing of guilty or innocent perpetrator of crime must be allowed to live.

Regards
DL

[Cephus]

There is nothing ambiguous about "though shall no kill.

Considering the commandment is "thou shalt not murder", I'd say it's rather laughable. There are many places in the Bible where God tells people to kill.

It's always amazing to me how ignorant you Christian folks are of your own mythology.

[Cephus]

Sorry, I've been very, very sick for about a week now, most days I've hardly been able to get out of bed. This response took a while, therefore.

While the poor are arrested for more crimes, it does not follow- given the reality of our judicial system- that poor people commit more crimes. Even so, you still have not addressed the question presented.

Of course it does. The poor commit more crimes because the poor *NEED* to commit more crimes! They are the ones who need to steal to survive. They are the ones who form the ranks of criminal street gangs. It's not the rich who are out sticking up liquor stores or carjacking BMWs, they don't need to.

So your idea of criminal justice is based on retribution. I understand now. Do you understand how dangerous this is? A system based on retribution makes us no different from the criminals we punish. I disagree that the death penalty is not to deter crime. What's the point of punishment if it does not deter crime? Why lock people up but to prevent them from future criminal acts? If the criminal justice system was only used for punishment we would beat criminals, not feed them, and let them rot.

Of course it does, we're the side that is represented by society and social dictates. Society decides what is acceptable and what is not and those who act outside of social dictates deserve to be punished in whatever manner society deems appropriate.

Prison doesn't deter crime either, why do you think we have to keep building more prisons? Heck, you've got people who purposely commit crimes so they can go to prison because it's a better life behind bars than they'd have on the streets. But if you want to debate justice philosophy, the reason to have prisons has nothing whatsoever to do with deterrence, a prison should fulfill three criteria:

1. It should punish the guilty.
2. It should protect society from the guilty.
3. It should prepare the guilty for an eventual return to society.

If it doesn't do all three of those things, then that criminal has no business being in prison. That's why all the non-violent drug user offenders shouldn't be behind bars, they're not a threat to society. That's why all the people on death row should be disposed of, they're never returning to society.

Perhaps you haven't heard of the cheaper more humane method of punishment called life in prison.

It's only cheaper because of all the money being wasted on endless and meaningless appeals by people who don't want to die. The death penalty costs a couple bucks. It's the legal wrangling that costs millions. You want to know how scary the death penalty is to criminals, just look at how hard they fight to keep from being killed.

In reality justice is not blind, money is more powerful than law and the rich are more equal than the rest of society.

Of course. Like it or not, money and power have a great influence. Always have, always will. Pretending otherwise is silly. But giving people without money or power a pass because they're somehow less culpable for their actions is likewise silly. It doesn't matter if you're killed by a millionaire or a skid row bum, you're still dead. The fact that the millionaire can hire a high-priced lawyer may result in a travesty of justice, but that doesn't mean we should let that skid row bum off.

I'll be the first one to agree the justice system needs a serious revamp, but it needs to be tighter on EVERYONE, not looser on the poor.

[Greatest I Am]

There is nothing ambiguous about "though shall no kill.

Considering the commandment is "thou shalt not murder", I'd say it's rather laughable. There are many places in the Bible where God tells people to kill.

It's always amazing to me how ignorant you Christian folks are of your own mythology.

I am aware that the Bible says to kill for everything from laying with a virgin to killing a son who does not listen to his father. I agree it is stupid, which is why we pick at the Bible. We know changes are required. Not all Christians should be painted with your wide brush.

Regards
DL

[palmera]

cephus wrote:

Of course it does. The poor commit more crimes because the poor *NEED* to commit more crimes! They are the ones who need to steal to survive. They are the ones who form the ranks of criminal street gangs. It's not the rich who are out sticking up liquor stores or carjacking BMWs, they don't need to.

'

Crime is not necessarily done out of necessity. It's often times done for the thrill. Also, statistics show that crimes committed by the rich cost society (monetarily) much more than crimes committed by the poor. Corporations steal hundreds of billions of dollars. Street crimes like robberies all told account for a sliver of that amount. The rich don't have to hold up liquor stores, not because they live comfortably, but because they have the resources to steal a far greater amount from the public in general through "white collar" crimes.

Also, the crimes that are committed out of necessity reflect both the nature of the criminal and the nature of society in which that criminal was influenced. Not paying attention to the environment in which crimes take place is like trying to figure out why your dish didn't turn out well without consulting the recipe. This is the importance of wrestling with issues of racism and classism within our criminal justice system, especially regarding capital punishment. It's not to cut criminals a little slack or to not hold them accountable, but to understand and deal with the fact that our justice system is oppressive and unjust.

It's only cheaper because of all the money being wasted on endless and meaningless appeals by people who don't want to die. The death penalty costs a couple bucks. It's the legal wrangling that costs millions. You want to know how scary the death penalty is to criminals, just look at how hard they fight to keep from being killed.

You do realize we've executed innocent people before right? The appellate process is absolutely necessary and fundamentally protects our rights as citizens against the whims of courts, the prejudice of juries, and the ineptitude of lawyers. Also, how do you figure the death penalty costs a couple of bucks???

I'll be the first one to agree the justice system needs a serious revamp, but it needs to be tighter on EVERYONE, not looser on the poor.

Again, it's not about being tighter or looser, but more just for everyone. It's not about giving the rich harsher punishments and the poor lesser punishments willy nilly, it's about holding the entire legal system accountable to a set of standards that treats people equally.

[Cephus]

Crime is not necessarily done out of necessity. It's often times done for the thrill. Also, statistics show that crimes committed by the rich cost society (monetarily) much more than crimes committed by the poor. Corporations steal hundreds of billions of dollars. Street crimes like robberies all told account for a sliver of that amount. The rich don't have to hold up liquor stores, not because they live comfortably, but because they have the resources to steal a far greater amount from the public in general through "white collar" crimes.

But in this thread, we're specifically talking about violent crimes, especially those that lead to the death penalty. So yes, you can talk about white collar crime all you want, it's really irrelevant to the question at hand.

You do realize we've executed innocent people before right? The appellate process is absolutely necessary and fundamentally protects our rights as citizens against the whims of courts, the prejudice of juries, and the ineptitude of lawyers. Also, how do you figure the death penalty costs a couple of bucks???

There isn't a single documented case since the reintroduction of the death penalty in the 70s that can be shown to have executed an innocent. And so what? We've jailed demonstrable innocents too, I don't see anyone calling for an end to prisons.

And the cost of the actual execution is no more than the chemicals injected or the electricity used. The execution is cheap, it's the theatrics that lead up to it that are expensive.

Again, it's not about being tighter or looser, but more just for everyone. It's not about giving the rich harsher punishments and the poor lesser punishments willy nilly, it's about holding the entire legal system accountable to a set of standards that treats people equally.

Sure, I'd agree with that, but being 'more just' doesn't mean lessening penalties on the poor, it means tightening them up for the wealthy. That's why I support manditory sentencing and denying appeals based on anything other than the actual, factual innocence of the individual. All the technical "didn't cross their T" nonsense that we see needs to be done away with. All that matters is if they did it. Yes? They get punished, period.

[palmera]

cephus wrote

All the technical "didn't cross their T" nonsense that we see needs to be done away with. All that matters is if they did it. Yes? They get punished, period.

Indeed, but why can't that punishment be life in prison? It's cheaper, more human, and not based in retribution.

Further, the Stanford Law review cited over 350 cases of capital punishment in which the executed were later found to be innocent. 20 of those cases, they argue, happened between 1980 and 1985. Either way, just how many innocents would have to die for the death penalty to be acknowledged as untenable? Further, in what way is execution not unconstitutional under the 8th amendment?

Sure, I'd agree with that, but being 'more just' doesn't mean lessening penalties on the poor, it means tightening them up for the wealthy.

What examples are you thinking of when you claim that "more just" doesn't mean lessening the penalties on the poor? Do you think that giving the poor and minorities a fair trial is unjust? Do you think life in prison is a "lessening" of penalties from the poor? I'm a little confused as to how you think I'm arguing that the poor should receive special benefits or lesser punishments?

I agree that 'more just' should not include a lessening of punishment, but it must also mean that all citizens are treated equally under the law.

[Cephus]

Indeed, but why can't that punishment be life in prison? It's cheaper, more human, and not based in retribution.

Because it isn't necessarily any of those things. It's actually much more expensive to keep someone alive for 40-50 years than it is to put them to death. Eliminate the ridiculous legal wrangling and you've just made the DP much, much, much less expensive. More human? If given the choice between living behind bars for the rest of my life and death, I'd choose death in a heartbeat. You're just taking your own personal biases and demanding they be true. Ain't necessarily so.

Further, the Stanford Law review cited over 350 cases of capital punishment in which the executed were later found to be innocent. 20 of those cases, they argue, happened between 1980 and 1985.

Last I looked, and it's been a while, none of those cases would pass legal muster for reversing the case, it's all a bunch of wishful thinking. Now I could have missed something, but until someone actually comes up with a case where the criminal can be scientifically proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to be factually innocent, or they come up with someone else to confess to the crime, I don't buy it.

Either way, just how many innocents would have to die for the death penalty to be acknowledged as untenable?

I don't know, how many innocents have to be put in prison before you admit it's 'untenable'? We're human, we make mistakes, all we can do is constantly be vigilant to improve our techniques and keep as many innocents from being wrongfully convicted as we can. If we do, however, then we do. That's reality.

Further, in what way is execution not unconstitutional under the 8th amendment?

How is it? It is neither cruel (we make it as painless as possible), nor unusual.

I agree that 'more just' should not include a lessening of punishment, but it must also mean that all citizens are treated equally under the law.

You'll get no argument from me on that. I'm not sure how it changes anything we're talking about here though.