Death Penalty Second Thoughts
As a former supporter of the death penalty that has come around strongly in opposition, I enjoyed this piece featuring a former prosecutor trying to apologize for falsely sending a man to death row. I loved this line in particular
No one should be given the ability to impose a sentence of death in any criminal proceeding. We are simply incapable of devising a system that can fairly and impartially impose a sentence of death because we are all fallible human beings.
I consider the notion of whether the death penalty is humane or whether we have the moral right to take the life of someone who is guilty of murder to both be red herrings. The key issue for me is that we can't do it fairly and without errors. The appeals process is useful, but can't ever be perfect because often the appeals occur in the same time and place as the trial. Appeals of a black man in 1965 were not of much use, just as appeals of wrongly-convicted day care workers were not of much use in the 1980s and 1990s day care sex scares (even today, Martha Coakely bends over backwards to keep innocent people in jail). Public choice theory tells us government officials have incentives that are different from mere "public service", and we can see that in spades in this prosecutor's mea culpa.
By the way, we can see similar incentives at work in the Jodi Arias trial, where a lot of public hatred was aimed at the one juror who refused to sentence Arias to death. You read in this and other stories that the other 11 jurors were truly angry that they were not allowed to kill her.
The Arias trial also illustrates another issue -- there is a huge gender bias in death sentences. It doesn't get much press, because it hurts men rather than women, but it is really really really hard for a woman to get sentenced to death.
My post resulting from a quick read of many thinking him innocent or certainly "not beyond a reasonable doubt." To me, not so important as the details of my other posts wherein I describe what I believe to be too many problems to rely on the state to fairly and accurately end a citizens life.
Further, I see no compelling reason a death penalty is needed. For justice? There is no justice in many cases short of possibly some slow agonizing death, but then I am repulsed by people that can administer such penalty. There was a case of a beast of a man raping a young girl (14?) and removing her arms with an ax. No death penalty cuz she lived. She was found bleeding, screaming, & disoriented in the road. For justice or revenge or whatever you call it, in my book, he deserves the worst.
I've heard of "closure" for kin. That has no meaning to me to satisfy a murder of my daughter. That I would like to savage the perp is without question. That such emotion is useful for determining gov policy is a bad idea.
Let us imagine for a moment that Andreas Lubitz had survived the Germanair crash into the Alps. Would you send him to his death for killing all other people on board? I would have no problem doing so - nor do I have any doubt that I would be among the great majority on this issue.
If we cannot have death penalties because we human show imperfect judgement, then we need to eliminate courts all together - and the power brokers and robbers will have their way.
We are simply incapable of devising a system that can fairly and
impartially impose a sentence of death because we are all fallible human
beings.
Can we devise a system that can fairly and impartially send people to prison?
I couldn't find any specific details on that part of Stroud's career, which is itself telling, but going by the statistics he has probably sentenced about fifty people to life in prison. At this point, many of those people will have died in prison, and the rest will soon enough. And, again going by the statistics, several of them will have been innocent. But nowhere in Stroud's apology, and rarely in the public discussion surrounding it, do I see any mention of them.
Do we, and Stroud himself, just assume that even as he was 100% wrong when it came to sentencing people to death, he was 100% accurate in sentencing people to life? Did Stroud, as he looks back on his career from his newly-enlightened perspective, examine all his other convictions for indications of the same bias and wrongdoing that tainted Ford's? Did anyone try?
Did anyone even care? Certainly nobody considered it newsworthy.
Because, while opponents of the death penalty will surely point out that we can exonerate and free the wrongly imprisoned (so long as they haven't died yet), the fact is that we basically never do. Credit where it is due; the innocence project does work to free those wrongly sentenced to prison. But they are about an order of magnitude more likely to take up the case of a death-row inmate as a mere lifer. And they are the good guys in this one. Most people, most death penalty opponents even, never even try.
I favor the death penalty because I think we can devise a system that can fairly and
impartially impose a sentence of death. I think we actually have, albeit a kludge that is only minimally acceptable while absurdly cumbersome and expensive to operate. But I'm pretty sure we aren't going to devise a system that can fairly and impartially impose a prison sentence of any length, nor reliably exonerate those who are unfairly imprisoned for long periods. Unless maybe it trickles down from our efforts to do a better job with the death penalty.
Show me you can get the death penalty right, and maybe I'll trust you to imprison people.
Life without parole is just Death By Prison. In fact, since prisons seems to be rather unpleasant places, you could say it's torture then death. The answer is to not execute OR forever lockup innocent people.
Pol Pot? Heinrich Himmler? Adolf Eichmann? You think DNA evidence will exonerate these guys? The problem with Death Penalty opponents is that they are forced into the absolutist position that no matter what someone does you can never kill them. Set off a nuclear weapon in San Francisco, Crash an asteroid into a city. Coyote will still say Nope, We cannot execute that guy, my high morals won't allow me.
Kaing Guek Eav, one of Pol Pot's cronies ran a torture center and was found guilty of torturing and killing 14,000 people. He got 19 years (with time off for good behavior). That's what would of happened if death penalty opponents were running the Nuremberg trials.
My comments are confined to the period after the death penalty was reinstated by the Supreme Court in 1976.
I would think that everyone whether pro or con on the death penalty would hope that no innocent person has been executed. There is presently no evidence that any have. Yes, I hope no such evidence is ever found because I hope it has not occurred. I believe it has not.
I am not “desperate” that no evidence be found because that would imply I might be willing to see it covered up. I would not. If it has happened I want it to be known. I believe that death penalty opponents are too emotional and have an axe to grind. I wish they would direct their sympathy and emotional energy to the victims and their families instead of the killers.
You misread the argument.
Perhaps this will make it clear....Types of death row cases:
1) Obviously clear cut cases (basically the list you provided falls here, but even they are a group unto themselves, given that they were prominent and proclaimed leaders of their crimes),
2) Those cases we think are clear cut, but are not
3) Those cases that we know are not so clear cut, but were found guilty anyway
4) Those cases (unknown to us) where the judicial process (not just the prosecuting lawyers, but members of LE, the judicial system, or those who provide support to the above) has (illegally, or just unethically) manipulated to railroad as a clear cut case, when they are not.
Too many cases that we thought were #1, in retrospect, only because we happen to have a technological development in DNA analysis, have turned out to be #2 and possibly #4 (and in some cases, definitely so).
About 1400 executions since 1976. About 130 exonerations over that period (over 9%) and approximately 250 clemencies (about 18% - includes doubts about defendant's guilt, or about appropriateness of punishment fitting the crime). Current death row is ~3000.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/death-penalty-statistics/
Given personal experience on a very minor case, observations of public attempts to railroad (Duke Lacrosse team, George Zimmerman, and Darren Wilson) and given the scale of exonerations and clemancies relative to executions, can only conclude that the system is too flawed to deal with these cases.
Average length of incarceration on death row is ~10 years (and growing) - in CA it is about 20 years! Average annual cost related to these prison cases in CA is $90K (vs $47K for others in CA).
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-23-Death-row-time_N.htm
http://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-is-the-average-cost-to-house-inmates-in-prison/
If trends continue, it will effectively be a life sentence without possibility of parole. Only it costs double.
BTW, time off for good behavior is NOT what I was arguing - life without parole!
Why not cut our costs and just give a life without parole sentence? It effectively achieves the same thing for our society.
TeeJaw
"If there were even one case we would all know about it,"
Have you considered these?
I largely disagree -- on the overall principle that there ARE cases where one knows beyond any semblance of doubt that someone is guilty.
By all means:
Place high penalties to jurists to take a capital case lightly.
Increase the standards for evidence, for capital cases, beyond even the current ones.
Allow far more lenience in the argumentation and "allowances" for the defense in capital cases.
You can make capital cases even more in favor of the defense, such that the only ones a DA will take to trial are "slam dunk" cases in the first place.
And that is how you "fix" this issue, not by eliminating the option.
After he killed (and probably raped) one of his victims, Danny Rollins REMOVED HER HEAD and placed it on a shelf so it would be immediately seen by someone coming in the entrance door to her apartment.
This is not the action of a
mananimal I want to have even a CHANCE of getting released, by intent or inadvertent event.One CAN make the argument that it's far more humane to kill a man than to lock him up for life with a bunch of brutal rapists.
The SJW crowd has already made the appeal process into something that make executions almost impossible. Adding more 'protections' would achieve their goal of making them completely impossible.
Frankly I think we should have an expedited appeal process where the defense gets one bite of the apple at each stage. Then accused would be questioned by medical means: drugs, fmri and whatever other techniques that can be developed by the scientific community. It's plain that more can be done in this area.
We should think about adopting the French method where the accused must testify but is not placed under oath. He is free to lie in other words.
The worst of these people have failed their test of life, they are not fit to coexist with other humans.
I am all for removing prosecutorial absolute immunity. And do the same for judges. If there is malice involved then they should go to jail.
}}} I am all for removing prosecutorial absolute immunity. And do the same for judges. If there is malice involved then they should go to jail.
Not just in capital cases. If a judge says your case is frivolous and shouldn't even be in his courtroom to the prosecutor, the defendant should be able to sue the INDIVIDUAL prosecutor (whoever was in charge of making the decision to take it to trial) for their legal fees. Not the government, but the personal assets of the prosecutor.
That would take care of many cases where the case is flimsy but the defendant pleads out because it's not worth the risk.
}}} So do those imprisoned for life.
Yeah? Show me ONE executed convict who was ever guilty of committing another capital crime...
I'll not be holding my breath....
There's ALWAYS a "get out of jail". It's called a jailbreak.
"A great rabbi stands teaching in the marketplace. It happens that a husband
finds proof that morning of his wife's adultery, and a mob carries her to the
marketplace to stone her to death.
The Rabbi walks forward and stands beside the woman. Out of respect for him,
the mob forbears, and waits with the stones heavy in their hands. 'Is there
anyone here,' he says to them, 'who has not desired another man's wife, another
woman's husband?'
They murmur and say, 'We all know the desire. But Rabbi, none of us has acted
on it.'
The rabbi says 'Then kneel down and give thanks that God made you strong.' He
takes the woman by the hand and leads her out of the market. Just before he
lets her go, he whispers to her: 'Tell the lord magistrate who saved his
mistress. Then he'll know I am his loyal servant.
So the woman lives, because the community is too corrupt to protect itself
from disorder.
Another rabbi, another city. He goes to her and stops the mob, as in the other
story, and says: 'Which of you is without sin? Let him cast the first stone!'
The people are abashed, and they forget their unity of purpose in the memory
of their own individual sins. Someday, they think, I may be like this woman,
and I'll hope for forgiveness and another chance. I should treat her the way I
wish to be treated.
As they open their hands and let the stones fall to the ground, the rabbi
picks up one of the fallen stones, lifts it high over the woman's head, and
throws it straight down with all his might. It crushes her skull and dashes her
brains all over the cobblestones.
'Nor am I without sin,' he says to the people. 'But if we allow only perfect
people to enforce the law, the law will soon be dead, and our city with it.'
So the woman died because her community was too rigid to endure her deviance.
The [third, more famous] version of this story is noteworthy because it is so
startlingly rare in our experience. Most communities lurch between decay and
rigor mortis, and when they veer too far, they die. Only one rabbi dared to
expect of us such a perfect balance that we could preserve the law and still
forgive the deviation. So, of course, we killed Him."
- 'Speaker for the Dead', Orson Scott Card -
Jailbreak this...
Good, don't hold your breath...
Really?
......
It is also how you make innocent people confess, and happens every now and again. Probably/hopefully not too often, but it does happen.
It happens very rarely and it also happens with lesser crimes/penalties. Sometimes I think people base too much of their views on public policies because they watched too many movies.