So, what do you think of the death penalty?
My answer would be that it does not work in present form, because people do not believe they will be put to death. People spend an average of over 12 years on death row.
Now, if the system was set up so that anyone convicted of a serious crime (states could determine what the definition is), and there was DNA evidence or video evidence proving they did it, they should be put to death in less than one year....
If the public saw that people were being put to death for crimes and people actually remembered the crime that was committed, it would have more of a deterrent effect.
Even if someone does get put to death 13 years later, most people do not remember or care about the crime.
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Florida, California Suspend Executions
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
This may not come as a shock to you, but I am opposed to the death penalty.
First of all, I don't believe the death penalty is a deterrent. Most murders are crimes of passion or they are related to other crimes such as drug dealing. Drug dealers know they are much more likely to be killed just in doing their business than they are to be caught, tried, and executed. Most crimes of passion do not involve "I might get the death penalty for this."
Second of all, I don't believe the death penalty is applied fairly. That would seem to violate the equal protection clause of the US Constitution.
Third, I think life in prison is a worse penalty or should be a worse penalty than death.
Fourth, I believe it is more expensive to tax payers to put someone to death than to incarcerate them for life.
Fifth, I believe that the primary purposes of the death penalty today are revenge and political gain by district attorneys.
Sixth, I think that in the 21st century, American society should have evolved past the need to put people to death in order to prove it believes in law and order.
OK, fire away!
First off, the DP is not supposed to be a deterrent, but a punishment. If it has a deterrent effect, to whatever degree, that's a bonus. I would agree that reducing the delay time between sentencing and the carrying out of that sentence might have a positive effect on deterrence, but I'm not as concerned with deterrence as I am with punishment. If a sentence is delayed for 40 years due to legitimate reasons, I have no problem with that. I don't want anyone put to death that doesn't have it coming as a proper punishment for their crime. It seems they could narrow the scope of what a legitimate reason is for a delay. For example, if someone is proven to have committed a capital offense, and during appeals some technicality has arisen, it shouldn't prevent the execution of the sentence if the evidence and testimony was empirical proof of guilt. Why should justice not be served because a cop got proof in an illegal manner? Punish the cop, but punish the person for whom the proof convicted.
The DP is fairly applied if the convicted is proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. If a capital offense is proven to have been committed, the perpetrator should get the capital punishment. That's as fair an application as one could hope for. Where some feel it isn't fairly applied arises when one scumbag can afford better representation than another. That's too bad for the other, who wouldn't be in the situation had he not committed the capital offense.
BTW, everything I say assumes the defendant was proven guilty and indeed is guilty.
I think one should ask the person about to be executed if he'd prefer life in prison. To say otherwise is easy when one isn't facing the death penalty. Though some are sincere, I don't feel most are in saying such. Plus, it isn't up to the defendant to choose his punishment anyway.
The expense of capital offense cases can be adjusted by adjusting some of the frivolous stays due to technicalities that don't erase guilt. Besides, expense should never be a consideration (or at least a major one) where doing the right thing is concerned.
Once again, the primary purpose of the DP is punishment. Revenge or political gain are bonuses like deterrence. If a DA is acting in an appropriate manner in doing his duty in capital cases, he is entitled to any political currency that comes with success.
In the 21st century, particulary in the United States of America, it is imperative that we demonstrate that we indeed cherish life. There are two extremes where there is a faction in this country that doesn't prove they cherish life. One is the abortion issue, the other is the death penalty. In the case of DP, we show we cherish life, the life of the murdered, by how we deal with the murderer. The DP shows that life is so precious in our eyes, that the taking of it will cost you your own. It's THAT precious. Saying that we do that when we lock someone up for life is weak when you consider his victim might have certainly preferred being imprisoned by the murderer than murdered by him. The DP is the only way to truly prove how much we cherish life. It's not an oxymoron, since we are killing the murderer, not murdering him.
Finally, I totally dispute the notion that most DP cases are the result of crimes of passion. Such crimes rarely result in the death penalty because they are not cases of murder. There is no planning in crimes of passion, it is spontaneous, more like guilty but insane, than premeditated, which is a major factor for most murder cases.
If you can show me (not tell me-show me) that the ratio of death sentences per conviction on a homicide charge is the same for whites as non-whites, I'll retract my assertion.
That should take the number of crimes committed out of the argument.
I believe the death penalty should be safe, legal, and rare. I agree with Jim here on all six points. However, there is a reason for the state to put people to death-- people have done something comparable to deserve it. My support for point #2 is qualified -- I don't believe it is applied fairly, but I also don't believe it violates the equal protection clause.
I'd also add that we cannot pardon a corpse, which is my biggest reason against it. Plus, living in Chicago, I know law enforcement is not always the most honest business in the United States. Lastly, there are other countries with far, far lower homicide rates than ours that do not apply it.
When there is a really egregious case I have no real objection to the death penalty. As a systematic punishment it worries me. Humans are imperfect beings, and the more people we execute, we will inevitably erroneously kill people who don't deserve it, which is the great evil we're punishing in the first place.
Of course it's regrettable that an innocent should be executed instead of the real perpetrator. I think it's harder for that to happen than it used to be, and that's the purpose of the appeals process. But it isn't logical to eliminate the penalty because it is sometimes applied improperly. Fix the problems, but don't remove the penalty. It is an insult to the victims of the murderers.
The punishment is not a systematic one as you've implied it to be, Jason. If there are a lot of crimes committed for which the prescribed punishment is death, the problem is NOT with the punishment.
As to the problem of innocent people put to death, I also offer this: If we look at all those who were known to be innocent of the crime for which they were sentenced, how many were the honest, law-abiding souls that the term "innocent" conjurs up? I'd think it was few. Of course one still prefers that those put to death had it coming, but if one is leading a good life and not straddling the line in any way, the likelihood of being wrongly convicted goes down. Even one with a criminal record doesn't deserve to be executed for a murder he didn't commit. This is just a thought that runs through my mind when I hear the term "innocent" or "wrongly convicted". Somehow I feel that it's likely that most aren't the saintly victims we see in the movies, even though it may happen every blue moon. Still, the problem is not with the policy, but in the execution of the policy. You know, Jason, that here in Illinois, some of those let off by Gov. Ryan were arrested later for other offenses. Chances are, if they weren't scumbags, they'd not have been in a position to be falsely accused of a capital offense.
The merit of the program? What would that be?
marshall--
"But it isn't logical to eliminate the penalty because it is sometimes applied improperly."
But it is illogical to tolerate the death of even one innocent person. If you were making the case for the death penalty on teleological (ends justify the means) grounds this objection wouldn't matter. But since you justified it on deontological grounds -- we have a duty to put murders to death -- you have to acknowledge that we have a duty not to put innocent people to death.
Just to anticipate a possible straw man I've encountered before, I'm not saying we should do away with our legal system because of imperfection. Man will be imperfect no matter what system we have. But putting people to death is irreversable. As Will Munny put it in the film Unforgiven,
"It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. You take away all he's got, and all he's ever gonna have."
As a result, I never want to see the death penalty applied in the same fashion Bush applied it in Texas.
Call me emotional, but I'm pro-death penalty. If someone were to kill or rape, whatever, one of our own kids, or you, you'd understand. It is a punishment (not revenge) -- a deserved one, and too many people out there are getting away with too much as it is, due to the legal system being so lax.
The scum needs to be taken off the streets, now more than ever. I don't care what color or race they are.
"It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. You take away all he's got, and all he's ever gonna have."
WTF do you think the person who committed the crime did?
dedanna--
I'm not talking about the people who committed murder. I'm talking about human fallibility and the people who have not committed murder and will be put to death under comprehensive use of the death penalty, whether they are scumbags or not.
What you seem to be saying is this. If we have righteous *intent* by putting people death, then occasionally putting an innocent person to death doesn't matter. This form of argument is very similar to those neanderthals who argue for socialist economic innovations that don't work-- they care, they have compassion for victims, blah blah blah, and their authentic feelings trump all bad results.
To take a few hypothetical examples, accidentally putting one man in prison for three years for drugs in order to put 100 guilty people in prison correctly for the reason may be something we can live with. Killing one innocent person so we can kill 100 guilty murderers seems out of balance to me, especially when life in prison is the alternative.
I'm with you on this one, Jason.
Marshall, you say that the death penalty is not supposed to be a deterrent. It is a punishment.
What is the point of punishment?
who is being put to death for drug use?
I don't know what you are talking about Marshall...
I'll stick to my story...
If there is definate DNA or video evidence that someone committed a crime that is deamed bad enough to put to death, then it should happen...and it should be done in less than a year.
"who is being put to death for drug use?
I don't know what you are talking about Marshall..."
I didn't say that. You've confused me with someone else. At least I can't find it in my comments.
"What is the point of punishment?"
I'm not sure I understand this question. Why are there penalties for ANY crimes? Justice. And justice must be served in a civilized society. So the complete answer would be: The sole purpose of the death penalty is to punish the offender for the sake of justice. It is justice for the murder of another person. I go back to my previous point about proving our reverence for life. Life is so precious that exacting the most severe penalty is required for justice's sake. To murder another person is so heinous a crime, that only the death penalty would serve the sake of justice.
Jason,
Continuing with the death penalty does not show any tolerance for the accidental execution of an innocent. And I don't favor going with the status quo, but refining those methods that would greatly reduce, if not eliminate, the potential for such grievous mistakes. With so much that is wrong in our culture, this too is a symptom of a society that doesn't bend over backward to do what is right. In this case, dropping the ball risks the lives of innocents. But the same is true in so many areas of life, from war, to simply driving down the road. We cannot suspend activities because of the potential for loss of life alone. All loss of innocent life is regrettable, and I don't say that lightly, but the negative impact on society outweighs the risk. We can lower the risk by altering our actions, but the penalty serves more than one purpose that is beneficial to society.
I see the old obfuscation of "Deterent" is being brought up. Marshall is right. the DP is a punishment reluctantly administered and not quickly or publicly enough.
When you kill some one, before you are executed, your crime should be on TV as well as your execution, but with out all the liberal moral equivoccations, blaming the victim for the crime, and the other rot the left puts up to save their darlings.
Sirhan Sirhan should have been executed as well as Mark David Chapman and Charles Manson.
Now, Ted Bundy hasn't killed since his execution. Jeffery Dahmer was killed in prison, but his killer lives on to possibly kill again.
I believe in not only the DP, but in 3 strikes, and at 3 strikes, that is 2 strikes too many for some criminals.
Post a Comment