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

[palmera]

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.

Actually, capital punishment is much more expensive. The trial alone (not the appeals) costs much more (48% more in TN) than in trials in which the prosecutor does not seek the death penalty. Indiana's Criminal Law Study Commission found that the death penalty is at least 38% more costly in totum than the total cost of life sentences without parole. In North Carolina, as a Duke study in 1993 showed, they spend $2.16 million more per execution than on a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of life inprisonment. Furthermore, the "legal wrangling" you want to dismiss makes it harder for the state to murder someone. What you're saying, in essence, is throwing out presumption of innocence. Even if convicted, a number of issues could exist, and often do, that when brought to light, show a prejudicial court or jury, and an improperly executed trial. This "legal wrangling" has been all that's stood between life and death for an innocent person by the hands of the state.

My own personal bias? Perhaps you mean the personal bias of most people. Simply because you would choose to give up and die doesn't mean the rest of society would or even has. If you look at the legal battles that people on death row have waged over the course of decades to appeal their conviction, it's exceedingly clear that they want to live.

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.

Well, I guess it's pointless for me to trot out evidence when you categorically deny it by appealing to your own (acknowledged) lack of authority.

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

Unfortunately, it seems that a majority of society deems the death penalty acceptable. The definition of "cruel and unusual" can and does change over time as society's values and 'tastes' change. For instance, public hangings, whippings, stonings, burnings, beatings, tar-and-featherings, crucifixions, and drownings have all been considered kosher at some (all too recent for most ) point in history. Hopefully people in America will wake up (like most every other civilized/industrialized nation in the world) and realize that the death penalty is a barbaric relic of our past that should be abandoned.

[MagusYanam]

So your idea of criminal justice is based on retribution.

Of course it does, we're the side that is represented by society and social dictates.

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.

One small problem: people wrongly imprisoned can be released, and the mistake corrected. People wrongly executed cannot be reanimated. I'm afraid if you can't work your little reducto ad absurdum over this little speedbump, it's not a very useful argument.

As regards the execution of innocents and a system of justice that bases itself on retribution, perhaps you should watch the 1988 film The Thin Blue Line by Errol Morris. It's an excellent film in its own right, a documentary that allows the bare facts to speak for themselves (as well as everyone involved in the case of Randall Adams). I was surprised to note that there was no overriding narration, just the interviews, the evidence and re-enactments of the crime scenario - but that's all beside the point. It's a very interesting look into the mentality behind the death penalty, and how very dangerous it can be. The actual murderer got away and was able to kill again - because he couldn't be legally executed and the Dallas justice system wanted someone to die for the crime. So on circumstantial evidence and spurious testimony, the police and the district attorney went after Randall Adams, who was tried, wrongly convicted and sentenced to death by the Texas legal system.

It convinced me that the death penalty (at least as it exists now) is in actuality an impediment to true justice. Can it be administered justly? Theoretically. But if we are going to have a death penalty our justice system and our way of thinking about crime both need serious rethinking.

[Cephus]

One small problem: people wrongly imprisoned can be released, and the mistake corrected. People wrongly executed cannot be reanimated. I'm afraid if you can't work your little reducto ad absurdum over this little speedbump, it's not a very useful argument.

That's ridiculous. You cannot give someone back years of their life. It can't be done. Sure, you can let them out of prison, but you've still stolen irreplacable years from their lives that no amount of money can ever make up for.

So yes, do try again.

[MagusYanam]

That's ridiculous. You cannot give someone back years of their life. It can't be done. Sure, you can let them out of prison, but you've still stolen irreplacable years from their lives that no amount of money can ever make up for.

So yes, do try again.

You're missing the point. No, you can't give someone back years of their life, but innocents in prison are still around to be freed. Justice can still be done to an innocent after they have been imprisoned - Randall Adams spent numerous years under a false charge on death row before an evidentiary hearing that released him. He has since gone on with his life, gotten married, written a book.

And I note that you still haven't even acknowledged the possibility that the presence of the death penalty and the mentality it creates (that a crime demands a certain price regardless of who pays) might be an impediment to justice. Or perhaps you think Randall Adams deserved to die (as he came within weeks of doing), because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, at the wrong age? And that the actual murderer ought to have gone free because he was at the time too young to be sentenced to death?

[Cephus]

You're missing the point. No, you can't give someone back years of their life, but innocents in prison are still around to be freed. Justice can still be done to an innocent after they have been imprisoned - Randall Adams spent numerous years under a false charge on death row before an evidentiary hearing that released him. He has since gone on with his life, gotten married, written a book.

No, I'm not missing the point. The reality is that if you put someone wrongly in prison for 20 years, then let them go, you've still stolen 20 years of their lives that you can never, under any circumstances, return to them. It doesn't matter if they get married or write books, people in prison do that all the time.

And I note that you still haven't even acknowledged the possibility that the presence of the death penalty and the mentality it creates (that a crime demands a certain price regardless of who pays) might be an impediment to justice.

That's because I don't think it does.

Or perhaps you think Randall Adams deserved to die (as he came within weeks of doing), because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, at the wrong age? And that the actual murderer ought to have gone free because he was at the time too young to be sentenced to death?

Whether someone deserves to die or not is really irrelevant and overly emotional. In fact, the reality that we catch these errors means the system is working. Do we make mistakes? We're human, of course we make mistakes, but you'd rather be petrified in fear that we might make an error, I'd rather acknowledge that we're human, that we need to work our hardest toward eliminating errors, but accepting that, as humans, we sometimes make them. That's life. That's reality. Hiding from reality and pretending it doesn't exist makes no sense whatsoever.

[MagusYanam]

That's because I don't think it does.

Notice the rules of this forum. You have to back up your opinions with reasons and evidence. In the case of Randall Adams, the availability of the death penalty created a prejudice in the investigation against the older suspect. There is evidence that the death penalty created an injustice in this case - two, in fact: Adams was wrongly convicted and Harris was able to kill again.

So you can say you don't think the death penalty creates injustice all you want. But you have to show courtesy to your fellow debaters and give reasons for why you think so.

Whether someone deserves to die or not is really irrelevant and overly emotional.

Yet that is the point you are trying to make. It's a logical extension of the argument that the death penalty should be in place that for certain crimes, criminals (for whatever reason) deserve death. So tell me, are you being in this case irrelevant or overly emotional?

In fact, the reality that we catch these errors means the system is working.

Didn't work fast enough to save the second victim of David Harris.

We're human, of course we make mistakes, but you'd rather be petrified in fear that we might make an error, I'd rather acknowledge that we're human, that we need to work our hardest toward eliminating errors, but accepting that, as humans, we sometimes make them. That's life. That's reality. Hiding from reality and pretending it doesn't exist makes no sense whatsoever.

Problem is, you're not acknowledging the errors where they are found. In this case, the presence of the death penalty was the key factor in a miscarriage of justice that cost a life and almost cost two. Far from being idealistic here, I'm being pragmatic. If the death penalty causes these problems on a routine basis (and I'm saying 'if' here; I'm not certain a single case from Texas signifies anything on a larger scale), then it should be done away with for purely utilitarian reasons.

[dudleysharp]

[quote="MagusYanam"]Firstly to Dudley Sharpe:

But I must confess I have little interest in discussing the issue with him via a proxy. If you cannot defend your own beliefs with regard to the death penalty (or anything else!), then I would suggest channeling your energies into something a little more productive.

Magnus, your criticism was of Bailey, not me. I am happy to defend my own beliefs. You were already critcising Bailey through a proxy- why you now complain about it is odd.

My position, fairly well known in the death penalty debate, regarding religious issues, is:

"Although not relevant to the legal application of the death penalty in the United States, religious issues are a significant thread within the moral debate. Biblical text is most relevant within a theocracy or a secular government which has laws that are consistent with biblical text. The United States does not, of course, fall within either category. This section is included only to counter the false claim that there is no New Testament support for capital punishment."

from http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html#F.Christianity

also see update at

http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/10/12 ... nalty.aspx

My intro to the ho,icide survivors rendition didn't make it in, but is:

Religious positions in favor of capital punishment are neither necessary not needed to justify that sanction. However, the biblical and theological record is very supportive of the death penalty.
 
Many of the current religious campaigns against the death penalty reflect a fairly standard anti death penalty message, routed in secular arguments. When they do address  religious issues, they often neglect solid theological foundations, choosing, instead, select biblical sound bites which do not impact the solid basis of death penalty support.

The strength of the biblical, theological and traditional support for the death penalty is, partially, revealed, below.


it is Sharp - no "e"

[dudleysharp]

Eight recent US studies find a deterrent effect of the death penalty.

All the studies which have not found a deterrent effect of the death penalty have refused to say that it does not deter some.  The studies finding for deterrence state such.  Confusion arises when people think that a simple comparison of murder rates and executions, or the lack thereof, can tell the tale of deterrence.  It cannot. 

Both high and low murder rates are found within death penalty and non death penalty jurisdictions, be it Singapore, South Africa, Sweden or Japan, or the US states of Michigan and Delaware.  Many factors are involved in such evaluations.  Reason and common sense tell us that it would be remarkable to find that the most severe criminal sanction -- execution -- deterred none.  No one is foolish enough to suggest that the potential for negative consequences does not deter the behavior of some.  Therefore, regardless of jurisdiction, having the death penalty will always be an added deterrent to murders, over and above any lesser punishments.

[dudleysharp]

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.

The most significant study conducted to evaluate the evidence of the "innocent executed" is the Bedau-Radelet Study ("Miscarriages of Justice in Potentially Capital Cases," 40, 1 Stanford Law Review, 11/87). The study concluded that 23 innocent persons had been executed since 1900. However, the study's methodology was so flawed that at least 12 of those cases had no evidence of innocence and substantial evidence of guilt. Bedau & Radelet, both opponents, "consistently presented incomplete and misleading accounts of the evidence." (Markman, Stephen J. & Cassell, Paul G., "Protecting the Innocent: A Response to the Bedau-Radelet Study" 41, 1 Stanford Law Review, 11/88). The remaining 11 cases represent 0.14% of the 7,800 executions which have taken place since 1900. And, there is, in fact, no proof that those 11 executed were innocent. In addition, the "innocents executed" group was extracted from a Bedau & Radelet imagined pool of 350 persons who were, supposedly, wrongly convicted of capital or "potentially" capital crimes. Not only were they at least 50% in error with their 23 "innocents executed" claim, but 211 of those 350 cases, or 60%, were not sentenced to death. Bedau and Radelet already knew that plea bargains, the juries, the evidence, the prosecutors, judicial review and/or the legal statutes had put these crimes in the "no capital punishment" category. Indeed, their claims of innocence, regarding the remaining 139 of those 350 cases, should be suspect, given this study’s poor level of accuracy. Calling their work misleading hardly does this "academic" study justice. Had a high school student presented such a report, where 50-60% of the material was either false or misleading, a grade of F would be a likely result.

Indeed, Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Markman finds that " . . . the Bedau-Radelet study is remarkable not (as retired Supreme Court Judge Harry Blackmun seems to believe) for demonstrating that mistakes involving the death penalty are common, but rather for demonstrating how uncommon they are . . . This study - the most thorough and painstaking analysis ever on the subject - fails to prove that a single such mistake has occurred in the United States during the twentieth century." Presumably, Bedau and Radelet would have selected the most compelling 23 cases of the innocent executed to prove their proposition. "Yet, in each of these cases, where there is a record to review, there are eyewitnesses, confessions, physical evidence and circumstantial evidence in support of the defendant’s guilt. Bedau has written elsewhere that it is ‘false sentimentality to argue that the death penalty ought to be abolished because of the abstract possibility that an innocent person might be executed when the record fails to disclose that such cases exist.’ . . . (T)he Bedau and Radelet study . . . speaks eloquently about the extraordinary rarity of error in capital punishment." ("Innocents on Death Row?", National Review, September 12, 1994).

[dudleysharp]

Cost Comparisons:
Death Penalty Cases Vs Equivalent Life Sentence Cases
by Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters

In comparing the cost of death penalty cases to other sentences, many of the well known studies are woefully incomplete or inaccurate.
 
Generally, such studies have one or more of the following problems.
 
1) All studies exclude the cost of geriatric care, recently found to be $69,000/inmate/yr. A significant omission from life sentence costs.
 

2) All studies exclude the cost savings of the death penalty, which is the ONLY sentence which allows for a plea bargain to a maximum life sentence. Such plea bargains accrue as a cost benefit to the death penalty, such benefit being the cost of trials and appeals for that life sentence. The cost savings would be for trial and appeals and would accrue as a cost savings for the death penalty. Depending upon jurisdiction, this may result in a zero net cost for the death penalty, depending on the number of plea bargains Vs the number of death penalty trials, or an actual net cost benefit to the state.
 
 
3) a) Some studies compare the cost of a death penalty case, including pre trial, trial, appeals and incarceration, to only the cost of incarceration for 40 years, excluding all trial costs and appeals, for a life sentence. The much cited Texas "study" does this.  Obviously, a totally inaccurate cost comparison.

       b)1) The pure deception in some cost "studies" is overt. It has been claimed that it costs $3.2 million/execution in Florida. That "study" decided to add the cost of the entire death penalty system in Florida ($57 million), which included all of the death penalty cases and dividing that number by only the number of executions (18). One could be equally misleading by dividing the $57 million by the (estimated) 200 death row cases and stating that ever death row case cost $285,000. Both would be inaccurate and misleading.
 
        b)2)The Duke University-North Carolina death penalty cost study is a perfect example:
 
Anti death penalty folks have been deceptively stating that it costs  $2.16 million for an execution in North Carolina. However, what the study really says is that $2.16 million is the average cost of execution, for all death penalty cases.  For example, if 10 people are sentenced to death and only one of  those ten is executed and you roll all of the costs for all of those 10 death penalty cases into that 1 execution, you would get an average  cost of $2.16 million per execution.
 
You could dishonestly do the same thing with LWOP. As soon your first LWOP prisoner died, you could roll all of the LWOP costs, from all other living LWOP cases, and say that it cost $20 million on average per LWOP. That would be equally inaccurate and misleading.
 
In reality (read the Executive Summary) the difference in cost between a North Carolina murder conviction with a "life" sentence  and a death sentence is $163,000. See also paragraph 9 Summing up, page 2.(2)
 
But in the study, a life sentence is only 20 years. You need to add 20-30 years -- or $500,000 - $750,000/prisoner --  to get a real life sentence. The authors also concede leaving out geriatric care, recently found to be $69,000/yr/prisoner.
 
In other words, what the study actually tells us is that an actual life sentence costs much more than a death sentence.
 

4) There is no reason for death penalty appeals to take longer than 7 years. All death penalty appeals, direct and writ, should travel through the process concurrently, thereby giving every appellate issue 7 years of consideration through both state and federal courts. There is no need for endless repetition and delay.

Texas, which leads the nation in executions, takes over 10 years, on average, to execute murderers.  The state and federal courts, for that jurisdiction,  handle many cases. Texas has the second lowest rate of the courts overturning death penalty cases. Could every jurisdiction process death penalty appeals in 6-8 years.
 
One more, small example. A death row is completely unnecessary. Just put death sentenced prisoners in existing prisons/cells that already have enhanced security. Missouri does.

 
5)  FCC economist Dr. Paul Zimmerman finds that executions result in a huge cost benefit to society. "Specifically, it is estimated that each state execution deters somewhere between 3 and 25 murders per year (14 being the average). Assuming that the value of human life is approximately $5 million {i.e. the average of the range estimates provided by Viscussi (1993)}, our estimates imply that society avoids losing approximately $70 million per year on average at the current rate of execution all else equal." The study used state level data from 1978 to 1997 for all 50 states (excluding Washington D.C.). (1)

That is a cost benefit of $70 million per execution.  7 additional, recent studies support the deterrent effect. Deterrence report upon request.
 
No cost study has included such calculations.
 
Although many find it inappropriate to put a dollar value on life, evidently this is not uncommon for economists, insurers, etc.
 
We know that living murderers are infinitely more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers. There is no doubt that executions do save innocent lives. What value do you put on the lives saved? Certainly not less than $5 million.

Justice

6) The main reason death sentences are given is because jurors find that it is the most just punishment available. No state, concerned with justice, will base a decision solely on cost alone. If they did, all criminal cases would be plea bargained and every crime would have a probation option.


Some believe that we can only duplicate the most horrendously cost abusing death penalty systems. There is another alternative.
 
While costs can be higher, sometimes much higher, with capital punishment than with life without parole, it isn't required, States need only improve upon the examples of those states which have the most efficient death penalty systems. 

The bottom line is that states can have a just death penalty system and not spend more than they currently do on life without parole cases. 

It just takes the will of the legislature and the judges.

1). "State Executions, Deterrence and the Incidence of Murder", Paul R. Zimmerman  (zimmy@att.net),   March 3. 2003, Social Science Research Network
2) www-pps(DOT)aas.duke.edu/people/faculty/cook/comnc.pdf

copyright 2004-2006

Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail  sharpjfa@aol.com,  713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
 
Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.
 
A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.
 
Pro death penalty sites
www(dot)cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
www(dot)clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
www(dot)dpinfo.com
www(dot)homicidesurvivors.com 
joshmarquis(dot)blogspot.com/
www(dot)lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
www(dot)prodeathpenalty.com
www(dot)prodeathpenalty.org/
www(dot)yesdeathpenalty.com/deathpenalty_contents.htm  (Sweden)
www(dot)wesleylowe.com/cp.html