Until the evidence gathering and the legal process are damned near perfect I'm against the DP on that principle. The fact is the DP is racially and class biased (fairness issue) and vulnerable to polical expediency. Since this will probably never happen, I'll probably never change my mind given that the deterrent effect is negligble.

The moral case against state-sanction killing is a lot more difficult to argue - as an abtract notion, executing child-killers and rapists is not something I'd say most Americans would baulk at. Christians, on principle, I'd imagine, would be against it, particularly literalists, though I am pretty much ignorant about how they feel on the matter.

From comedian Ron White:

"Texas just passed a bill saying that if you kill more than two people you will be executed sooner than single murderers....other states are abolishing the death penalty, Mine's puttin' in an express lane."

I'm all in favor of life sentences in hard labor as opposed to death. I think we should just send them all up to the arctic circle with shovels and pick axes and relive the chain gangs of old. Give them moldy bread and grey water as their only sustenance. Make them work 18 hour days building a road by hand that leads into ANWAR so our oil trucks can steal the precious crude from the unwary caribou.

I'm in favor of the death penalty, though I agree with Dean that you have to have proper evidence to conclude 99% that it is the guy that did the crime. I may be a bit biased on this issue though, my father was killed ten years ago and the guy who did it(there were witnesses and evidence proving him guilty) is now living in a jail cell for the rest of his life, and while by no means plush it is more than he deserves, and on my tax dollars to boot. So, I say end his life as he is only a drain on society and his life no longer holds any value, clearly he didn't value the life of my father, who was probably the nicest man you'd ever meet, so why should anyone value his? I like Steve Duane's idea too, at least make them do some tough labor that would help society. Of course some people would cry out "But that's inhumane!", but one must remember that those monsters who murder, rape, and torment others for their own benefit and amusement would never be humane to you, so why should you give them a kindness they'd never give you?

You're right that there is some small risk of convicting the guilty. But you shouldn't evaluate that isolated risk, but rather weigh it against the default alternative.

The death penalty is the only method sure to prevent killers from release. Although the Massachussets furlough program was discontinued, who knows what policies prison officials implement but don't publicize. Most people in Massachussets believed violent offenders weren't eligible for their furlough program until the publicity of Willie Horton. There are also cases like Jack Henry Abbott, the man Norman Mailer championed who killed again with a few weeks of his politically motivated release.

While these circumstances are rare, they are more common than executing an innocent party, which has never been proven.

I've had this discussion with an ultra liberal aunt many times. The bottom line is that I support the death penalty because somewhere someone like her is making the decisions about parole & early release. She believes, as is common among lefties, that people are entitled to a virtually unlimited number of chances to correct themselves largely because whatever they've done is society's fault. As the furlough program showed, system management does not have the same priorities we do and therefore cannot be trusted to make decisions in our interest. We have to remove from their purview those decisions which carry too high a conflict.

I'll also point out that though anti-DP advocates often couch their arguments in risk of wrongful conviction language, most fall back to blanket condemnations whenever necessary. During a discussion with the same aunt she refused to accept the DP for John Muhammad, the DC sniper, even though his guilt is beyond question.

I think DNA testing is admirable, and requiring it sounds reasonable to me. I also think that a DA who keeps someone in jail after DNA clears him, as recently ocurred, should probably be facing jail himself. But I also think the only real chance to effect change in the CJ system is to fundamentally change the system itself. Right now "truth" isn't the goal. It should be, but it's constantly subverted.

For example, I would change the rules regarding evidence. One of the main reasons for wrongful convictions in my mind is the general knowledge of how stacked the deck is in favor of the defendant with regard to evidence. Jurors know that there is likely to be strong evidence pointing to guilt not available to them, and this knowledge convinces them to give the prosecutor the benefit of the doubt. Of course, prosecutors in turn use this predisposition to their advantage. If the loopholes were smaller, jurors wouldn't assume they haven't heard all the facts.

The purpose of the evidentiary rules is to protect the innocent, not the guilty. If law enforcement oversteps the rules that action should be made criminal and punished accordingly. But if law enforcement finds a smoking gun we shouldn't pretend it doesn't exist.

Governor Pawlenty of Minnesota recently proposed a law that would require a DNA link before the death penalty could be considered.

I posted about it here.

I'm heavily against the death penalty myself. I'm just not convinced that a punishment that permanent should be imposed when a group of J-school students can successfully clear death-row inmates' names.

--|PW|--

Dean: Do you have any examples of anyone who has been "definitively cleared" by DNA evidence? I'm not even sure that is possible. The presence of someone else's DNA does not mean the original convict was innocent, any more than someone else's fingerprints on the gun prove that he couldn't have shot it.

Heh. If Steve D's plan were proposed, how long before prisoner rights advocates shot it down? I'd say about 12 milliseconds. Cruel and unusual punishment to the cruel and unusual, don't you know.

"You're right that there is some small risk of convicting the guilty."

You mean "innocent," right, mj? I'm not your aunt, I certainly have no qualms about seeing the guilty fry, and I think that extending [insert ordinal numbers ad infinitum here] chances is that same as telling people they can get away with whatever the hell they want.

But in practical terms, my understanding is that while no executed party's innocence has been proved, the reasonable doubt standard has been challenged through subsequent evidence in enough cases to give Max M's caution credence. I also wonder whether most jurors really think things through as sophisticatedly as you give them credit for. Having spent my post-college life abroad, I haven't reported for jury duty, but of the friends of mine who have, word is consistently that not being too bright and inquisitive is an advantage in being selected.

Though I freely admit that my friends may just be weird. BTW, Japan, where the conviction rate is on par with the purity of Ivory soap, executes by hanging, often during Diet recesses when publicity is likely to be minimal. The crime rate here is extremely low, but I don't think the death penalty is much of a factor.

Dean, one quick reaction:

You have conflated local government with federal government when you spoke of people "distrusting government." And BTW, I'm not conservative, but I do distrust Federal government.

The reason for my sentiment, and this post? Simple: it's easier to hold local government accountable.

At the city level and county level (and frequently at the state level) you can meet, and speak with your representatives. You -or any citizen- can make a greater differennce at the local level.

This is much more difficult (although not impossible) when everyone goes to Washington.

The same with courts. I could be wrong (Mark Adams?) but IIRC most judicial decisions are local to the extent that the courts are municipal, or state, as opposed to federal. You only hit the feds when you start climbing the appeal ladder.

Thus it makes sense to trust local authority more. Or at least, distrust it less. :)

Note that this has no bearing on the quality or fairness of any given case.

"You mean "innocent," right, mj?"

Yep, sure did.

And you're right, low Japanese crime levels are independent of the death penalty. Most commentary I've read attributes the largest portion of the difference to a far stronger cultural sense of shame for breaking the law.

I wonder about your other comment, and it ties with what pennywhit said. Do the post-conviction reviews really find reasonable doubt? Lefties will believe anything that reinforces their political agenda. For example they assert that Mumia Abu Jamal is innocent since it advances the race victim theory. So, are we talking MAJ levels of doubt or real reasonable doubt? Do they just wear down the system until it gives up?

Sorry to stray off of the subject, but I read the "brainteaser that changed my life". And not to be arrogant, but it truely is an easy solution:

If you go into that senario knowing that you will change your pick everytime, then there are 2 correct doors out of the three at the beggining. If you decide not to change then there is only one correct door to choose from. EI...the million dollars is behind the middle door---this means you can pick the left OR the right door to win the Million Dollars (if you change your pick everytime). If you stick with your original pick, the ONLY right answer is the middle door.

Loved the article, and the comments about it. Also love Brianteasers--so if you have more please share.

Latah.

Christians, on principle, I'd imagine, would be against it, particularly literalists, though I am pretty much ignorant about how they feel on the matter.

Ah, you fell into the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" trap, Max. The literal translation is "Thou Shalt Not Murder." And yes, there's a difference, which is why so many of us Christians abhor abortion (the innocent), but are fine with the death penalty (the guilty).

That said, I'm all in favor with any and all DNA testing deemed necessary to prevent ANY mistakes.

I mean, c'mon... we found $50 million to build a rainforest in Iowa.

Yeah, the shooting of Daniel Faulkner (whom no one ever mentions by name now that Mumia is the star of the episode) has become a celebrated cause, but that's not what I was talking about. If I remember correctly--the previews of MAJ's book were coming out just as I was being graduated from college in Philadelphia--there were at least two witnesses who swore they saw him shoot Faulkner, even though the bullet couldn't be tested and identified. So the endorsements of Alice Walker et. al. were, to my knowledge, nothing but politically motivated in that case. I can't find links right now, but I was talking about cases I read about six or seven years ago, in which the import of circumstantial evidence was later questioned persuasively.

So Rob, if you(or the state) kill some guy puts your kid in a coma, Christianity is ok with that? How about if he just beats them up real real bad? Or what if he just roughs them up a bit? What does he have to do to be 'guilty'?

Mike Farrell gave a speech here at the Monterey Public Library last night called "Pulling the Plug on the Machinery of Death."

I really wanted to go, but a meeting ran late and I couldn't make it. It promised to be interesting.

Personally, I believe that the death penalty should be reserved for the most dangerous criminals -- serial killers, rapists, child molsters, terrorists, and traitors.

Why? Because our government will not always be here to protect us. Eventually, our government will fall -- like every other government before it. When that happens, the prison gates will be opened and those inside will be let loose on a society that is most vulnerable.

If I were living in a society without police protection, I certainly wouldn't want to have to deal with the Manson Family and Ted Bundy moving into the neighborhood.

To me, the high number of abortions and executions in the U.S. correlates to a high degree of barbarity and nihilism.

Are there crimes so awful that in fact the
perpetrator(s) have by there action (s) forfeited any right to the continuance of their human existence ?

I have no problems philosophically with the death penalty. However, I do have some reservations.

The death penalty is applied unevenly. Why is it that in Texas, a white woman can literally execute—meaning a cold-blooded, premediated act—her five children and escape death, but a black man can be executed for killing one person, maybe on the spur of the moment and in extreme rage? Why is imposition of the death penalty dependent on where the crime was committed? Currently, in San Francisco, there is a lot of controversy over the DA's decision not to seek the death penalty in a cop-killing this week—because she doesn't believe in it. Next county over, it could be an entirely different story. Good vs bad lawyers, inconsistent juries, the list goes on.

Costs. Because of the interminable appeals process, it costs the taxpayers considerably more to administer the death penalty than it does to house a convict in maximum security for many, many years.

Satisfaction. Does anyone really rejoice when they get the news break at 12:01 AM announcing that so and so has been duly executed?

I also don't see how one can be pro-life and pro-death penalty. If life is sacrosanct, then life is sacrosanct. For Christians who rationalize these opposing views, whatever happened to "Vengeance is mine, sayth the Lord"?

IMO, life without parole—and really without parole—is the answer. What I'd actually like to see is a revival of Devil's Island. Cast these wretches totally out of society and let them fend for themselves in an escape-proof environment. And if some of them don't live to a ripe old age, so what? They will have chosen their lot and the rest of us need feel no qualms about our role in their fate.

Max M,

It is upon Christian principle that I oppose the death penalty; but as with all principles, it has to be hedged about with careful understandings. I'm not supposed to steal, but if by stealing I may prevent myself from starving, then its ok. Law, divine and otherwise, is made for man, not man for law; its supposed to assist us in being the better people are capable of becoming.

To me, its absurd to require DNA evidence for a death penalty - suppose the rapist/murderer wore a condom and gloves; what then? We can never be 100% certain of anything; we must, always, go with the preponderance of evidence. Executing a man is a grave thing, but so is sending him to jail for 25 years - in either case, if the person turns out to have been innocent, things were taken away from him which can never be restored.

Its also a bit absurd how we carry out the death penalty - from the fact that no rich person will ever be executed (this is absolute, as far as I can see - any rich person will be able to put up enough of a legal screen to convince the prosecutor to plea-bargain at least to the extent of saving the rich murderer's life) to the fact that we do it on a hospital bed, the death penalty is a welter of contradictions. There is no way out of the contradictions - so better to just not have the death penalty as a common practice (it must be retained, however - what do we do with a life-sentenced murderer who kills again?).

Coming from a country where the death penalty was abolished before I was born, and yet polls consistently show about 2 thirds of the populace are in favour (it's called democracy or something), I'll add my €0.02 to the debate. I have to come down on the anti- side, only just - on a personal level I have no problems to say "hang 'em all", but I just don't trust the state with that kind of power.
And seeing the numbers of convicted murderers whose convictions are quashed in the UK, whom the government then has the nerve to charge for "food and housing" whilst they were wrongfully incarcerated, would you trust them?

Rob

That rain forest in Iowa will cost $350mill. The feds are kicking in $50mill. The rest will have to be raised.

Catch

Yes, I can think of a few sadistic, serial or child murders that I think warrant more than the death penalty. I would like them to be executed, revived and then executed several times over. However, in my state we have no death penalty and I'm mostly okay with that because they do get locked up forever here. Nevertheless, there are a few murderers here in prison for life that I would gladly have agreed that tomake an exception for. They should have been given a needle in the arm or worse, the death they gave their victims.

It's tempting to think that we should reserve the death penalty for when we're absolutely sure. But then we'll end up executing someone if, and only if, he admits his wrongdoing. That doesn't seem quite right to me.

What we really need are more accurate trials. Wrongfully convicting someone is dangerous, not only to the poor schmuck that gets sent up to the river, but to society at large since a wrongful conviction usually means that the real culprit is still on the loose.

One change I think would help is for public defenders to be paid the same as prosecutors. Get the same caliber of representation on both sides, and the verdict should be more likely to be the correct one. With better verdicts in turn will come the confidence needed to hand down better punishments; if the punishment is less likely to be applied to the innocent, it can be made more suitably harsh for those who deserve it.

"Personally, I believe that the death penalty should be reserved for the most dangerous criminals -- serial killers, rapists, child molsters, terrorists, and traitors."

I'd reserve the death penalty for those that actually kill people, myself. And I'd like to apply it to a much higher percentage of the ones that actually kill people.

I want the highest standards applied in capital offenses but I am not convinced that DNA is or will be the magic bullet which will determine guilt or innocence. I can only offer an opinion. I think Dr. Sam Shepard was not innocent of murder of his wife even though F. Lee Bailey found some dna that magically exonerated Sam some 10-12 years after the fact. In the Polly Klaas case, dna was not a findable factor although Richard Allen Davis was guilty. In the OJ case, findings were skewed enough by the defense and the jury found OJ not guilty of murder of two persons yet the civil trial made no such finding and OJ owes someone
$ 33,000,000. Each case must be evaluated on its own merits. It is largely other evidence that convicts. And, how to apply the death penalty in the Charles Manson case ? The killers of Sharon Tate and others acted under the directions of Charlie. He and the others were given the death penalty then later California law overturned the penalty for other reasons never to re-instate it for these bums. Yet, Charlie never committed any of the murders. I find it a mixed bag. And I liked the movie, Hang’em High. Of course, Clint Eastwood was totally innocent but alas no dna.

Like the Sheriff says: Hang the guilty, hang’em in the morning.

Dean,

I find that your view of the death penalty is very similar to mine. Morally, it's completely justified. Practically, there are concerns about whether we can avoid mistakes.

I have a post along these lines in which I suggest that the standard of proof should be "beyond all possible doubt." Xrlq took issue with it and made some good arguments; we had an interesting debate.

"the standard of proof should be "beyond all possible doubt."

If you beieve that, maybe the next step is all accused murderers ought be declared innocent unless not less than two unpaid observers to the crime agree that defendant 'x' actually did the crime.

Well, if you read my post (which it's clear you didn't), you know that I advocate this standard only for the imposition of death, not for the adjudication of guilt. So the only possible change would be that more people would serve life.

No solution is ideal, but I think we can't risk putting innocent people to death. Those of us who support the death penalty in principle should be willing to accept life as a punishment when this standard can't be met. Otherwise, we could lose the death penalty altogether.

I can accept that the highest standards be applied to protect the innocent. It seems equally unjust to fail to apply the death penalty for those that deserve it as well as in applying it in an appropriate time frame rather than have them sit on death row for years on end. Then, there is the latest cop killing in SF, a special circumstance case, in which the DA has already announced that no death penalty will be sought because she,the DA doesn’t believe in it. Isn’t that justice denied?