Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Deterrence and the Death Penalty
On the blogs and in the news, a debate goes on about the value of the death penalty in deterring crime. Like many others, I am unsure what to make of the statistics on the issue. It does seem striking that states with the death penalty have a 40% higher murder rate than the states that don't, but that may be cultural-- states with a more violent culture (and more murder) also have a cultural predisposition towards the death penalty.
My own intuition is that the death penalty does not have a deterrent affect. I don't doubt that harsh punishment does deter crime for two types of criminal: First, in those areas of crime where a very small group of people with high rates of recidivism commit the crimes, and second, where the target group of potential criminals actually performs a cost-benefit analysis.
Unfortunately, murder fits neither of these two groups. As to the first (recidivists), murder has the lowest rate of recidivism of all major felonies-- serial killers are the exception, not the rule. Most murders are one-time events that are situational. In this way they are unlike, say, pedophiles, who constitute a small group with one of the highest rates of recidivism. (Ironically, the Kennedy decisions held that capital punishment is allowable for murder, but not pedophile's crimes).
Nor are murderers likely to perform a cost-benefit analysis. Most murders are relatively unplanned, and often in reaction to unforseen events. This is in contrast to, say, white collar criminals. When Rudy Giuliani, as SDNY U.S. Attorney, dragged inside traders out of their offices in cuffs, that deterred others because the target group, traders, was skilled at cost-benefit analysis.
My own opposition to the death penalty is religious, not policy-based, so whether or not the death penalty deters crime will not affect my own view, but I do see how it would alter the opinions of many others. If it does not deter, the death penalty is probably not worth the cost, even for punishing murder.
Comments:
<< Home
The death penalty isn't a deterrent. How can it be? It's not universally applied; in fact, it's pretty unlikely, even in states that practice the death penalty, that a defendant will be sentenced to death. From there, it's even less likely that the person will be actually put to death, and even if they are eventually executed, the disconnect between the actual crime and the eventual punishment is too great to make it a real, tangible possibility for a potential murderer to consider. Coupled with the observation that, as you said, most murderers don't do cost-benefit analyses, and you have a punishment that's inherently incapable of deterring potential capital crimes. Morality and arbitrariness of the death penalty aside, it's hard to make the argument that it's an effective deterrent.
Someone should be executed for those matching sweaters in that photo. It's a capital fashion offense!
# posted by 
: 10:29 AM
: 10:29 AM
I don't think anyone can convince me that the greater good will be served by letting Nicholas Sheeley live.
A third argument for the death penalty, no less compelling than the one about the sweaters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ3oHpup-pk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ3oHpup-pk
# posted by : 11:13 AM
: 11:13 AM
I should also say that I totally agree with Justin t.
My feelings are purely based on a cost-benefit gut-reaction. This guy has wasted his life, destroyed lives and families and now he's going to waste time money and resources ad nauseum.
I don't want vigilante justice and I don't want anyone railroaded through a sham judicial system. But the way things work now just don't make sense to me.
My feelings are purely based on a cost-benefit gut-reaction. This guy has wasted his life, destroyed lives and families and now he's going to waste time money and resources ad nauseum.
I don't want vigilante justice and I don't want anyone railroaded through a sham judicial system. But the way things work now just don't make sense to me.
Of course, that's assuming that Sheley is guilty, which is always a top priority before you end someone's life. One of my biggest moral objections to the death penalty is that it's irreversible. You can always open a cell door if you find out someone has been wrongfully convicted- there is no possibility of that once someone has been executed.
Gut reaction may be a valid reason for ideologically supporting something, but it's a poor basis for public policy, especially when there are lives at stake.
Gut reaction may be a valid reason for ideologically supporting something, but it's a poor basis for public policy, especially when there are lives at stake.
What if he is found guilty - completely utterly undeniably guilty. Completely random incredibly brutal acts of violence. Is it better or worse for our society to cage him or to euthanize him? ...
... You know the whole issue is just sad.
I'm going to stop thinking about it now.
... You know the whole issue is just sad.
I'm going to stop thinking about it now.
I want to raise a couple of points about this topic since I'm a prosecutor in a felony court.
While I'm a long way away from prosecuting death penalty cases, I feel like I have some insight into the issue as one is currently being tried in my court.
1) the death penalty IS a deterrent for capital crimes and not simple murder. Everyone knows if you kill a cop you are getting death and believe me when I tell you that I have seen many cases where defendants put down their weapons for that reason.
People know that if you kill 2 people, kill the clerk of a convenience store, kill a kid, you will be likely facing death.
I can tell you based on experience that if you account for variables such as wealth, education, etc etc between those places with death and without, you will, if nothing else, see a higher knowledge of the consequences of these actions in the states that have the penalty.
However most murders are, like Osler said, "situational" and thus are not affected by the penalty for capital murders.
What that means is that I do not like the simple correlation to murder and death as a deterrent. Murder hardly ever = death so I don't think the two should be compared. Do a study and see how many people know what the punishment for killing a cop in Texas is and I'm sure you'll get a universal response. I also believe that I've seen criminals do the cost-benefit analysis in these situations...and not simple murder.
As for people being wrongly convicted, let me tell you that I have never seen a prosecutor, in my time, seek death without absolute proof of guilt. This isn't 50 years ago with no video, no DNA, and coerced confessions. Believe, it or not, while the system may be fallible, prosecutors don't risk their careers on someone who "is the most likely" candidate. I do not think you have to worry about wrongful convictions these days form capital crimes.
As some have said, a greater good is also served by removing evil from our society...permanently.
While I'm a long way away from prosecuting death penalty cases, I feel like I have some insight into the issue as one is currently being tried in my court.
1) the death penalty IS a deterrent for capital crimes and not simple murder. Everyone knows if you kill a cop you are getting death and believe me when I tell you that I have seen many cases where defendants put down their weapons for that reason.
People know that if you kill 2 people, kill the clerk of a convenience store, kill a kid, you will be likely facing death.
I can tell you based on experience that if you account for variables such as wealth, education, etc etc between those places with death and without, you will, if nothing else, see a higher knowledge of the consequences of these actions in the states that have the penalty.
However most murders are, like Osler said, "situational" and thus are not affected by the penalty for capital murders.
What that means is that I do not like the simple correlation to murder and death as a deterrent. Murder hardly ever = death so I don't think the two should be compared. Do a study and see how many people know what the punishment for killing a cop in Texas is and I'm sure you'll get a universal response. I also believe that I've seen criminals do the cost-benefit analysis in these situations...and not simple murder.
As for people being wrongly convicted, let me tell you that I have never seen a prosecutor, in my time, seek death without absolute proof of guilt. This isn't 50 years ago with no video, no DNA, and coerced confessions. Believe, it or not, while the system may be fallible, prosecutors don't risk their careers on someone who "is the most likely" candidate. I do not think you have to worry about wrongful convictions these days form capital crimes.
As some have said, a greater good is also served by removing evil from our society...permanently.
# posted by : 4:41 PM
: 4:41 PM
Dallas_ada makes some interesting points, but I have some further questions:
1. How do you account for the bias inherent in the system? A simple google search will turn up plenty of studies showing that the death penalty is not evenly applied and certain races are more likely than others to get the death penalty, particularly depending on the race of the victim. I (and many other abolitionists like me) would argue that a system that practices disparate treatment is an unjust system and thus morally unconscionable.
2. You and others note that there is value in removing someone from our society permanently. I ask you how this is not accomplished by locking them up for life without the possibility of parole. Heck, you could even put them in solitary confinement for life and it would serve the exact same purpose, only without the irreversible consequences in the case of error. I don't understand how executing someone serves any greater purpose than locking them up forever, except for, of course, making it irreversible and likely costing more.
3. Possibility of innocence. It's encouraging to hear a DA say that his (or her) colleagues would never press for a death sentence without a guarantee that the person was guilty. The fact remains, however, that death row inmates continue to be exonerated, many from the period of time where reliable evidence was not available. The only way to ensure that no innocent person is put to death is a moratorium. A death sentence is unique in its finality, since once carried out it can never be reversed upon a finding of innocence.
1. How do you account for the bias inherent in the system? A simple google search will turn up plenty of studies showing that the death penalty is not evenly applied and certain races are more likely than others to get the death penalty, particularly depending on the race of the victim. I (and many other abolitionists like me) would argue that a system that practices disparate treatment is an unjust system and thus morally unconscionable.
2. You and others note that there is value in removing someone from our society permanently. I ask you how this is not accomplished by locking them up for life without the possibility of parole. Heck, you could even put them in solitary confinement for life and it would serve the exact same purpose, only without the irreversible consequences in the case of error. I don't understand how executing someone serves any greater purpose than locking them up forever, except for, of course, making it irreversible and likely costing more.
3. Possibility of innocence. It's encouraging to hear a DA say that his (or her) colleagues would never press for a death sentence without a guarantee that the person was guilty. The fact remains, however, that death row inmates continue to be exonerated, many from the period of time where reliable evidence was not available. The only way to ensure that no innocent person is put to death is a moratorium. A death sentence is unique in its finality, since once carried out it can never be reversed upon a finding of innocence.
Death Penalty and Deterrence: Let's be clear
by Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, 0104
In their story, "States With No Death Penalty Share Lower Homicide Rates", The New York Times did their best to illustrate that the death penalty was not a deterrent, by showing that the average murder rate in death penalty states was higher than the average rate in non death penalty states and, it is. (1)
What the Times failed to observe is that their own study confirmed that you can't simply compare those averages to make that determination regarding deterrence.
As one observer stated: "The Times story does nothing more than repeat the dumbest of all dumb mistakes — taking the murder rate in a traditionally high-homicide state with capital punishment (like Texas) and comparing it to a traditionally low-homicide state with no death penalty (like North Dakota) and concluding that the death penalty doesn't work at all. Even this comparison doesn't work so well. The Times own graph shows Texas, where murder rates were 40 percent above Michigan's in 1991, has now fallen below Michigan . . .". (2)
Within the Times article, Michigan Governor John Engler states, "I think Michigan made a wise decision 150 years ago," referring to the state's abolition of the death penalty in 1846. "We're pretty proud of the fact that we don't have the death penalty."(3)
Even though easily observed on the Times' own graphics, they failed to mention the obvious. Michigan's murder rate is near or above that of 31 of the US's 38 death penalty states. And then, it should be recognized that Washington, DC (not found within the Times study) and Detroit, Michigan, two non death penalty jurisdictions, have been perennial leaders in murder and violent crime rates for the past 30 years. Delaware, a jurisdiction similar in size to them, leads the nation in executions per murder, but has significantly lower rates of murders and violent crime than do either DC or Detroit, during that same period.
Obviously, the Times study and any other simple comparison of jurisdictions with and without the death penalty, means little, with regard to deterrence.
Also revealed within the Times study, but not pointed out by them,: "One-third of the nation's executions take place in Texas—and the steepest decline in homicides has occurred in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas, which together account for nearly half the nation's executions." (4)
And, the Times also failed to mention that the major US jurisdiction with the most executions is Harris County (Houston, Texas), which has seen a 73% decrease in murder rates since resuming executions in 1982 -- possibly the largest reduction for a major metropolitan area since that time.
Also omitted from the Times review, although they had the data, is that during a virtual cessation of executions, from 1966-1980, that murders more than doubled in the US. Any other rise and fall in murders, after that time, has been only a fraction of that change, indicating a strong and direct correlation between the lack of executions and the dramatic increase in murders, if that is specifically what you are looking for.
If deterrence was measured by direct correlation's between execution, or the lack thereof, and murder rates, as implied by the Times article, and as wrongly assumed by those blindly accepting that model, then there would be no debate, only more confusion. Which may have been the Times goal.
Let's take a look at the science.
Some non death penalty jurisdictions, such as South Africa and Mexico lead the world in murder and violent crime rates. But then some non death penalty jurisdictions, such as Sweden, have quite low rates. Then there are such death penalty jurisdictions as Japan and Singapore which have low rates of such crime. But then other death penalty jurisdictions, such as Rwanda and Louisiana, that have high rates.
To which an astute observer will respond: But socially, culturally, geographically, legally, historically and many other ways, all of those jurisdictions are very different. Exactly, a simple comparison of only execution rates and murder rates cannot tell the tale of deterrence. And within the US, between states, there exist many variables which will effect the rates of homicides.
And, as so well illustrated by the Times graphics, a non death penalty state, such as Michigan has high murder rates and another non death penalty state, such as North Dakota, has low murder rates and then there are death penalty states, such as Louisiana, with high murder rates and death penalty states, such South Dakota, with low rates. Apparently, unbeknownst to the Times, but quite obvious to any neutral observer, there are other factors at play here, not just the presence or absence of the death penalty. Most thinking folks already knew that.
As Economics Professor Ehrlich stated in the Times piece and, as accepted by all knowledgeable parties, there are many factors involved in such evaluations. That is why there is a wide variation of crime rates both within and between some death penalty and non death penalty jurisdictions, and small variations within and between others. Any direct comparison of only execution rates and only murder rates, to determine deterrence, would reflect either ignorance or deception.
Ehrlich called the Times study "a throwback to the vintage 1960s statistical analyses done by criminologists who compared murder rates in neighboring states where capital punishment was either legal or illegal." "The statistics involved in such comparisons have long been recognized as devoid of scientific merit." He called the Times story a "one sided affair" devoid of merit. Most interesting is that Ehrlich was interviewed by the Time's writer, Fessenden, who asked Ehrlich to comment on the results before the story was published. Somehow Ehrlich's overwhelming criticisms were left out of the article.
Ehrlich also referred Fessenden to some professors who produced the recently released Emory study. Emory Economics department head, Prof. Deshbakhsh "says he was contacted by Fessenden, and he indicated to the Times reporter that the study suggested a very strong deterrent effect of capital punishment." Somehow,
Fessenden's left that out of the Times story, as well. (5).
There is a constant within all jurisdictions -- negative consequences will always have an effect on behavior.
1) "States With No Death Penalty Share Lower Homicide Rates", The New
York Times 9/22/00 located at
www (dot) nytimes.com/2000/09/22/national/22STUD.html and www (dot) nytimes.com/2000/09/22/national/22DEAT.html
2) “Don't Know Much About Calculus: The (New York) Times flunks high-school
math in death-penalty piece", William Tucker, National Review, 9/22/00, located
at www (dot) nationalreview.com/comment/comment092200c.shtml
3) ibid, see footnote 11
4) "The Death Penalty Saves Lives", AIM Report, August 2000, located atwww (dot) aim.org/publications/aim_report/2000/08a.html
15) "NEW YORK TIMES UNDER FIRE AGAIN", Accuracy in Media, 10/16/00, go to www (dot) aim.org/
copyright 2000-2008 Dudley Sharp
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 , VOA 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
homicidesurvivors(dot)com/categories/Dudley%20Sharp%20-%20Justice%20Matters.aspx
www(dot)dpinfo.com
www(dot)cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
www(dot)clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
www(dot)coastda.com/archives.html
www(dot)lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
www(dot)prodeathpenalty.com
www(dot)yesdeathpenalty.com/deathpenalty_co
yesdeathpenalty.googlepages.com/home2 (Sweden)
www(dot)wesleylowe.com/cp.html
Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.
by Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, 0104
In their story, "States With No Death Penalty Share Lower Homicide Rates", The New York Times did their best to illustrate that the death penalty was not a deterrent, by showing that the average murder rate in death penalty states was higher than the average rate in non death penalty states and, it is. (1)
What the Times failed to observe is that their own study confirmed that you can't simply compare those averages to make that determination regarding deterrence.
As one observer stated: "The Times story does nothing more than repeat the dumbest of all dumb mistakes — taking the murder rate in a traditionally high-homicide state with capital punishment (like Texas) and comparing it to a traditionally low-homicide state with no death penalty (like North Dakota) and concluding that the death penalty doesn't work at all. Even this comparison doesn't work so well. The Times own graph shows Texas, where murder rates were 40 percent above Michigan's in 1991, has now fallen below Michigan . . .". (2)
Within the Times article, Michigan Governor John Engler states, "I think Michigan made a wise decision 150 years ago," referring to the state's abolition of the death penalty in 1846. "We're pretty proud of the fact that we don't have the death penalty."(3)
Even though easily observed on the Times' own graphics, they failed to mention the obvious. Michigan's murder rate is near or above that of 31 of the US's 38 death penalty states. And then, it should be recognized that Washington, DC (not found within the Times study) and Detroit, Michigan, two non death penalty jurisdictions, have been perennial leaders in murder and violent crime rates for the past 30 years. Delaware, a jurisdiction similar in size to them, leads the nation in executions per murder, but has significantly lower rates of murders and violent crime than do either DC or Detroit, during that same period.
Obviously, the Times study and any other simple comparison of jurisdictions with and without the death penalty, means little, with regard to deterrence.
Also revealed within the Times study, but not pointed out by them,: "One-third of the nation's executions take place in Texas—and the steepest decline in homicides has occurred in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas, which together account for nearly half the nation's executions." (4)
And, the Times also failed to mention that the major US jurisdiction with the most executions is Harris County (Houston, Texas), which has seen a 73% decrease in murder rates since resuming executions in 1982 -- possibly the largest reduction for a major metropolitan area since that time.
Also omitted from the Times review, although they had the data, is that during a virtual cessation of executions, from 1966-1980, that murders more than doubled in the US. Any other rise and fall in murders, after that time, has been only a fraction of that change, indicating a strong and direct correlation between the lack of executions and the dramatic increase in murders, if that is specifically what you are looking for.
If deterrence was measured by direct correlation's between execution, or the lack thereof, and murder rates, as implied by the Times article, and as wrongly assumed by those blindly accepting that model, then there would be no debate, only more confusion. Which may have been the Times goal.
Let's take a look at the science.
Some non death penalty jurisdictions, such as South Africa and Mexico lead the world in murder and violent crime rates. But then some non death penalty jurisdictions, such as Sweden, have quite low rates. Then there are such death penalty jurisdictions as Japan and Singapore which have low rates of such crime. But then other death penalty jurisdictions, such as Rwanda and Louisiana, that have high rates.
To which an astute observer will respond: But socially, culturally, geographically, legally, historically and many other ways, all of those jurisdictions are very different. Exactly, a simple comparison of only execution rates and murder rates cannot tell the tale of deterrence. And within the US, between states, there exist many variables which will effect the rates of homicides.
And, as so well illustrated by the Times graphics, a non death penalty state, such as Michigan has high murder rates and another non death penalty state, such as North Dakota, has low murder rates and then there are death penalty states, such as Louisiana, with high murder rates and death penalty states, such South Dakota, with low rates. Apparently, unbeknownst to the Times, but quite obvious to any neutral observer, there are other factors at play here, not just the presence or absence of the death penalty. Most thinking folks already knew that.
As Economics Professor Ehrlich stated in the Times piece and, as accepted by all knowledgeable parties, there are many factors involved in such evaluations. That is why there is a wide variation of crime rates both within and between some death penalty and non death penalty jurisdictions, and small variations within and between others. Any direct comparison of only execution rates and only murder rates, to determine deterrence, would reflect either ignorance or deception.
Ehrlich called the Times study "a throwback to the vintage 1960s statistical analyses done by criminologists who compared murder rates in neighboring states where capital punishment was either legal or illegal." "The statistics involved in such comparisons have long been recognized as devoid of scientific merit." He called the Times story a "one sided affair" devoid of merit. Most interesting is that Ehrlich was interviewed by the Time's writer, Fessenden, who asked Ehrlich to comment on the results before the story was published. Somehow Ehrlich's overwhelming criticisms were left out of the article.
Ehrlich also referred Fessenden to some professors who produced the recently released Emory study. Emory Economics department head, Prof. Deshbakhsh "says he was contacted by Fessenden, and he indicated to the Times reporter that the study suggested a very strong deterrent effect of capital punishment." Somehow,
Fessenden's left that out of the Times story, as well. (5).
There is a constant within all jurisdictions -- negative consequences will always have an effect on behavior.
1) "States With No Death Penalty Share Lower Homicide Rates", The New
York Times 9/22/00 located at
www (dot) nytimes.com/2000/09/22/national/22STUD.html and www (dot) nytimes.com/2000/09/22/national/22DEAT.html
2) “Don't Know Much About Calculus: The (New York) Times flunks high-school
math in death-penalty piece", William Tucker, National Review, 9/22/00, located
at www (dot) nationalreview.com/comment/comment092200c.shtml
3) ibid, see footnote 11
4) "The Death Penalty Saves Lives", AIM Report, August 2000, located atwww (dot) aim.org/publications/aim_report/2000/08a.html
15) "NEW YORK TIMES UNDER FIRE AGAIN", Accuracy in Media, 10/16/00, go to www (dot) aim.org/
copyright 2000-2008 Dudley Sharp
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 , VOA 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
homicidesurvivors(dot)com/categories/Dudley%20Sharp%20-%20Justice%20Matters.aspx
www(dot)dpinfo.com
www(dot)cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
www(dot)clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
www(dot)coastda.com/archives.html
www(dot)lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
www(dot)prodeathpenalty.com
www(dot)yesdeathpenalty.com/deathpenalty_co
yesdeathpenalty.googlepages.com/home2 (Sweden)
www(dot)wesleylowe.com/cp.html
Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.
Wow...who is this guy?! He's got alot to say.
I will however respond to the questions that were posed to me by Justin.
1)As has been noted, ad naseum by some, studies can be skewed. But i would say that the disparity is due more to economics than anything else, from what I've observed. But i would add that since these people (whatever race they may be) don't often have much to lose in a cost-benefit analysis,the deterrence of death is paramount for these groups.
2) While removal is necessary and should be used with "run-of-the-mill" murders, there are a couple more reasons for death in capital situations.
a) the deterence factor we have talked about so much.
b) the nature of the act usually calls for such a punishment
c) the victim's family is usually asking that the same fate be applied to the defendant.
d) there is no expectation of rehabilitation for someone that does the above and is not deterred by death.
3) as has actually be said by the crazy poster, while we are cognizant that the possibility exists that someone in the history of the "modern" death penalty might have been innocent, there have not been any proven cases of that actually happening. Furthermore, for all the brash talk of prosecutors on a hunt to kill people, I have never met one willing to kill someone just to get a conviction. while we can obviously become blind to certain facts, and convince ourselves, we are right, a bad case is a bad case. No one is going to risk it all. While you claim that finality is a problem, it usually what we as prosecutors, the victims, the families, the witnesses, all seek.
I will however respond to the questions that were posed to me by Justin.
1)As has been noted, ad naseum by some, studies can be skewed. But i would say that the disparity is due more to economics than anything else, from what I've observed. But i would add that since these people (whatever race they may be) don't often have much to lose in a cost-benefit analysis,the deterrence of death is paramount for these groups.
2) While removal is necessary and should be used with "run-of-the-mill" murders, there are a couple more reasons for death in capital situations.
a) the deterence factor we have talked about so much.
b) the nature of the act usually calls for such a punishment
c) the victim's family is usually asking that the same fate be applied to the defendant.
d) there is no expectation of rehabilitation for someone that does the above and is not deterred by death.
3) as has actually be said by the crazy poster, while we are cognizant that the possibility exists that someone in the history of the "modern" death penalty might have been innocent, there have not been any proven cases of that actually happening. Furthermore, for all the brash talk of prosecutors on a hunt to kill people, I have never met one willing to kill someone just to get a conviction. while we can obviously become blind to certain facts, and convince ourselves, we are right, a bad case is a bad case. No one is going to risk it all. While you claim that finality is a problem, it usually what we as prosecutors, the victims, the families, the witnesses, all seek.
# posted by : 10:32 AM
: 10:32 AM
Ultimately my objection, moral considerations notwithstanding, is that the death penalty is a punishment which does not make room for error, being used in a system that, however careful, allows for the possibility of error. Because there is not opportunity for correcting the mistake, and because the possibility for mistake exists (however remote), I cannot in good conscience support it. Your mileage may vary.
Justin,
I can definitely understand your concern about the inability of the system to fix the mistake no matter how remote the possibility.
It may sound callous but I just don't believe in the idea that "one innocent is one too many" and we should scrap the whole system on the slightest possibility that things may go wrong. Many people use that argument for things such as war etc. but often it's overlooked when innocent families are bombed, innocent soldiers are sent on suicide missions, all for the greater good.
I tend to think the same way about our system, I'm a believer because I've seen the results in my line of work, and I'm not willing to scrap it completely on the "idea" that an innocent person may have to suffer the ultimate fate.
The benefits definitely outweigh the intolerable prospect you fear. but I'm definitely understanding of your position, I just wish everyone who had this discussion was as civil and understanding as you and I
I can definitely understand your concern about the inability of the system to fix the mistake no matter how remote the possibility.
It may sound callous but I just don't believe in the idea that "one innocent is one too many" and we should scrap the whole system on the slightest possibility that things may go wrong. Many people use that argument for things such as war etc. but often it's overlooked when innocent families are bombed, innocent soldiers are sent on suicide missions, all for the greater good.
I tend to think the same way about our system, I'm a believer because I've seen the results in my line of work, and I'm not willing to scrap it completely on the "idea" that an innocent person may have to suffer the ultimate fate.
The benefits definitely outweigh the intolerable prospect you fear. but I'm definitely understanding of your position, I just wish everyone who had this discussion was as civil and understanding as you and I
# posted by : 3:18 PM
: 3:18 PM
Well, hopefully, this won't be an issue much longer, but I don't know if I can wait for society's evolving standards to catch up with those of Anthony Kennedy. He is so far ahead of us.
# posted by : 12:22 PM
: 12:22 PM
I'm a little late, but here is an interesting article suggesting that the death penalty is not deterrent because men (the vast majority of murderers) are less concerned about dying than about not reproducing.
Post a Comment
<< Home
