Should We End The Death Penalty?

[Madeline]

IMO, those who support the death penalty do so because, justifiably, they feel some crimes are so beyond the pale as to surpass any other possible punishment. But still, IMO, appeasing emotion is not a good enough reason to impose this punishment. Here are a few reasons I oppose it:

1. Death penalty cases are inevitably appealed. The delay in carrying out the sentence as well as the various court proceedings keep the victim's family involved in the process, re-hearing the atrocious facts, for years.....often more than a decade.

2. There are too many cases in which a prisoner's innocence is in doubt.

3. Death penalty sentences are far, far more expensive for the state (or feds) to carry out than LWOP.

4. In some states, the budget for adequate counsel at trial and after conviction to defend death-qualified defendants is so abysmal, there can hardly be a patina of justice.

5. Death penalty appeals tie up valuable court time. In Florida in the late 1990's, over one half of all Supreme Court cases and decisions dealt with death penalty cases. Not criminal cases...just death penalty.

6. The US is nearly alone in civilized countries in imposing this sentence. Our need to punish surely is no greater than most of the world's....the death penalty is not necessary.

 

[rikules]

IMO, those who support the death penalty do so because, justifiably, they feel some crimes are so beyond the pale as to surpass any other possible punishment. But still, IMO, appeasing emotion is not a good enough reason to impose this punishment. Here are a few reasons I oppose it:

1. Death penalty cases are inevitably appealed. The delay in carrying out the sentence as well as the various court proceedings keep the victim's family involved in the process, re-hearing the atrocious facts, for years.....often more than a decade.

2. There are too many cases in which a prisoner's innocence is in doubt.

3. Death penalty sentences are far, far more expensive for the state (or feds) to carry out than LWOP.

4. In some states, the budget for adequate counsel at trial and after conviction to defend death-qualified defendants is so abysmal, there can hardly be a patina of justice.

5. Death penalty appeals tie up valuable court time. In Florida in the late 1990's, over one half of all Supreme Court cases and decisions dealt with death penalty cases. Not criminal cases...just death penalty.

6. The US is nearly alone in civilized countries in imposing this sentence. Our need to punish surely is no greater than most of the world's....the death penalty is not necessary.

madeline...

I have great respect for you and find you to be one of the more rational posters

however
on this issue I disagree.

there are, in my mind, SOME case where the death penalty is justified.

charles manson...for one.

 

[syrenn]

In my opinion

NO!

 

[Madeline]

IMO, those who support the death penalty do so because, justifiably, they feel some crimes are so beyond the pale as to surpass any other possible punishment. But still, IMO, appeasing emotion is not a good enough reason to impose this punishment. Here are a few reasons I oppose it:

1. Death penalty cases are inevitably appealed. The delay in carrying out the sentence as well as the various court proceedings keep the victim's family involved in the process, re-hearing the atrocious facts, for years.....often more than a decade.

2. There are too many cases in which a prisoner's innocence is in doubt.

3. Death penalty sentences are far, far more expensive for the state (or feds) to carry out than LWOP.

4. In some states, the budget for adequate counsel at trial and after conviction to defend death-qualified defendants is so abysmal, there can hardly be a patina of justice.

5. Death penalty appeals tie up valuable court time. In Florida in the late 1990's, over one half of all Supreme Court cases and decisions dealt with death penalty cases. Not criminal cases...just death penalty.

6. The US is nearly alone in civilized countries in imposing this sentence. Our need to punish surely is no greater than most of the world's....the death penalty is not necessary.

madeline...

I have great respect for you and find you to be one of the more rational posters

however
on this issue I disagree.

there are, in my mind, SOME case where the death penalty is justified.

charles manson...for one.

Okay, if you feel the death penalty has value...what value do you perceive? Does it make us safer? Saner?

BTW, Manson was sentenced to death. The US Supreme Court voided the death penalty laws of several states, and his was among those commuted.

I lived in Florida for many years, and actually met people close to the homicide victims of Ted Bundy. It is very, very hard to take an anti-death penalty POV in a case like his. but for every Ted Bundy (or Charles Manson) there are thousands of "ordinary murderers". For a brief time, I worked with death penalty defense lawyers, and met several families who had lost a family member to homicide....usually parents. It is beyond description the pain and suffering of these people. Is it fair to ask them to endure so much, for our sake? So we can extract revenge?

 

[Synthaholic]

I think it should be sped up for those who have gone through the process, and have not had any DNA issues.

 

[rikules]

IMO, those who support the death penalty do so because, justifiably, they feel some crimes are so beyond the pale as to surpass any other possible punishment. But still, IMO, appeasing emotion is not a good enough reason to impose this punishment. Here are a few reasons I oppose it:

1. Death penalty cases are inevitably appealed. The delay in carrying out the sentence as well as the various court proceedings keep the victim's family involved in the process, re-hearing the atrocious facts, for years.....often more than a decade.

2. There are too many cases in which a prisoner's innocence is in doubt.

3. Death penalty sentences are far, far more expensive for the state (or feds) to carry out than LWOP.

4. In some states, the budget for adequate counsel at trial and after conviction to defend death-qualified defendants is so abysmal, there can hardly be a patina of justice.

5. Death penalty appeals tie up valuable court time. In Florida in the late 1990's, over one half of all Supreme Court cases and decisions dealt with death penalty cases. Not criminal cases...just death penalty.

6. The US is nearly alone in civilized countries in imposing this sentence. Our need to punish surely is no greater than most of the world's....the death penalty is not necessary.

madeline...

I have great respect for you and find you to be one of the more rational posters

however
on this issue I disagree.

there are, in my mind, SOME case where the death penalty is justified.

charles manson...for one.

Okay, if you feel the death penalty has value...what value do you perceive? Does it make us safer? Saner?

BTW, Manson was sentenced to death. The US Supreme Court voided the death penalty laws of several states, and his was among those commuted.

I lived in Florida for many years, and actually met people close to the homicide victims of Ted Bundy. It is very, very hard to take an anti-death penalty POV in a case like his. but for every Ted Bundy (or Charles Manson) there are thousands of "ordinary murderers". For a brief time, I worked with death penalty defense lawyers, and met several families who had lost a family member to homicide....usually parents. It is beyond description the pain and suffering of these people. Is it fair to ask them to endure so much, for our sake? So we can extract revenge?

"Okay, if you feel the death penalty has value...what value do you perceive? Does it make us safer? Saner?"


saner?

no.

safer?

maybe.

perhaps then next charles manson might think twice before he (and his friends) commit such foul acts.

but...probably not. Manson was insane and his followers were almost as bad

one cannot expect rational acts from the insane or the conservatyively correct.

executing manson does 2 things;

1. it guarantees he will NEVER be able to commit another crime
2. it saves the rest of us a lot of money that is noow being used to keep him in prison.



"BTW, Manson was sentenced to death. The US Supreme Court voided the death penalty laws of several states, and his was among those commuted."

ok.
still.
he is a case where I would condone the death penalty.

please don't assume that I would justify the death penalty on a frivolous basis.

I would use it sparingly and ONLY in cases LIKE manson (and his friends)


"I lived in Florida for many years, and actually met people close to the homicide victims of Ted Bundy. It is very, very hard to take an anti-death penalty POV in a case like his. but for every Ted Bundy (or Charles Manson) there are thousands of "ordinary murderers". For a brief time, I worked with death penalty defense lawyers, and met several families who had lost a family member to homicide....usually parents. It is beyond description the pain and suffering of these people. Is it fair to ask them to endure so much, for our sake? So we can extract revenge?"


please don't assume that I would justify the death penalty on a frivolous basis.

I would use it sparingly and ONLY in cases LIKE manson (and his friends)

I would certainly use it far less often than the state of texas does.

 

[Madeline]

I'll agree with this much, Synthaholic. If we do keep the death penalty, changes need to be made. I'd suggest it never be imposed in cases that relied only on circumstantial evidence and where there is no definitive forensics.

But I have to be honest. My biggest objection is the horrible burden it places on the families of victims.

 

[George Costanza]

IMO, those who support the death penalty do so because, justifiably, they feel some crimes are so beyond the pale as to surpass any other possible punishment. But still, IMO, appeasing emotion is not a good enough reason to impose this punishment. Here are a few reasons I oppose it:

1. Death penalty cases are inevitably appealed. The delay in carrying out the sentence as well as the various court proceedings keep the victim's family involved in the process, re-hearing the atrocious facts, for years.....often more than a decade.

2. There are too many cases in which a prisoner's innocence is in doubt.

3. Death penalty sentences are far, far more expensive for the state (or feds) to carry out than LWOP.

4. In some states, the budget for adequate counsel at trial and after conviction to defend death-qualified defendants is so abysmal, there can hardly be a patina of justice.

5. Death penalty appeals tie up valuable court time. In Florida in the late 1990's, over one half of all Supreme Court cases and decisions dealt with death penalty cases. Not criminal cases...just death penalty.

6. The US is nearly alone in civilized countries in imposing this sentence. Our need to punish surely is no greater than most of the world's....the death penalty is not necessary.

You left out the most important one - the intentional killing of a human being is morally wrong, regardless of whether it is done by another human or by the state.

 

[Madeline]

I don't agree that a state-ordered execution is the moral equivalent to a murder, George.

 

[George Costanza]

IMO, those who support the death penalty do so because, justifiably, they feel some crimes are so beyond the pale as to surpass any other possible punishment. But still, IMO, appeasing emotion is not a good enough reason to impose this punishment. Here are a few reasons I oppose it:

1. Death penalty cases are inevitably appealed. The delay in carrying out the sentence as well as the various court proceedings keep the victim's family involved in the process, re-hearing the atrocious facts, for years.....often more than a decade.

2. There are too many cases in which a prisoner's innocence is in doubt.

3. Death penalty sentences are far, far more expensive for the state (or feds) to carry out than LWOP.

4. In some states, the budget for adequate counsel at trial and after conviction to defend death-qualified defendants is so abysmal, there can hardly be a patina of justice.

5. Death penalty appeals tie up valuable court time. In Florida in the late 1990's, over one half of all Supreme Court cases and decisions dealt with death penalty cases. Not criminal cases...just death penalty.

6. The US is nearly alone in civilized countries in imposing this sentence. Our need to punish surely is no greater than most of the world's....the death penalty is not necessary.

madeline...

I have great respect for you and find you to be one of the more rational posters

however
on this issue I disagree.

there are, in my mind, SOME case where the death penalty is justified.

charles manson...for one.

Don't feel badly - there really is no right or wrong position to take on the death penalty. Like abortion and a number of other issues, it depends almost entirely on one's own, personal viewpoint. I am opposed to it. But I recognize that valid arguments can be made for the imposition of the death penalty.

 

[George Costanza]

I don't agree that a state-ordered execution is the moral equivalent to a murder, George.

I do. See my Post No. 10.

Now let's get back to the Saturday Night thread - I'm going for some silk rope, handcuffs and two quarts of vanilla ice cream . . .

 

[Madeline]

Part of the problem is the public sees criminals like Ted Bundy and wants revenge, and understandably so. But in extracting this revenge, we spend much more and harm victims' families and distort justice for so many.

We dirty up our souls as humans when we support the death penalty knowing that it is likelier than not some innocent people will be executed, all for the sake of taking out the Bundys of this world.

 

[George Costanza]

I am an annual contributor to Death Penalty Focus, the California-based anti-death penalty organization run by Mike Farrell.

Death Penalty

 

[Madeline]

You're a better person than I, George. This is an area of the law I did not need long to know, I cannot ever handle. I was in the office of the supervising defense attorney when Oba Chandler was executed, crying. Shocked that in my brief tenure, someone actually died.

So he gave me the sentencing order to read to sober me up. I won't get the facts of those murders out of my head as long as I live. No way can I cope with this on any sort of defendant by defendant basis...but I greatly admire those who do.

 

[George Costanza]

You're a better person than I, George. This is an area of the law I did not need long to know, I cannot ever handle. I was in the office of the supervising defense attorney when Oba Chandler was executed, crying. Shocked that in my brief tenure, someone actually died.

So he gave me the sentencing order to read to sober me up. I won't get the facts of those murders out of my head as long as I live. No way can I cope with this on any sort of defendant by defendant basis...but I greatly admire those who do.

I have handled a large number of first degree murder cases but no capital cases. I could handle a capital case, I am quite sure - but I'm glad I have not had to so far.

A most interesting book, made into a movie, is "The Life of David Gale." I have seen the movie several times and am about to start the book. I know it isn't a true story - but it is a real zinger, nonetheless.

 

[Madeline]

We have had far, far different careers, George. I mainly prosecuted (administratively) financial crimes. And I thought my respondents were evil....ugh. At least there was very little violence.

 

[George Costanza]

We have had far, far different careers, George. I mainly prosecuted (administratively) financial crimes. And I thought my respondents were evil....ugh. At least there was very little violence.

Some night we can sit down with a beer and talk about that one. Evil comes in many different costumes. Sometimes I think that my robbers, burglars and car thieves can't even begin to compare with the white collar criminals when it comes to pure evil.

Shutting down for the evening, I think. Long day. Good night. See you tomorrow, I'm sure.

 

[Synthaholic]

You're a better person than I, George. This is an area of the law I did not need long to know, I cannot ever handle. I was in the office of the supervising defense attorney when Oba Chandler was executed, crying. Shocked that in my brief tenure, someone actually died.

So he gave me the sentencing order to read to sober me up. I won't get the facts of those murders out of my head as long as I live. No way can I cope with this on any sort of defendant by defendant basis...but I greatly admire those who do.

I have handled a large number of first degree murder cases but no capital cases. I could handle a capital case, I am quite sure - but I'm glad I have not had to so far.

A most interesting book, made into a movie, is "The Life of David Gale." I have seen the movie several times and am about to start the book. I know it isn't a true story - but it is a real zinger, nonetheless.

Have you ever read Roger Ebert's review?

Ebert: Zero stars

The Life Of David Gale

BY ROGER EBERT / February 21, 2003

"The Life of David Gale" tells the story of a famous opponent of capital punishment who, in what he must find an absurdly ironic development, finds himself on Death Row in Texas, charged with the murder of a woman who was also opposed to capital punishment. This is a plot, if ever there was one, to illustrate King Lear's complaint, "As flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods; They kill us for their sport." I am aware this is the second time in two weeks I have been compelled to quote Lear, but there are times when Eminem simply will not do.

David Gale is an understandably bitter man, played by Kevin Spacey, who protests his innocence to a reporter named Bitsey Bloom (Kate Winslet), whom he has summoned to Texas for that purpose. He claims to have been framed by right-wing supporters of capital punishment because his death would provide such poetic irony in support of the noose, the gas or the chair. Far from killing Constance Harraway (Laura Linney), he says, he had every reason not to, and he explains that to Bitsey in flashbacks that make up about half of the story.

Bitsey becomes convinced of David's innocence. She is joined in her investigation by the eager and sexy intern Zack (Gabriel Mann), and they become aware that they are being followed everywhere in a pickup truck by a gaunt-faced fellow in a cowboy hat, who is either a right-wing death-penalty supporter who really killed the dead woman, or somebody else. If he is somebody else, then he is obviously following them around with the MacGuffin, in this case a videotape suggesting disturbing aspects of the death of Constance.

The man in the cowboy hat illustrates my recently renamed Principle of the Unassigned Character, formerly known less elegantly as the Law of Economy of Character Development. This principle teaches us that the prominent character who seems to be extraneous to the action will probably hold the key to it. The cowboy lives in one of those tumble-down shacks filled with flies and peanut butter, with old calendars on the walls. The yard has more bedsprings than the house has beds.

The acting in "The Life of David Gale" is splendidly done but serves a meretricious cause. The direction is by the British director Alan Parker, who at one point had never made a movie I wholly disapproved of. Now has he ever. The secrets of the plot must remain unrevealed by me, so that you can be offended by them yourself, but let it be said this movie is about as corrupt, intellectually bankrupt and morally dishonest as it could possibly be without David Gale actually hiring himself out as a joker at the court of Saddam Hussein.

I am sure the filmmakers believe their film is against the death penalty. I believe it supports it and hopes to discredit the opponents of the penalty as unprincipled fraudsters. What I do not understand is the final revelation on the videotape. Surely David Gale knows that Bitsey Bloom cannot keep it private without violating the ethics of journalism and sacrificing the biggest story of her career. So it serves no functional purpose except to give a cheap thrill to the audience slackjaws. It is shameful.

One of the things that annoys me is that the story is set in Texas and not just in any old state--a state like Arkansas, for example, where the 1996 documentary "Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills" convincingly explains why three innocent kids are in prison because they wore black and listened to heavy metal, while the likely killer keeps pushing himself onscreen and wildly signaling his guilt. Nor is it set in our own state of Illinois, where Death Row was run so shabbily that former Gov. George Ryan finally threw up his hands and declared the whole system rotten.

No, the movie is set in Texas, which in a good year all by itself carries out half the executions in America. Death Row in Texas is like the Roach Motel: Roach checks in, doesn't check out. When George W. Bush was Texas governor, he claimed to carefully consider each and every execution, although a study of his office calendar shows he budgeted 15 minutes per condemned man (we cannot guess how many of these minutes were devoted to pouring himself a cup of coffee before settling down to the job). Still, when you're killing someone every other week and there's an average of 400 more waiting their turn, you have to move right along.

Spacey and Parker are honorable men. Why did they go to Texas and make this silly movie? The last shot made me want to throw something at the screen--maybe Spacey and Parker.

You can make movies that support capital punishment ("The Executioner's Song") or oppose it ("Dead Man Walking") or are conflicted ("In Cold Blood"). But while Texas continues to warehouse condemned men with a system involving lawyers who are drunk, asleep or absent; confessions that are beaten out of the helpless, and juries that overwhelmingly prefer to execute black defendants instead of white ones, you can't make this movie. Not in Texas.

Brutal.