Death penalty

[Jimmy_Jam]

There is no greater exhibition of callousness than that shown to the victims of killers by those opposed to the death penalty.

I appreciate the sentiment, but wouldn't the killer have shown the greater exhibition of callousness?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

After having read thru all the comments on this thread - pro or con of death penalty - I never once saw the word REDEMPTION.

I believe that that there is at least a trace of goodness in every human being, even the condemned and convicted killer.

Without going into details, I can say with full confidence and with personal experience, that REDEMPTION is possible, if it is given a chance.

Death Penalty removes that chance forever.

Perhaps I did not use the word "Redemption," but I did at least suggest the opportunity to seek forgiveness from the immediate family. Redemption is a religious word that works fine within the context of faith, but here on Earth, regardless of one's spiritual convictions, redemption could only come in the form of forgiveness from the victim. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Katzndogz]

There is no greater exhibition of callousness than that shown to the victims of killers by those opposed to the death penalty.

I appreciate the sentiment, but wouldn't the killer have shown the greater exhibition of callousness?

Not really. The killer is motivated by many things, most notably sheer enjoyment of the crime. Death penalty opponents have nothing but disregard for the victims.

I know the Innocence Project. I've worked in opposition to them many times. When the Innocence Project was working against the death penalty for William Bonin, they said of the victims "it's unfortunate that they died, but people die every day, these kids could have died of cancer or in a car accident. So they were murdered, it's no different than any other death."

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

There is no greater exhibition of callousness than that shown to the victims of killers by those opposed to the death penalty.

I appreciate the sentiment, but wouldn't the killer have shown the greater exhibition of callousness?

Not really. The killer is motivated by many things, most notably sheer enjoyment of the crime. Death penalty opponents have nothing but disregard for the victims.

That can't be what you mean. If a person takes joy from killing another human being, how is that not the ultimate in callousness? By that token, if society takes joy in executing, how is that not also callous?

Don't misunderstand me, if you read my much longer post on the subject a little earlier in the thread, then you will see I am in favor of capital punishment, but statements like There is no greater exhibition of callousness than that shown to the victims of killers by those opposed to the death penalty show an obvious emotional bent that should be absent from the law.

 

[FJO]

After having read thru all the comments on this thread - pro or con of death penalty - I never once saw the word REDEMPTION.

I believe that that there is at least a trace of goodness in every human being, even the condemned and convicted killer.

Without going into details, I can say with full confidence and with personal experience, that REDEMPTION is possible, if it is given a chance.

Death Penalty removes that chance forever.

Perhaps I did not use the word "Redemption," but I did at least suggest the opportunity to seek forgiveness from the immediate family. Redemption is a religious word that works fine within the context of faith, but here on Earth, regardless of one's spiritual convictions, redemption could only come in the form of forgiveness from the victim. Wouldn't you agree?

No, I would not agree with that. The case I am familiar with has to do with the FACT that the offender in this particular case redeemed himself by turning his life around in prison without religious implications, in fact he is at best, an agnostic. In fact the most suspicious "redemption" is the one where the offender "found faith" that faith being Jesus or Allah.

One can be - or can BECOME - a decent person, even after having committed a horrendous crime without being religious.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

After having read thru all the comments on this thread - pro or con of death penalty - I never once saw the word REDEMPTION.

I believe that that there is at least a trace of goodness in every human being, even the condemned and convicted killer.

Without going into details, I can say with full confidence and with personal experience, that REDEMPTION is possible, if it is given a chance.

Death Penalty removes that chance forever.

Perhaps I did not use the word "Redemption," but I did at least suggest the opportunity to seek forgiveness from the immediate family. Redemption is a religious word that works fine within the context of faith, but here on Earth, regardless of one's spiritual convictions, redemption could only come in the form of forgiveness from the victim. Wouldn't you agree?

No, I would not agree with that. The case I am familiar with has to do with the FACT that the offender in this particular case redeemed himself by turning his life around in prison without religious implications, in fact he is at best, an agnostic. In fact the most suspicious "redemption" is the one where the offender "found faith" that faith being Jesus or Allah.

One can be - or can BECOME - a decent person, even after having committed a horrendous crime without being religious.

I don't disagree with the notion that a person can turn their lives around at all. All I was saying is that redemption, unless you're talking about coupons or reclaiming foreclosed property, is most certainly a religious word pertaining to absolution or deliverance from sin. Society does not have the ability to grant that. The closest equivalent outside of faith-based beliefs would have to come from the victim. Like I said, I'm not religious, but I think the Hebrews had it right about this one.

 

[FJO]

Perhaps I did not use the word "Redemption," but I did at least suggest the opportunity to seek forgiveness from the immediate family. Redemption is a religious word that works fine within the context of faith, but here on Earth, regardless of one's spiritual convictions, redemption could only come in the form of forgiveness from the victim. Wouldn't you agree?

No, I would not agree with that. The case I am familiar with has to do with the FACT that the offender in this particular case redeemed himself by turning his life around in prison without religious implications, in fact he is at best, an agnostic. In fact the most suspicious "redemption" is the one where the offender "found faith" that faith being Jesus or Allah.

One can be - or can BECOME - a decent person, even after having committed a horrendous crime without being religious.

I don't disagree with the notion that a person can turn their lives around at all. All I was saying is that redemption, unless you're talking about coupons or reclaiming foreclosed property, is most certainly a religious word pertaining to absolution or deliverance from sin. Society does not have the ability to grant that. The closest equivalent outside of faith-based beliefs would have to come from the victim. Like I said, I'm not religious, but I think the Hebrews had it right about this one.

re·demp·tion
   [ri-demp-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
an act of redeeming or the state of being redeemed.
2.
deliverance; rescue.
3.
Theology . deliverance from sin; salvation.
4.
atonement for guilt.
5.
repurchase, as of something sold.

Clearly, I meant #4.

 

[Katzndogz]

I appreciate the sentiment, but wouldn't the killer have shown the greater exhibition of callousness?

Not really. The killer is motivated by many things, most notably sheer enjoyment of the crime. Death penalty opponents have nothing but disregard for the victims.

That can't be what you mean. If a person takes joy from killing another human being, how is that not the ultimate in callousness? By that token, if society takes joy in executing, how is that not also callous?

Don't misunderstand me, if you read my much longer post on the subject a little earlier in the thread, then you will see I am in favor of capital punishment, but statements like There is no greater exhibition of callousness than that shown to the victims of killers by those opposed to the death penalty show an obvious emotional bent that should be absent from the law.

It is absent from the law. You don't see people working on the Innocence Project put in prison do you?

I have worked with the Innocence Project and they do a LOT of good work in freeing the truly innocent from injustice. But they have absolutely no regard whatsoever for the victims. Occasionally a killer will show remorse for their crimes, but the opponents of the death penalty never do. Unlike others here, I have met many killers, including serial killers. Sometimes I am amused by the opponents of the death penalty, but mostly horrified.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

No, I would not agree with that. The case I am familiar with has to do with the FACT that the offender in this particular case redeemed himself by turning his life around in prison without religious implications, in fact he is at best, an agnostic. In fact the most suspicious "redemption" is the one where the offender "found faith" that faith being Jesus or Allah.

One can be - or can BECOME - a decent person, even after having committed a horrendous crime without being religious.

I don't disagree with the notion that a person can turn their lives around at all. All I was saying is that redemption, unless you're talking about coupons or reclaiming foreclosed property, is most certainly a religious word pertaining to absolution or deliverance from sin. Society does not have the ability to grant that. The closest equivalent outside of faith-based beliefs would have to come from the victim. Like I said, I'm not religious, but I think the Hebrews had it right about this one.

re·demp·tion
   [ri-demp-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
an act of redeeming or the state of being redeemed.
2.
deliverance; rescue.
3.
Theology . deliverance from sin; salvation.
4.
atonement for guilt.
5.
repurchase, as of something sold.

Clearly, I meant #4.

It wasn't clear at all until you clarified it. Why would I assume you meant sense #4, or anybody else for that matter? I do find it amusing, however, that #4 uses the word "atonement," which is also an inherently religious word regarding sin. We're getting into semantics here, and that's probably my fault, but when one uses the word "redemption," it carries a heavy religious weight, even if you didn't intend it that way.

 

[FJO]

I don't disagree with the notion that a person can turn their lives around at all. All I was saying is that redemption, unless you're talking about coupons or reclaiming foreclosed property, is most certainly a religious word pertaining to absolution or deliverance from sin. Society does not have the ability to grant that. The closest equivalent outside of faith-based beliefs would have to come from the victim. Like I said, I'm not religious, but I think the Hebrews had it right about this one.

re·demp·tion
   [ri-demp-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
an act of redeeming or the state of being redeemed.
2.
deliverance; rescue.
3.
Theology . deliverance from sin; salvation.
4.
atonement for guilt.
5.
repurchase, as of something sold.

Clearly, I meant #4.

It wasn't clear at all until you clarified it. Why would I assume you meant sense #4, or anybody else for that matter? I do find it amusing, however, that #4 uses the word "atonement," which is also an inherently religious word regarding sin. We're getting into semantics here, and that's probably my fault, but when one uses the word "redemption," it carries a heavy religious weight, even if you didn't intend it that way.

OK, have it your way!

 

[Meister]

What this had to do with policitcs is beyond me.

 

[Katzndogz]

After having read thru all the comments on this thread - pro or con of death penalty - I never once saw the word REDEMPTION.

I believe that that there is at least a trace of goodness in every human being, even the condemned and convicted killer.

Without going into details, I can say with full confidence and with personal experience, that REDEMPTION is possible, if it is given a chance.

Death Penalty removes that chance forever.

Perhaps I did not use the word "Redemption," but I did at least suggest the opportunity to seek forgiveness from the immediate family. Redemption is a religious word that works fine within the context of faith, but here on Earth, regardless of one's spiritual convictions, redemption could only come in the form of forgiveness from the victim. Wouldn't you agree?

Forgiveness is something the victim of a crime does for himself or herself. It should have no bearing on what happens to the criminal.

You might want to believe that there is a trace of goodness in everyone but that doesn't mean they should be released into society. Lawrence Bittaker is a serial killer, he and Roy Norris kidnapped young girls off the Strand in the Beach Cities of California and tortured them to death. Bittaker could not stand the use of profanity when women or children were present. He would quickly tell someone that language was unacceptable, he'd fight them if necessary. He had some trace of goodness, and STILL enjoyed twisting the nipples off girls using a coathanger and pliers.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Not really. The killer is motivated by many things, most notably sheer enjoyment of the crime. Death penalty opponents have nothing but disregard for the victims.

That can't be what you mean. If a person takes joy from killing another human being, how is that not the ultimate in callousness? By that token, if society takes joy in executing, how is that not also callous?

Don't misunderstand me, if you read my much longer post on the subject a little earlier in the thread, then you will see I am in favor of capital punishment, but statements like There is no greater exhibition of callousness than that shown to the victims of killers by those opposed to the death penalty show an obvious emotional bent that should be absent from the law.

It is absent from the law. You don't see people working on the Innocence Project put in prison do you?

I have worked with the Innocence Project and they do a LOT of good work in freeing the truly innocent from injustice. But they have absolutely no regard whatsoever for the victims. Occasionally a killer will show remorse for their crimes, but the opponents of the death penalty never do. Unlike others here, I have met many killers, including serial killers. Sometimes I am amused by the opponents of the death penalty, but mostly horrified.

I'm not sure what your question about the Innocence Project is meant to establish. I am not terribly familiar the organization nor does it have anything to do with my position.

You and I agree more than we disagree. I proposed in my longer post that one of my problems with those opposed to is that they tend to show a lack of regard for the victims, which is indeed callous. However, to say that opponents to capital punishment have no regard for the victims across the board is terribly presumptive, not to mention impossible. Also, to suggest that those opposed to capital punishment have a greater disregard for the victims than the act that made them victims in the first place, forgive me, but how can that not be taken as more than a little sensational?

We who would advocate and defend capital punishment must do so in a rational way and avoid sensationalist views and statements. Hasn't the U.S. become polarized enough?

 

[Bfgrn]

I've seen the economic argument presented, and I don't get it, either way. When one considers the ridiculous amounts that the government spends on other things, and that this is regarding the decision by a supposedly rational people whether or not to take a human life, why would money be such a big concern?

Such a decision should NEVER be taken lightly, by either side. When people oppose capital punishment, the flippant posture toward the victims never ceases to amaze me. Likewise, the average advocate of the death penalty has a strong tendency to want to speed up the process, oppose appeals, and "let the f*&#er fry." Both make me sick.

I advocate the death penalty, but I don't take it nearly as lightly as some would.

The victims outside the person(s) killed, those whose loved one was taken away, deserve to see justice, they deserve to see the offender's life taken away. I don't see how this is open for argument. Further, how one could NOT be outraged at the taking of innocent life is beyond me, and this is what irks me about those that oppose the death penalty, they also tend not to be too terribly bothered by the crime in the first place.

However, I also don't have much of a problem with the cost of appeals, and a strong need for overwhelming evidence. Thank you DNA testing for making that endeavor easier and more absolute! Overwhelming evidence is paramount to even having a capital punishment system in the first place. If a society lacks a requirement for overwhelming evidence, or ample ability of the accused to fight it, then it also lacks the responsibility to have a capital punishment system. So I don't give a shit about the cost.

Take the time to get it right, and when determined overwhelmingly to have gotten it right, execute.

However, I personally would like to include one additional step. I am not a Christian, nor am I religious at all, but I do agree with one aspect of Hebrew law and culture, and that is the basic idea that one cannot be forgiven unless one is forgiven by the victim. Even when one has been overwhelmingly proven guilty of a horrendous murder, one should be given the opportunity to ask forgiveness of the immediate family of the victim, and if forgiveness is given, then that should at least erase the death penalty, even if the convicted has to serve some debt to society. After all, what is the point of capital punishment but for the victims? I couldn't care less about the arguments of whether or not it is an effective deterrent. Now, realistically, the vast majority of family asked for forgiveness will not give it, and so be it, but if forgiveness by the immediate family is given, what business is it of ours?

That last point is simply a personal feeling, and not intended to be taken as a central premise for or against capital punishment.

WHAT 'flippant posture' towards the victim? That is self righteous bullshit...

Maybe you need to vastly expand your thinking; put yourself in the shoes of other people and consider that when a person is executed, it creates a NEW family of murder victims. Consider the conscience of a jurist that sent a person to their execution, only to learn the person they sentenced to death may have been innocent. And understand human foible that creates the attitude of prosecutors and District Attorneys who are more concerned with defending their 'turf', their public perception of being 'tough on crime' and gaining re-election, than they are concerned with the truth and justice.

Aug. 19, 2002 - A new report released today paints a startling picture of systemic bias and discrimination by those who serve victims against surviving family members who, contrary to popular stereotype, oppose the death penalty.

Victoria Lamm was murdered in Nebraska in 1980, and the perpetrator was given a death sentence. When the Nebraska Board of Pardons was considering commuting the death sentence years later, three family members of the victim asked to present testimony, but only one was allowed to do so. Victoria's sister, who supported the death penalty, was allowed to testify. Victoria's husband and daughter, who opposed the death penalty, were denied that right - even though the Nebraska Constitution specifically guarantees victims the right to make a statement at such proceedings. Denial of the right to information. Often, when prosecutors learn that a surviving family member opposes the death penalty for the perpetrator, that person will be denied information about upcoming hearings, court dates, or other important information about the case. In Austin, Texas, for example, when Jeannette Popp, who opposed the death penalty for the murderer of her daughter, "the district attorney's office cut off communication with her and would not inform her of upcoming court hearings involving her daughter's murder." "Sometimes this denial is made explicit, as when members of a district attorney’s office warn families that if they advocate against the death penalty the office will no longer communicate with them," Cushing says. "At other times, the office may communicate with the family but do so in a way that is incomplete, inaccurate or misleading." Denial of the right to assistance and advocacy. Victim SueZann Bosler came close to losing her life when an assailant severely injured her and murdered her father. The state of Florida decided to seek the death penalty against the perpetrator. She reported that during the first two trials of her father’s murderer, the victim witness advocate "held my hand, got coffee for me…[but] on the third trial, when I wasn’t doing what they wanted, they wouldn’t talk to me or sit next to me or look at me. They wouldn’t have anything to do with me." "Some advocates see victims who oppose the death penalty as more closely identified with the defendant than with their own status as victims, thus rendering them ineligible for or undeserving of advocates' help," Cushing said. "Such a view disregards the possibility that survivors may oppose the death penalty for their own reasons, not because of sympathy for the murderer."

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

re·demp·tion
   [ri-demp-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
an act of redeeming or the state of being redeemed.
2.
deliverance; rescue.
3.
Theology . deliverance from sin; salvation.
4.
atonement for guilt.
5.
repurchase, as of something sold.

Clearly, I meant #4.

It wasn't clear at all until you clarified it. Why would I assume you meant sense #4, or anybody else for that matter? I do find it amusing, however, that #4 uses the word "atonement," which is also an inherently religious word regarding sin. We're getting into semantics here, and that's probably my fault, but when one uses the word "redemption," it carries a heavy religious weight, even if you didn't intend it that way.

OK, have it your way!

I tend to deconstruct. Don't take it personal.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

I've seen the economic argument presented, and I don't get it, either way. When one considers the ridiculous amounts that the government spends on other things, and that this is regarding the decision by a supposedly rational people whether or not to take a human life, why would money be such a big concern?

Such a decision should NEVER be taken lightly, by either side. When people oppose capital punishment, the flippant posture toward the victims never ceases to amaze me. Likewise, the average advocate of the death penalty has a strong tendency to want to speed up the process, oppose appeals, and "let the f*&#er fry." Both make me sick.

I advocate the death penalty, but I don't take it nearly as lightly as some would.

The victims outside the person(s) killed, those whose loved one was taken away, deserve to see justice, they deserve to see the offender's life taken away. I don't see how this is open for argument. Further, how one could NOT be outraged at the taking of innocent life is beyond me, and this is what irks me about those that oppose the death penalty, they also tend not to be too terribly bothered by the crime in the first place.

However, I also don't have much of a problem with the cost of appeals, and a strong need for overwhelming evidence. Thank you DNA testing for making that endeavor easier and more absolute! Overwhelming evidence is paramount to even having a capital punishment system in the first place. If a society lacks a requirement for overwhelming evidence, or ample ability of the accused to fight it, then it also lacks the responsibility to have a capital punishment system. So I don't give a shit about the cost.

Take the time to get it right, and when determined overwhelmingly to have gotten it right, execute.

However, I personally would like to include one additional step. I am not a Christian, nor am I religious at all, but I do agree with one aspect of Hebrew law and culture, and that is the basic idea that one cannot be forgiven unless one is forgiven by the victim. Even when one has been overwhelmingly proven guilty of a horrendous murder, one should be given the opportunity to ask forgiveness of the immediate family of the victim, and if forgiveness is given, then that should at least erase the death penalty, even if the convicted has to serve some debt to society. After all, what is the point of capital punishment but for the victims? I couldn't care less about the arguments of whether or not it is an effective deterrent. Now, realistically, the vast majority of family asked for forgiveness will not give it, and so be it, but if forgiveness by the immediate family is given, what business is it of ours?

That last point is simply a personal feeling, and not intended to be taken as a central premise for or against capital punishment.

WHAT 'flippant posture' towards the victim? That is self righteous bullshit...

Maybe you need to vastly expand your thinking; put yourself in the shoes of other people and consider that when a person is executed, it creates a NEW family of murder victims. Consider the conscience of a jurist that sent a person to their execution, only to learn the person they sentenced to death may have been innocent. And understand human foible that creates the attitude of prosecutors and District Attorneys who are more concerned with defending their 'turf', their public perception of being 'tough on crime' and gaining re-election, than they are concerned with the truth and justice.

Maybe you need to re-read my post and realize that I was not talking in absolutes. While you are at it you may want to realize that I was placing a pretty strong importance on overwhelming evidence and a healthy respect for the appeals process. I don't want innocent people being executed either. That would show a flippancy on my part as well, wouldn't it?

Besides, the NEW family of murder victims you speak of can hardly be considered the same thing by any stretch of the imagination. I have plenty of sympathy for the mother of a person who murdered, and what her child's life has become, but at least she knows full well ahead of time that it will happen and why. If you're a mother, then you're going to believe your child is innocent anyway, so what bearing does that have on anything? Besides, I cannot put myself in anybody's shoes except my own. Just because I advocate capital punishment does not mean that I don't think the system in place is broken.

 

[Katzndogz]

Redemption in the religious sense is between the perpetrator and God. It has nothing to do with the judgment of society.

 

[Bfgrn]

I've seen the economic argument presented, and I don't get it, either way. When one considers the ridiculous amounts that the government spends on other things, and that this is regarding the decision by a supposedly rational people whether or not to take a human life, why would money be such a big concern?

Such a decision should NEVER be taken lightly, by either side. When people oppose capital punishment, the flippant posture toward the victims never ceases to amaze me. Likewise, the average advocate of the death penalty has a strong tendency to want to speed up the process, oppose appeals, and "let the f*&#er fry." Both make me sick.

I advocate the death penalty, but I don't take it nearly as lightly as some would.

The victims outside the person(s) killed, those whose loved one was taken away, deserve to see justice, they deserve to see the offender's life taken away. I don't see how this is open for argument. Further, how one could NOT be outraged at the taking of innocent life is beyond me, and this is what irks me about those that oppose the death penalty, they also tend not to be too terribly bothered by the crime in the first place.

However, I also don't have much of a problem with the cost of appeals, and a strong need for overwhelming evidence. Thank you DNA testing for making that endeavor easier and more absolute! Overwhelming evidence is paramount to even having a capital punishment system in the first place. If a society lacks a requirement for overwhelming evidence, or ample ability of the accused to fight it, then it also lacks the responsibility to have a capital punishment system. So I don't give a shit about the cost.

Take the time to get it right, and when determined overwhelmingly to have gotten it right, execute.

However, I personally would like to include one additional step. I am not a Christian, nor am I religious at all, but I do agree with one aspect of Hebrew law and culture, and that is the basic idea that one cannot be forgiven unless one is forgiven by the victim. Even when one has been overwhelmingly proven guilty of a horrendous murder, one should be given the opportunity to ask forgiveness of the immediate family of the victim, and if forgiveness is given, then that should at least erase the death penalty, even if the convicted has to serve some debt to society. After all, what is the point of capital punishment but for the victims? I couldn't care less about the arguments of whether or not it is an effective deterrent. Now, realistically, the vast majority of family asked for forgiveness will not give it, and so be it, but if forgiveness by the immediate family is given, what business is it of ours?

That last point is simply a personal feeling, and not intended to be taken as a central premise for or against capital punishment.

WHAT 'flippant posture' towards the victim? That is self righteous bullshit...

Maybe you need to vastly expand your thinking; put yourself in the shoes of other people and consider that when a person is executed, it creates a NEW family of murder victims. Consider the conscience of a jurist that sent a person to their execution, only to learn the person they sentenced to death may have been innocent. And understand human foible that creates the attitude of prosecutors and District Attorneys who are more concerned with defending their 'turf', their public perception of being 'tough on crime' and gaining re-election, than they are concerned with the truth and justice.

Maybe you need to re-read my post and realize that I was not talking in absolutes. While you are at it you may want to realize that I was placing a pretty strong importance on overwhelming evidence and a healthy respect for the appeals process. I don't want innocent people being executed either. That would show a flippancy on my part as well, wouldn't it?

Besides, the NEW family of murder victims you speak of can hardly be considered the same thing by any stretch of the imagination. I have plenty of sympathy for the mother of a person who murdered, and what her child's life has become, but at least she knows full well ahead of time that it will happen and why. If you're a mother, then you're going to believe your child is innocent anyway, so what bearing does that have on anything? Besides, I cannot put myself in anybody's shoes except my own. Just because I advocate capital punishment does not mean that I don't think the system in place is broken.

I did. I stand by my comments and have more issues with your post. You said you've seen the economic argument presented, and don't get it, and, why would money be such a big concern?

The death penalty is not only a LOT more expensive than life without parole in monetary terms, it is a lot more expensive in human resource terms. Detectives and law enforcement who could be working on new cases or preventing new crimes are wasting an exorbitant amount of human resources on capital punishment cases. The money spent to preserve this failing system could be directed to effective programs that make society safer. And it taxes our court system...

NE - Because of one death penalty case in Nebraska, the Madison County Public Defender’s Office doesn’t have time to meet with their regular clients and prepare adequate defenses, in violation of their code of ethics. Attorneys are withdrawing from all new cases to which they are appointed. (Lincoln Journal Star, Sept. 22, 2003)

The death penalty makes our communities LESS safe.

In Sierra County, California authorities had to cut police services in 1988 to pick up the tab of pursuing death penalty prosecutions. The County's District Attorney, James Reichle, complained, "If we didn't have to pay $500,000 a pop for Sacramento's murders, I'd have an investigator and the sheriff would have a couple of extra deputies and we could do some lasting good for Sierra County law enforcement. The sewage system at the courthouse is failing, a bridge collapsed, there's no county library, no county park, and we have volunteer fire and volunteer search and rescue." The county's auditor, Don Hemphill, said that if death penalty expenses kept piling up, the county would soon be broke. Just recently, Mr. Hemphill indicated that another death penalty case would likely require the county to lay off 10 percent of its police and sheriff force.

Across the country, police are being laid off, prisoners are being released early, the courts are clogged, and crime continues to rise. The economic recession has caused cutbacks in the backbone of the criminal justice system. In Florida, the budget crisis resulted in the early release of 3,000 prisoners. In Texas, prisoners are serving only 20% of their time and rearrests are common. Georgia is laying off 900 correctional personnel and New Jersey has had to dismiss 500 police officers. Yet these same states, and many others like them, are pouring millions of dollars into the death penalty with no resultant reduction in crime.

The exorbitant costs of capital punishment are actually making America less safe because badly needed financial and legal resources are being diverted from effective crime fighting strategies. Before the Los Angeles riots, for example, California had little money for innovations like community policing, but was managing to spend an extra $90 million per year on capital punishment. Texas, with over 300 people on death row, is spending an estimated $2.3 million per case, but its murder rate remains one of the highest in the country.

The death penalty is escaping the decisive cost-benefit analysis to which every other program is being put in times of austerity. Rather than being posed as a single, but costly, alternative in a spectrum of approaches to crime, the death penalty operates at the extremes of political rhetoric. Candidates use the death penalty as a facile solution to crime which allows them to distinguish themselves by the toughness of their position rather than its effectiveness.

The death penalty is much more expensive than its closest alternative--life imprisonment with no parole. Capital trials are longer and more expensive at every step than other murder trials. Pre-trial motions, expert witness investigations, jury selection, and the necessity for two trials--one on guilt and one on sentencing--make capital cases extremely costly, even before the appeals process begins. Guilty pleas are almost unheard of when the punishment is death. In addition, many of these trials result in a life sentence rather than the death penalty, so the state pays the cost of life imprisonment on top of the expensive trial.

The high price of the death penalty is often most keenly felt in those counties responsible for both the prosecution and defense of capital defendants. A single trial can mean near bankruptcy, tax increases, and the laying off of vital personnel. Trials costing a small county $100,000 from un-budgeted funds are common and some officials have even gone to jail in resisting payment.

Nevertheless, politicians from prosecutors to presidents choose symbol over substance in their support of the death penalty. Campaign rhetoric becomes legislative policy with no analysis of whether the expense will produce any good for the people. The death penalty, in short, has been given a free ride. The expansion of the death penalty in America is on a collision course with a shrinking budget for crime prevention. It is time for politicians and the public to give this costly punishment a hard look.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Mods​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

What this had to do with policitcs is beyond me.

Are you really that stupid??????

​