Capital Punishment- Cruel and Unusual or a good way to get rid of our convicts?

Great Debates
21

If the death penalty were such a deterrence then Texas murder rate would be among the lowest, which it isn’t and Texas wouldn’t have to continually carry out more executions than other states, which it does.

I don’t really object to the death penalty on any grounds except that it hinders any other attempts at a solution to the occurence of violent crimes. After some one is injected, gassed or whatever, there is a strong tendency to sit back and say, “Well, that SOB won’t bother us any more.” And very few public resources are directed to finding the genesis of criminals.

I’ll guarantee you that right now, some future Ted Bundy (serial killer) is being born; some Richard Speck (serial killer) is starting kindergarten; and some John Wayne Gacey (serial killer) is graduating from high school. And society in general has made little attempt to find out what happens to result in such a personality.

It is also shamefully true that the states, and nations, that don’t have the death penalty don’t seem to have devoted much of the cost of executions that they save to such studies either.

I guess we, as a general rule, would rather raise 'em and then kill 'em rather than try to head 'em off at the pass.

22

Well, you have to have a pretty expansive view of “the system” here. In at least 2, if not more, of the cases of innocence in Illinois (which caused the Republican previously-pro-CP governor to put a moratorium on executions, for Heaven’s sake), the innocence was apparently brought to light in an investigative journalism class. In a famous case in Texas, the innocence was brought to life by the movie documentary “Thin Blue Line” (and, even then, it was a hard fight to get the conviction overturned).

Maybe we should make appeals to investigative journalism classes and documentary film makers a right for those on death row!?!

And, this is the basic problem one runs into in arguing the death penalty case…Practically by definition, there is noone known to be innocent who gets executed because if they are proven to be innocent, they don’t get executed. However, there are several cases that look very fishy in which someone was put to death. In one case in Virginia, a group was suing the government after the fact to have them use the new DNA testing on the critical piece of evidence to see if someone who was alreadly executed was in fact the killer. Interestingly, the State did not want this test performed (even at the group’s expense)! As the proponents of this testing pointed out, here was a perfect opportunity to test the idea that no innocent folks get executed, and not even risk sending a potential criminal out to walk the streets as a result, and yet the State balked!

23

Only if you ignore all other factors, and I have no intention of delving into the minute intricacies of Texan society.

I would agree to that.

I’m noticing that the subject has moved from the question of whether or not the the death penalty is “cruel and unusual” (which I do not think it is) to one of how screwed up the court system is with regards to how it finds people guilty, and flaws in the appeals process (which I will agree there are).

24

There is a function of the dp: winning confessions so that the perp don’t get the dp, just life instead.

25

And the irony hits me… guilty people will confess, knowing that they are, in fact, guilty, to avoid the DP, while innocent people will not, knowing that they are, in fact, innocent. Then they get wronfully convicted, and… well… you know.

26

Well, you beat me to it, jshore. Here’s a list of Innocence Projects in the US. Such projects (often a part of university or law school coursework!) are not a part of the system. The fact that they have been so successful is a strong motivator for me to be anti-CP.

From this CNN article on one such project at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law:

Only the farthest stretch of the imagination could include this as a success of the system. These exonerations are a failure of the system and tragedies averted because of citizen watchdogs.

27

In the post that I responded to you didn’t mention any “other factors,” so why should I drag them in? If you would list them perhaps they can also be discussed, maybe in a different thread.

In any case, those other factors in “the minute intricacies of Texan society,” and of many other states, would seem to overwhelm any supposed deterrent effect to the point where even mentioning deterrence is sort of a hypothetical exercise of no real signigicance.

Lectures yet? Your own first post was not about “cruel and unusual punishment” but rather about the possibility of mistakes and your contention that the “system works” because some of the mistakes are discovered and corrected.

The original post listed a whole bunch of possible reasons for and against the death penalty in addition to the question in the title. Are we supposed to ignore all that and just talk about the title?

I don’t think so. It seems to me that all of the matters brought up in the OP are up for discussion.

28

“If only ONE innocent person is executed…”

Hello? Maybe I sound cold hearted here, but our society tolerates a certain number of deaths in exchange for certain benefits, privelidges, or securities. Let’s carry this line of reasoning for other preventable deaths:

IIRC, there are 40,000 motor vehicle deaths every year.

“If only ONE person dies in a car accident, cars should be banned”

Same thing goes with tobacco, alcohol, firearms, prescription drugs, wars, etc. So don’t try to make it seem like an outrage when ONE person gets wrongly executed in a rather painless way.

29

Blalron, I agree completely.

30

I have a brother in law enforcement who has been an officer for over 20 years. As a result, I have taken an interest in crime and punishment and came to several conclusions (1) is that the British sentences of jail time are feeble, which is why they have so many repeat offenders (2) hard core criminals will NOT rehabilitate 90% of the time (3) I find no reason to keep murderers alive in jail, especially those having committed more than one, at tax payers cost, where they will live a life of comparative ease. In jail, they get food, shelter, TV, movies, reading material, jobs, free medical, snacks, free medication, free dental, and even drugs and sex – of sorts. Unless in solitary. They can experience emotions from anger to joy while their victims cannot, and many left shattered families behind them by removing a person from this Earth, usually in a horrible way. Strangulation or being beaten to death is not an easy way to go. Nor is being dragged behind a car for miles nor poisoned.

I would hate to place an innocent on death row, but it may happen, which is why we have a system of checks and balances in place and, where applicable, DNA evidence should be used on anyone incarcerated before DNA became the in thing, if it could help free them. The overwhelming amount of people on death row are there because they were so stupid in their killings that they all but directed the cops to themselves with printed instructions. Many of them brutally killed their victims in ways that were neither dignified, nor quick and painless and had no regard for human life.

When you kill someone over a hamburger or for $50 from a cash register, you do not deserve to remain among the living, depending upon the circumstances, like premeditated, accidental or just plain cold blooded.

Why should a multiple murderer or a single murderer who tortured his victims to a slow death and enjoyed it, be allowed to live beyond them? Why should the state pay for his well being after he deliberately treated another person to an inhumane death?

I know of killers who tortured and raped their victims for hours, even days, enjoying inflicting pain and humiliation on them, then strangled them and strangling is not a good way to go. I know of killers who did this more than once or those that slowly tortured the victim to death.

How about the pedophile who molested a kid and strangled him into unconsciousness during the process and then brought him back with artificial respiration just to do it all again and again until finally he killed the boy. Why should such a sick fuck be allowed to live and enjoy life even if behind bars?

I figure that we need the death penalty.

31

SuaSponte -

I am arguing that the guilty who go all the way thru the appeal process, have their sentences (and their guilt) affirmed, and are executed, are all guilty - insofar as it is possible to prove someone guilty.

You are arguing that we can never be sure of that.

Guilt has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. If you are arguing that some of them are, in fact, innocent, the burden of proof lies with you.

You need to prove they did not deserve to be executed. Just assuming so is not enough to overcome the mountains of evidence necessary to sustain a death penalty verdict, which is, without exception, appealed far beyond the point where any reasonable doubt exists. All cases wherein any doubt exists, get overturned.

I should emphasize, however, that it is not always the case that people who have their DP overturned are actually innocent. I think we are in agreement with that. Citing such case does not, for me, constitute an argument against the death penalty.

The only injustice connected with the death penalty is for an innocent person to be executed - innocent in that he did not have any involvement with the murder for which he is executed. Arguments like “he should not get the DP because he only held her down and raped her - the other guy actually cut her throat” or “both are equally guilty, but he got the DP and the other guy did not, so neither should” get nowhere with me. I am arguing moral guilt, not legal.

As far as I am concerned, the death penalty should be mandatory in all cases of first- or second-degree murder, rape involving a weapon or multiple assailants, arson involving the death of a person, attempted first- or second-degree murder, treason, and upon a second conviction for a drunk driving accident involving a death.

Regards,
Shodan

32

Shodan:

But yet you acknowledge that someone can “…go all the way thru the appeal process [and] have their sentences (and their guilt) affirmed…” without being guilty. I fail to see how the additional step of execution somehow seals that accuracy of their conviction.

What the execution does do is stop the additional work on proving their innocence. Once the accused is dead, any additional work on their case is moot, and courts will not hear mitigating evidence that might tend to show innocence.

It’s not logical to assume that all persons wrongly convicted and sentenced to death have been identified and set free. We know that a certain percentage of people have been exonerated by, say, DNA evidence. But their convictions in the first place represent a clear message that the trial and appeal process is falliable.

You place a great deal of confidence in the appeal. I do not, because I am well aware of how easy it is for a mistake made early on to irrevocably contaminate the case.

For example, at the appellate level, an issue must be “preserved for appeal”. This means if a prejudicial error was made at trial, in order for the appellate court to consider it, it must have been objected to by the trial attorney. Errors that are missed by the defense attorney at trial are procedurally waived, and, if reviewed at all, are reviewed under a harsh standard called plain error. It’s unfortunately quite common for indigent defendents to get attorneys who, through inexperience or incompetence, fail to preserve key issues for appeal.

Ah ha! But if that happens, can’t the defendent appeal based on his attorney’s incompetence?

No. The standard for winning a “Strickland appeal” - an appeal based on inadequate performance of counsel - is astonishingly high. It’s not enough to show that the attorney made mistakes - in fact, it’s not enough to show that the attorney was out-and-out incompetent.

I have seen many (admittedly non-capital) cases in which the appeal on substantive grounds was lost because issues were procedurally defaulted, and, in the same breath, the appeals court denied the ineffective assistance of counsel claim for not meeting the burden.

The system works well most of the time. And lacking a better system, I am perfectly willing to consign someone to imprisonment based on a guilty verdict and affirming appellate review. But because of the errors I’ve seen myself, I am not willing to support the system’s judgement of death. It’s just not good enough for that ultimate step.

  • Rick
33

I think this is an invalid comparison. The purpose of having automobiles, trucks, trains, etc. is for transportation of people and goods. The innocent deaths are the unavoidable result of accidents which are random occurences. The use of tobacco and alcohol are attempts, however misguided, of people to make their lives a little more comfortable. The deaths associated with them are the unavoidable consequence of the side effects of those drugs and the overuse of them. The prescription drug industry has as its aim, besides making money, the curing of disease, easing of pain etc. None of these activities could be stopped or even reduced by much without severe economic and social disruption.

Captal punishment, on the other hand, has as its end aim the deliberate killing of a human. And since, as with all other human activity, there are occasional innocents who get caught by the probabilities, they sometimes get killed. But those incnocent deaths are easy to stop. Merely abolish the death penalty which could be done without severe economic and social disruption.

Until someone can prove otherwise I will continue to think that the presence or absence of the death penalty is entirely uncorrelated with the rate of those crimes that call for it as punishment. The statistics seem to back me up. There are numerous sites on the web that deal with this issue both pro and con, and both sides use analyses of the statistics to come to different conclusions. Either the statistics are equivocal or dubious methods are in use, or both.

One real problem with this mountain of evidence is with eyewitness testimony. Prosecutors and juries seem to be impressed by it. Yet I have read of numerous studies that show that eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. And by the time prosecutors get done “gooming” their witnesses the unreliability is probably much greater that it was at the beginning of the process.

To quote Mark Twain, “Cold sarcasm like this revolts me.”