Does Texas execute enough murderers?

Great Debates
21

On a purely moral level, I have no problem with the death penalty. Some crimes are so horrifying that death would be an entirely fitting punishment.

But on a practical level, the death penalty worries me. I read recently that many rape convictions are being overturned in cases as much as ten or fifteen years old because newly developed DNA analysis techniques were showing that the accused couldn’t possibly have been guilty. Obviously entirely too many innocent people are being convicted in our courts. Here in Atlanta a while back, a DA tried to convict a well-known sports star (can’t remember who) of a murder at a night club. The evidence was pretty flimsy, and most folks around here seemed to think that the DA just wanted to win a successful, high profile case which he could use in a campaign for public office. The athlete was acquitted, but what if the accused had been a nobody who didn’t have tens of thousands of dollars to spend on a hot shot lawyer? On a personal level, I’ve never had much money and would probably have to rely on a public defender if I were ever accused of a felony. I can all too easily imagine myself getting railroaded to death row by an overzealous cop or an ambitious DA.

If you send someone to prison on a bum rap and he’s later proven innocent, you can always let him go. You can never completely make up for the months or years that he’s lost or the abuse he may have suffered , but at least some kind of partial restitution is possible.

But it doesn’t work that way when they’ve been executed. Dead is dead. So far as we know, no one comes back from the dead, and “Oops! Sorry 'bout that!” isn’t good enough.

It irks me that some monsters in human form would fail to receive the punishment they so richly deserve if capital punishment is suspended, but the risk of executing the innocent is just too high. However reluctantly, I must oppose capital punishment.

22

On October 24, 1988, on the “MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour,” Kwame Holman noted, “Cliff Barnes was tortured with a knife for twelve hours and his wife, Angela, was raped twice by William Horton, an escapee from the Massachusetts prison furlough program.”

This wouldn’t have happened if convicted murderer Horton had been executed. I don’t think it’s good enough to tell corpse C. Barnes and rape victim A. Barnes, “Oops! Sorry 'bout that!” I hope LonesomePolecat would agree.

23

But then, the rape and murder wouldn’t have happened had he stayed in prison, either.

24

An angle not previously touched on, that throws the issue into a new light for me, is the number of impoverished people on death row compared to the number of wealthy.

25

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Anal Scurvy *
**

How about the number of impoverished murder victims compared to the number of wealthy ones? If the DP reduces the number of murders, then the poor may well benefit disproportionately.

A related principle applies by race; murderers and their victims tend to be of the same race.

26

justinh

Considering that somewhere around 10% of murders are solved, I’d say that does sound like Texas is pretty execution happy.

And just how many people have been killed by prison escapers [why are they usually referred to as “escapees”?]

Well, I think the answer to that question is a resounding “no”. Unless the answer to my previous question is “several hundred”.

27

Yeah, but apparently when one looks at who actually gets the death penalty, it is much more likely to be applied in cases where the victim is a certain race, namely white. And, I imagine there may also be an association with the wealth of the victims, although I’m not as sure about the statistics on that.

28

I think you need to look more closely at the question.

The number of lives lost due to repeat murders by prison escapees pales next to the number of repeat murders by killers released from prison, not to mention killings of fellow inmates and guards by murderers. It is impossible to accurately estimate the number of killings prevented through execution or the factor of deterrence.

Activists on behalf of “innocents” facing execution are currently working diligently to save John W. Byrd, due for a seat in Ohio’s electric chair for the fatal stabbing of convenience store clerk Monte Tewksbury during a robbery in the early '80s. There’s no doubt of his involvement with two others in the robbery, or in a subsequent one where another stabbing was attempted - the dodge in his latest appeal concerns an accomplice who is changing his story about Byrd’s involvement and taking credit for the killing (this inmate cannot be retried due to double jeopardy) and Byrd’s lawyer, who now says he didn’t do a very good job on defense (murderers with the evidence stacked against them should increasingly favor inexperienced or incompetent attorneys, so that their convictions can be thrown out later).
Unfortunately for Byrd, some of his jailhouse letters have turned up, including one where he talks about getting high on killing, and another he wrote to the widow of his victim, in part saying “When you go to bed at night, tell Monte I said good night. Ha! Ha! Ha!”*

All stout defenders of the innocent will undoubtedly want to help Byrd duck execution. You can make your feelings known at http://www.hcpros.org

*Psychologists have determined that the use of multiple Ha!s in this context is merely evidence of high spirits rather than sociopathy, with the proviso that more than three Ha!s would be an indicator of an unsound mind and grounds for an insanity defense.

29

I’m sorry. I value all life evenly. There’s no way that killing someone would bring back the victims; if we lived in some strange world where we could, I could start to understand the death penalty. But the death penalty takes one loss of life and turns it into two- I’m not saying the killers lives are worth more, but only that we should value all life evenly; teaching that life is not a right but a privlige that can be taken away for punishment is not something we should do as a society, as it is very similar to logic that many killers use.

30

“I value all life equally”

That is just wrong. On a philosophical sense, maybe.
But practically, this is a sort of slow suicide, culturally. Good, honest god-fearing folk (can I still say that?) are “worth” a hell of a lot more than some schemer, dead beat father raper every time. It’s that sort of muddle-headed wishful thinking that gets us into the cultural morass we’re in anyway. Remember standards? Cultural mores, morals, and ethics of personal conduct are there for a reason- the reason being civlization is a very thin veneer.

What is especially tragic is that criminals tend (always?) to go after the elderly, the young, the weak in our society. Maybe that’s why some people call them predators. When I read of an elderly person beaten to death for their purse, it makes me sick, for example. We all deserve better.

31

prison is not a deterrent, so why don’t we just get rid of jail?

The purpose of state-sanctioned punitive measures should NOT be assumed to be for “prevention of crime.” It’s not. It’s to get rid of people - either temporarily or permanently - who do not fit in society. If you only think of the criminal justice system as a machine for crime prevention, then the whole system is a failure.

When criminals are in prison, they cannot commit crimes against society until they are released (and we say the time they should be kept out of society is a function of the severity of their crime along with their past criminal history). That is the true value of the criminal justice system.

There are some crimes - like raping an 8 year old and killing him/her - which warrant permanent removal from society. A life sentence is one way of looking at it, but it has the same end as an execution - dying in captivity. Why waste the money and cell-space (which is already suffering from overcrowding) holding a dangerous person for what could be 60+ years (and when they get real old, they’ll have a good case for a mercy parole) when that person simply be thrown out for good in a matter of minutes? Why risk the guards who have to watch over someone for the rest of that person’s life - when that person is a danger to them? Why hold on to your trash for 60 years when you could just throw it out and be done with it.

I am against the “life sentence.” It is wasteful and pointless, imposes pointless danger upon prison guards, and many times turns out not to be a life sentence. “Awww, he is 93 years old and has been in prison for 70 years - come on, just let him go, he isn’t gonna hurt anyone!” Liberals love pulling mercy-crap just like that.

The death penalty is not for deterrence. It’s not a deterrence at all (as all liberals know). I’m sure there are people out there who kill people just to get on death row because “death row is cool, man.” Death Row records, baby. Hardcore. Yeeeeah. It is not a deterrant, but rather a method of waste disposal.

Yeah, there is always the chance that an innocent person will be executed. It’s a VERY SLIM chance. There is a chance that an airplane will fall on you tomorrow - that’s no reason for banning airplanes. The appeals process is the best guarantee we have that a person who is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt will not be executed.

That being said, i think NO criminal defendant should be denied DNA tests to help his/her case. It does scare me that there are prosecutors out there who would object to the introduction of DNA evidence which could prove the innocence of the defendant. Other than that… kill them all. Maybe it WOULD be a wee bit of a deterrant if executions were 1) more violent than a nice little sleepy needle; and 2) televised primetime. Force kids to watch it, too (make them watch it in school). Two words: Shark tank.

I should also note that I live in texas and lots of other texans agree with what i just said.

32

december says:

Am I understanding you correctly ? It sounds like you are willing to shrug off the execution of innocent citizens as long as it serves the purpose of reducing the risk of murder.

Please tell me I got it wrong. Or explain to me why a collective right to increased safety from murder should take priority over any individual’s (IMHO, rather sacrosanct) right to life.

S. Norman

33

Try rephrasing the matter this way: Are you willing to shrug off the well-documented killings of innocents by repeat murderers (check a previous thread in this forum that went into great detail on the subject) because of your focus on the theoretical risk that an innocent person might be executed?

34

Interesting post, SN. You distinguish between “collective” vs. “individual” rights. I think what you may mean is:

If the DP prevents the murder of innocent people, they cannot be spoecifically identified, so I guess you’d call that a collective right to increased safety. OTOH if an executed person can be shown to have been innocent, that’s an individual right. Here is my response:

  1. The collective lives saved matter just as much even though they can’t be identified. (E.g., most of our environmental law produces collective health benefits to unknown persons, but at a specific cost to identified indivduals.)

  2. In fact, there have been virtually no identified executed innocents. One can project that a certain percentage of executees may have been innocent, but that’s a collective statement.

  3. Looking only at individuals, there have been more identifiable innocent murder victims killed by un-executed murderers in America than identifiable innocent executees.

  4. SN’s words “shrug off,” apply more to him/her than to me. I’s saying we should weigh the impact of both approachs. SN is saying we should look at the downside of one approach and ignore the downside of the other one.

In short, I don’t think one can make the anti DP case purely through philosophy; one must look at what’s actaully happening.

35

Jackamnii:

I’d rather run the increased risk of letting murderers live than I’ll run the risk of having my tax money go to the rope used to hang innocent people with, yes.

I will not accept the idea that the state has any right to kill innocent citizens, even if it makes for a safer society. Murderers kill innocents in cold blood, I bloody well do not if I can help it, and neither does anyone claiming to represent me.

Oh, and I agree that the risk of innocents being executed is small, but it was kinda part of the assumptions implicit in december’s statement, as I understood it.

S. Norman

36

This is certainly a widely held position. But, what is it’s justification? Can it be supported as more than mere personal preference?

37

Yes I do. Admittedly, it’s not always a meaningful distinction, but sometimes it’s quite useful.

Yup. And his right to life has been violated by us, the Good Guys.

Again, yup. One can often argue the case for collective rights vs. individual ones, but remember that the “specific cost” in this case is being put to death by the state. The collective right to safety from repeat murderers takes the lower priority in this case, according to my personal morals.

Of course, when statistics strike, what was a collective risk turns out to be highly personal.

True, I’m not saying that it happens often or even at all. But it was your own statement that we should regrettingly accept innocent executees as long as the total number of deaths was lower. Unless I misunderstood.

Yes. So if we’d executed all the murderers before they became repeat murderers, the total of innocent lives saved would have been higher. That still does not make the algebra in your original statement any more acceptable to me.

“Shrug off” was a poor choice of words, I apologize. Please read “disregard” instead.

As for comparing the two downsides, I’ll answer you as I answered Jackmanii: I’d rather live with the risk of letting murderers live than in a society that regrettingly accepts killing innocents because, when all is said and done, it’s safer.

S. Norman

post-preview Damn, you guys are quick. Be right back…

38

Well, what are personal morals if not preferences ?

I take it we agree that it’s my choice to make and - seeing as society has to decide one way or the other - I have the right to try to promote that principle being put into law. (Not that it’s a problem for us EuroTrash.)

My take on a justification: Our right to punish criminals by law springs not just from our being in the majority, but also from the idea that our laws are based on sound ethical principles.

People who kill innocents are, IMHO, morally inferior to those who don’t. (Yeahyeahyeah, war and stuff. So it’s not a perfect principle.)

So, ethically, I see a huge problem in passing judgment over those who kill innocents if we disregard that as a side effect we, ourselves, kill innocents as well.

I’m not sure if that makes sense, but it’s really as close as I can get.

A shorter version is the rhetorical question: Does society have the right to demand of me that I die for the common good, if I’m not breaking any laws ?

Apart from war, my answer would be no. And it’s not as if criminals are threatening the very survival of democracy.

S. Norman

39

Jackmannii: *The number of lives lost due to repeat murders by prison escapees pales next to the number of repeat murders by killers released from prison, not to mention killings of fellow inmates and guards by murderers. It is impossible to accurately estimate the number of killings prevented through execution or the factor of deterrence. *

But that is not really an argument in favor of the death penalty, unless you are suggesting that the death penalty should be applied in all murder convictions just to be on the safe side. I doubt that even the most ardent DP proponents would consider that a good idea. Even if you would, it’s somewhat irrelevant to the present discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the DP in our present system, where different murderers are given different punishments and thus pose different levels of risk to the rest of society after conviction.

40

“The Wrong Man” by Alan Berlow, in the November 1999 Atlantic Monthly.

Every time I get into a DP thread, I wind up C&Ping scads of this article. I’m gonna sit this one out, but figured I could at least provide the link for anyone who’s interested.