Does Texas execute enough murderers?

Great Debates
41

This is a good illustration of a prevailing view among DP opponents. It troubles your consciences immensely that the state runs even a miniscule risk of executing an innocent person. You feel that any use of the death penalty unfairly casts you indirectly in the role of executioner. But should inaction by the state (i.e. judges and juries) result in the deaths of innocent victims at the hands of murderers - well, that’s the state’s fault and implies no responsibility on your part. Your consciences can remain squeaky clean.

But acts of commission are no different from acts of omission when the result is death of innocent people. We have a responsibility to fellow members of society, which includes protection from the savagery of sociopaths. There are very real and documented risks to preserving the lives of all murdererers which far overshadow the vanishingly rare possibility of executing an innocent person*. Supporters of the DP option cannot in good conscience expose potential innocent victims (who, it must be pointed out, disproportionately come from disadvantaged and minority groups) to the risks of murder and mayhem at the hands of the worst murderers.
And as there was an OP - no, Texas is not executing too many killers. As the backlog of pending executions held up by endless court wrangles eases, the numbers will drop…but not to the zero level desired by anti-DP activists.

*even the heartbreakingly innocent such as James W. Byrd. See above.

42

How would you like it if someone you loved was justly conficted of murder and faced execution? If that’s “mental masturbation and obfuscation,” then call me a mental masturbator and obfuscator. Speaking as a U.S. citizen, my position is this: if only one person in the entire U.S. opposes capital punishment, then the rest of us, out of sheer politeness, should go along, regardless of what we think. When a person is executed in Texas, he/she is executed in the name of all Texans. When a person is executed via federal law (McVeigh and that other guy - who even remembers his name?), he/she is executed in the name of all Americans. Nope. Not for me. I won’t vote for a politician who favors capital punishment. Needless to say, I didn’t cast a vote for president last year. (Couldn’t force myself to vote for Nader because I live in Florida.)

Our earth is an incredibly tiny chuck of rock floating in an endless universe. If there was a god, my gut feeling is that he/she would be pretty disappointed in you (with all due respect because it really is a difficult issue). But try to think big.

43

I’ll give you two good reasons:

(1) If that person is later found to be innocent, it is easier to let him out than to raise him from the dead.

(2) It is cheaper than the D.P.

Now, some people say the second is true only because the appeals process is too generous in the case of the D.P. But considering the fact that we don’t seem to be able to avoid getting innocent people on death row even under the current process, I shudder to think what would happen if we make appeals more difficult than they are now.

For God’s sake, doesn’t the fact that a fairly conservative Republican governor in Illinois was so disturbed by findings on the process there that he declared a moratorium on executions?!?! And, Illinois is said to be considerably better than Texas.

44

Hmmm…Let me try to make that into a full sentence…It should read:

“For God’s sake, doesn’t the fact that a fairly conservative Republican governor in Illinois was so disturbed by findings on the process there that he declared a moratorium on executions make you wonder?!?!”

45

I don’t know if this adds anything to this debate, but here goes anyway.

Every single person on the Texas death row was indicted by a Grand Jury. They all received a jury trial. Those trials were conducted under the laws of the State of Texas which, so far, have been found in accordance with state law by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and constitutional under federal law by the United States Supreme Court – when tested.

A 12-person jury convicted and determined the sentencing in each case. Each case was automatically appealed, with the conviction and sentence upheld through the appellate process.

All of the people on the Grand Jury and trial jury are voting citizens of the State of Texas.

So the simple answer to the OP is: The State of Texas is conducting the right amount of executions.

The criminal justice system in the United States and the State of Texas is not perfect, but I don’t know of any system that is perfect. For a lot of people, that imperfection is enough to want them to change radically the laws of the land. I can’t go that far, personally, but YMMD.

Now, if you disagree with the death penalty and you believe the State of Texas is executing too many inmates, you have a few options:

  1. Move to Texas and try to change the laws governing capital punishment.
  2. Somehow convince the U.S. Congress to outlaw, constitutionally, the death penalty.
  3. Be elected president and hope enough Supreme Court justices retire and die so that you can appoint enough justices to declare capital punishment unconstitutional.
  4. Continue to work against the death penalty wherever you are so that public sentiment changes and capital punishment is eventually declared unconstitutional and illegal.

As you all know, the death penalty has been declared unconstitutional in the past and it may be yet again.

I know there are many people in Texas opposed to the death penalty. So far, there are not enough to change the laws. When, and if, enough Texans agree that the death penalty is unjustified, then it will be outlawed.

That’s the way it works, whether you agree with it or not.

46

I would say that the number of innocents executed on death row is very high myself. Take for example the lawyer that managed to overturn 100 out of 120 death row convictions in 3 years. If he hadn’t then 100 out of 120 people on death row would have been innocents executed.

Jackmannii could you show how many of those murderers escaped from death row? Because they are the only ones who matter. 90% of the other ones presumably would not have escaped had they been on death row. And if they had the death penalty would not have stopped them because they can escape before it is carried out.

To suggest that killing prisoners would stop them from escaping better than using the money that goes into a death penalty case to make a more secure prison is a big stretch.

The only difference in death that the death penalty causes is the suicidal people it encourages to become mass murderers(besides executions). The security on death row is the only good side effect of the DP.

47

Of course a study can be done; I did one for a poli-sci class some years ago. You pull out nine years’ worth of murder rates from the DOJ’s Big Book 'O Crime Stats[sup]1[/sup], write down the murder rate for each state for each of the nine years, and see what happens. In my case I sampled 15 states: the five that use the DP a lot, the five that use the DP the least, and five states that don’t use the DP at all. And when you look at those numbers, you find that the murder rate, during those three ban years…

Dropped.

Yeah, I know it wasn’t a full study, but I tried to use a fairly broad sample (and the prof didn’t want a full report, either). As far as I’m concerned, and until anyone can prove my sampling study wrong, the whole “But it’s a deterrent method!” argument is bunk.

[sup]1[/sup]Three years before the Supreme Court’s DP ban, three years during the ban, and the three years after the end of the ban.

48

To paraphrase a bad joke from the “Tonight Show” …

President Bush is attempting to define human life as starting at conception and ending at execution.

Take at look at Amnesty International’s website ( http://www.amnesty.org/ ) for an objective look at human rights and the death penalty. America doesn’t fair very well.

49

Jackmannii, just try taking this philosophy and applying it to other issues and you’ll see the problem. Consider one of the government’s recent sins of omission: failing to monitor the manufacture of Bridgestone/Firestone tires closely enough, thus resulting in the deaths of an unknown number of people. In your mind, is this just as bad as if the government had lined up a corresponding number of people and shot them? I don’t see how you could justify that statement. It is unavoidable that “we”, as a society, will “let” some innocent people die by failing to take enough action to prevent their deaths. In each case, a decision must be made on the question of what the government should do. The possiblity of innocent lives lost gets weighed against other concerns, including individual rights.

50

Ity2525 says “How would you like it if someone you loved was justly conficted (sic) of murder and faced execution?” What is your point, actually? That the DP is no good, since it will cause pain and anguish for the relatives of the criminal? Too fucking bad, I say.

I’ve never understood some people- news organizations will interview relatives of some rapist/murderer etc., and they typically say something like “My Johnny could never do such a thing.”

Why Johnny couldn’t do such a thing is never explained, however.

I fail to see how our seeming insignificance in the universe as a planet should somehow affect our judicial system. You might want to elaborate on that one.

51

I’m going to paraphrase the scientists on this one:

Absolute judgement requires absolute evidence

I doubt that absolute evidence is present in every Death penalty judgement.

If absolute evidence is available however, many might say kill the sick bastards off and let’s be done with them. The next question is: can the sick bastards convicted with absolute evidence help themselves? If they can, give them the DP, they deserve it. If they can’t, perhaps the DP is not the best solution, perhaps they need special care. But then the next question arises: if it becomes possible to isolate and cure the pathology of the sick bastards, do we kill them or cure them?

Additionally, I believe the DP is based partly on the hardwired concept of retribution, individual and collective. Philosophically, that’s a problem.

52

Say you had a son, and he was convicted of capital murder. You’d still favor the death penalty for him? And when he asked you for help, you’d say, “too fucking bad” and walk out of the prison? My point is that everybody is somebody’s son. Do you really believe that you would not be affected if your own son faced lethal injection or whatever?

Up against the insignificance of our planet and the precariousness of human existence, your desire for vengance through the death penalty seems rather petty, that’s all. Nobody’s watching us from outside the earth. Character is what you demonstrate when nobody’s watching. I think the death penalty encourages the belief that we are the masters of our existence and that we can do anything we want with earth. Bad karma. We ought to pull together and try to help those among us who have clearly “failed to succeed,” not spend our time and money thinking of more humane ways to kill them.

53

Ity2525:

At least your viewpoint seems well thought out and reasoned. I respect that.

However, something tells me that my feelings shouldn’t necessarily enter into the equation. That is, just because I feel bad that a relative has committed a heinous crime shouldn’t alter our justice system. I suppose the converse is true as well- just because a relative has been a victim of a heinous crime shouldn’t alter our justice system, either. So, back to “square one” in a sense.

I don’t claim to have the answers to life’s larger problems, nor do I understand the universe, but of the things we can control, lets get the rapists and mass murderers out of our society, permanently. Reality is, in a sense, whatever we decide it is.
Surely I would feel awful if a relative was on death row, but the fact remains in all likelihood they deserve to be there. Thems the breaks.

54

Tedster: *Surely I would feel awful if a relative was on death row, but the fact remains in all likelihood they deserve to be there. *

“In all likelihood?” Did you read the article RTF linked to? As it remarks,

So in the past 25 years, we have found for a fact that more than 1% of those put on death row most definitely did not “deserve to be there.” And then we have to take into account the fact that the incentive for questioning the guilt of a condemned (and especially an executed) criminal is not very high in most cases, so who knows how many of the rest of them don’t in fact “deserve to be there”? Sorry, but if we’re going to condemn people to death, I want the “likelihood” that they “deserve” it to be much higher than 98% (and in reality it’s probably a good deal lower). This sort of casual guilt by association—“well, if they’ve ended up on death row, they probably deserve it”—just doesn’t cut it.

55

Isn’t Amnesty International the ones that got bent out of shape because of the execution of that druggie in Chicago that took a pistol to an argrument about a dope transaction. He shot and killed the the other guy but Amnesty argued that it wasn’t 1st degree murder because he hadn’t planned on killing him so it couldn’t be a DP offense.

The point is I take A.I.'s veiws lightly.

56

I’m in favor of executing our known murderers and other assorted human trash. DNA testing in particular ensures the least possible number of mistakes. We are human, not perfect.

The hypothetical situation described, in any case, was what my reaction would be would be if a relative were on death row and in fact guilty. Again, ‘feelings’ are probably not the way to make good law. If a relative were on death row I would hope they would carry out the sentence in a timely manner, but I’m not holding my breath.

Our laws are a social construct, civilization is the exception, not the rule. Therefore, when an individual breaks the ‘social contract’- in this case, depriving me of my life- they correctly lose the right to participate and enjoy the fruits of thousands of years of hard work and dedication that makes all our lives better. So, I am of no mind to extend sympathy or safe harbor to those who thumb their noses at our laws and ethics and conventions of society. Those who “play the game” by the rules are unquestionably more value to our society than those those who won’t. It is folly to claim everyone is of “equal worth.”

57

Tedster: What if that relative of yours on Death Row was clearly not guilty? Or there were big, honest questions as to his guilt? Would you still be against all those automatic appeals and reviews?

58

If they were clearly not guilty, they wouldn’t be on death row.

Even so, “In all likelihood” still qualifies at 98%+

Nobody wants to execute innocent people.

59

You’re dodging the question. Let’s say that he is clearly not guilty to you, since you were out fishing with him at the time. However, the jury doesn’t believe your testimony, your lawyer is incompetent, and the police have planted a few reams of evidence. (And before you call this situation “unrealistic”, read some of the links already posted.)

**
So it’s worth killing one innocent person for every 49 guilty ones? (It’s a legitimate question, and like the ol’ question of where life begins, I think it’s the one that defines this debate.)

You have a way of reducing your own arguments to statements that no one could possibly disagree with–sort of a reverse straw man. Are you in politics? You should think about it, if not. :slight_smile:

Dr. J

60

If we could be certain that no innocent people are executed, than all objection to the death penalty would cease, correct? Of course not. Many people are uncomfortable with the entire concept.

My only point is that we have hundreds, if not thousands, of people on death row whose guilt is quite gruesomely established beyond any doubt. It’s not that I don’t feel “sorry” for them in a philosophical sense, only that my deepest feelings of remorse lay with their victims, their families, and our society as a whole. This is as it should be, in any rational way of thinking.

Of course I would be upset if I knew for a fact an innocent person was slated for execution.

What’s the percentage of unsolved murders in the US? I’ll bet it’s fairly high- and not often mentioned in the death penalty debate.