I’ve been getting into a huge debate over racism in capital punishment. I’m maintaining that race is not so much an issue as wealth as far as who is for the chop. Anybody know who had the most dough when it was time to go?
No I don’t know, but that’s a damn good question!
Any observable correlation between the incidence of execution and either race or wealth would be disturbing; obviously, however, this alone would tell you absolutely nothing about the fairness of capital punishment.
Weren’t Leopold and Loeb wealthy?
Yes, they were, and neither was executed as sentence.
Wow. Proven wrong in three minutes. 
Cite.
OK, so how wealthy were Julius and Ethel Rosenberg?
What about Major John Andre?
Another thought - Louis “Lepke” Buchalter was one of the few top mafia figures actually executed (by the State - they seem to have been rather good at executing each other). Who knows how much money he had?
I’m willing to bet this guy had serious money but it didn’t save him.
“With an apology for “the pain and grief that I have caused,” murderer and drug kingpin Juan Raul Garza was executed Tuesday, eight days after Timothy McVeigh became the first federal inmate put to death since 1963”
etc etc
http://www.courttv.com/news/death_penalty/061901_garza2_ap.html
I should have a quote for you but I don’t. The best I can do is point you to this site. I’ve read several histories of this couple and the trial and it seems they were not (rich, that is). Julius ran a radio shop, but I doubt if he made a lot of money. He was a small businessman.
There seems to be a lot of controversy, even today, as to their guilt or innocence. IMO they were framed. Well framed, but framed nonetheless. But I do not want to hijack this thread.
I think that Julius was in fact guilty, but Ethel’s guilt was tentative (minor “accessory after the fact” guilt). Govt. tried to “flip” her, she refused, and was electrocuted as a result.
I think Ethel’s brother sold 'em both out.
That being said, I’m not sure the premise of this thread is real straightforward. Most really wealthy people have means other than murder to get rid of problems. Like endless, punishing litigation. Or just buying off your enemies.
or have good enough attorneys to avoid taking a seat in Ol’Sparky. That’s the point. I’d love to get a fact sheet on the mean income of all people executed broken down by year, but how? That’s beside the point, anyway. Garza probably did have a great stash o’ cash – as probably do many organized crime executees. What about your average joe though? Picture O.J. with court-appointed counsel (nothing against public defenders, but come on…).
Let’s not get bogged down in the fairness of capital punishment or any of that stuff, either. I don’t want this going IMHO…
Good candidates so far…
I couldn’t let this one alone.
I have to agree with the hypothesis that having lots of your own money buys you a better defense, or at least enough of a smoke screen to dodge being put to death.
But… many crimes are done by those who want “easy money”; that is, they didn’t have what they thought to be enough money and decided to get some by illegal means.
So very roughly, you could say:
- The “poor” are more likely to commit crimes rating the death penalty.
- The “poor” are also less likely to be able to defend themselves against actually recieving the death penalty when put on trial in capital cases.
- The “rich” are less likely to commit crimes rating the death penalty.
- The “rich” are more likely to be able to defend themselves against actually recieving the death penalty when put on trial in capital cases.
I bet a lot of people would agree with the idea that if a “regular joe” (non-famous person of average financial means) of ANY race had been on trial in OJ Simpson’s place, they’d be on Death Row in San Quentin today.
Actually, OJ was not charged with a capital crime; thus, he would not have faced that penalty even if he had been convicted of everything he was charged with. The only factor surrounding his (formerly alledged, ahem) crimes that made them arguably capital was the fact that he (I mean, someone) killed two people. Even so, under California law, such a crime would not be capital unless at least one of the murders was of the first degree, which required the prosecution to prove that the killing of Nicole was willful, deliberate, and premeditated. Although there certainly was evidence to support such a verdict (as well as a second degree conviction for the second victim’s murder), it was by no means a foregone conclusion. That realization no doubt figured–quite legitimately–in the DA’s decision to not even seek the death penalty, a decision made long before it was known that the jury would consist of complete morons. But I digress.
My point is a small one: As horrible as the Simpson killings were, they were not classically “capital.” Despite what some people would like the American public to believe, the death penalty is typically reserved for a tiny fraction of the worst killers (e.g., those with extensive criminal backgrounds, often including prior murder convictions) who commit the most heinous killings (e.g., multiple murder, rape-murder, mass murder, cop killing).
** Rmat **, I was under the impression that in the OJ case, one of the reasons the prosecutors chose not to go for a capital crime was the feeling that no jury would put a celebrity to death. If that’s the case, then OJ’s wealth/fame helped him out even before the case started. That was awhile ago, my memory could be faulty, or that could have just been one of the many rumors floating around.
As a slight tangent to the OP, I believe John Dupont was the richest American ever convicted of murder (3rd degree). One of the heirs to the Dupont chemical fortune, his worth was in the hundreds of millions at the time of his trial.
Rmat, you’re correct about the details of the OJ case.
What I was thinking but not explicitly saying that if it had been you or I who were in a situation essentially like OJ’s with the volume of circumstantial evidence that existed at the time, our chances of walking free would have been slim to none. If it were a case that rated the death penalty, we’d probably be on the countdown to the lethal injection.
I agree with the OP’s premise that the ability to gio free or go to the death chamber is much more a function money than race. I believe it wasn’t so much the color of OJ’s skin as the color of his money that made the difference. CMBurns also has a good point that OJ’s celebrity status helped his cause further. I have neither money or fame, and so I would maintain that I couldn’t afford or even expect the level of “fairness” that an OJ or DuPont type person could.
Morbid good fun!
Lessee, of the subset of “quiet-loner-white-male serial killers,” of which many were clearly missing several balls from the rack, John Wayne Gacy was an independent construction contractor. Of course, he might not have been paying much attention to his business, but who ever heard of a contractor who wasn’t making a decent living?
And Ted Bundy came from a prosperous suburban family and was a [politically ambitious?] law student. Close, but no cigar.
Anyone remember if Atlanta serial killer Wayne Williams had money?
And anyone know about the 18th-C. traitor Benedict Arnold? Surely he had some family silver…
Well, the good news is we’re not losing a lot of key contributors to humanity to the death penalty, despite what the protesters would have you believe.
(runs for cover, then comes back)
But OJ was found not guilty by a jury of his peers. So he was innocent, silly.
(Now really takes off)
Someday, God willing, O.J. will find the one gloved man and bring him to justice.