Why do prosecutors push for the death penalty?

[drewder]

@Asimovian

I’ll bite: which ones are those?

The ones which are seemingly denied to folks not facing the death penalty.

[DrDeth]

@Max_Torque

They also kill, both prison guards and other inmates. I can give you a list with names if you like. Considering what a small percentage of the general population they are, capital murderers sentenced to life (or as we call it in the business, a “minicap”) commit an inordinate number of violent crimes, particularly murders, in prison.

As to the OP: Some crimes are worse than all other crimes, and they deserve a punishment that’s worse than all other punishments.

Yeah, Killers continue to kill while incarcerated. Guards and other prisoners, some of whom are there for non-violent crimes. They are also known to arrange murders while in prison

They also escape and kill, and rarely are accidentally released.

There are reasons to execute the worst of the worst. Life Imprisonment does not stop them from killing again.

Back to the topic, it used to be a useful bargaining chip. Is that no longer true?

[Peter_Morris]

Cite that it was eve a useful bargaining chip, please.

[Shodan]

@RivkahChaya

Please give me an example, either hypothetical, or (preferably) from a real case, where it was obvious that a genuine appeal (in other words, not the appeals version of the Chewbacca defense, which a judge can spot across the room, and deny without a hearing), that clearly had no purpose other than to delay, and could have been dismissed without being overruled later, and coming back to bite the judge who dismissed it.

Take Robert Alton Harris, the first Californian executed in 25 years. Harris admitted to murdering two boys because he wanted their car for a crime spree. He even finished off the Jack in the Box burgers they were eating. But Harris’ lawyers spent 13 years dragging out his appeals. Or consider Randy Kraft, convicted in Orange County’s costliest trial of murdering and mutilating 16 young men. Among his contentions on appeal, he has argued that execution would force him to “actively participate in his own killing,” violating his 1st Amendment religious protections. Kraft, suspected in 67 killings, has become a champion bridge player on death row.

Cite.

“For years and years, anti-death penalty groups have clogged the courts with bogus legal claims that only delay justice for murder victims and their families,” Hood said in a statement Wednesday. “If these anti-death penalty groups want to change the law, they should be lobbying the Legislature to change the law to stop use of the death penalty, not filing frivolous claims attempting to dupe judges into stopping executions at the last minute.”

Cite.

Prosecutors, judges and Supreme Court Justices have denounced many habeas appeals as frivolous, intended to prolong the lives of prisoners properly condemned to death, rather than to raise legitimate legal or constitutional issues.

Cite.

Regards,
Shodan

[Peter_Morris]

All you’ve done is point to some pro-DP people making wild claims. Someone claims that “Supreme Court Justices have denounced many habeas appeals as frivolous” then show me examples. Show me, specifically, what the Supreme Court Justices have said.

[Velocity]

@RivkahChaya

And we’ll use what? a Magic 8-ball to figure out which ones those are? Please give me an example, either hypothetical, or (preferably) from a real case, where it was obvious that a genuine appeal (in other words, not the appeals version of the Chewbacca defense, which a judge can spot across the room, and deny without a hearing), that clearly had no purpose other than to delay,

I think that appeals made just a day or two before the scheduled execution are clearly a delaying tactic.
10 months in advance? Maybe legitimate. 10 hours? Probably delaying.

[SpoilerVirgin]

@Peter_Morris

All you’ve done is point to some pro-DP people making wild claims. Someone claims that “Supreme Court Justices have denounced many habeas appeals as frivolous” then show me examples. Show me, specifically, what the Supreme Court Justices have said.

Here’s what the California Supreme Courthas said:

To raise a multitude of untimely claims without making a plausible effort to demonstrate a proper justification of timeliness, or without any justification at all, is an example of abusive writ practice.

Here’s the specific case on which they were ruling:

The case involves successive petitions for repeated reviews of claims against a death sentence, some of which have already been reviewed and rejected. Harold Memro, a pedophile, was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1976 murders of two Los Angeles area boys, aged 10 and 12, and the 1978 kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder of a 7-year-old boy. During police questioning, Memro confessed to slitting the throats of the first two boys and strangling the third boy with a clothesline. In 1985, a California Supreme Court decision authored by Chief Justice Rose Bird overturned the conviction and sentence, finding that the trial judge had improperly denied the defense the opportunity to investigate complaints against the police officers who questioned Memro. Two years later, another jury convicted Memro of the murders and again sentenced him to death. The California Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence in 1995. A year later, the U. S. Supreme Court refused to hear Memro’s appeal.

In 1998, Memro, who had changed his name to Reno, filed a federal habeas corpus petition raising numerous claims which had not been presented in state court. The following year, the District Court struck the unexhausted claims and ordered Reno to file them in the California Supreme Court. In 2004, Reno filed his petition. Over the next six years, the Court granted to the parties 21 extensions of time to file argument. In 2010, the Court ordered Reno to present argument explaining how his petition, which failed to show why multiple claims should be considered at this late date, did not constitute an abuse of legal process.

[Velocity]

@Bricker

sigh

Another reason is death qualification for the jury.

In a capital trial, the prosecution is permitted to voir dire the veniere as to their position on capital punishment: “Sir, if the prosecution were to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty, could you vote to impose the death penalty?”

A potential juror that says, “No, I don’t believe in the death penalty,” is dismissed for cause.

The resulting jury tends to be much more pro-prosecution than otherwise.

Out of curiosity, might a jury be rigged even further: “Sir, if there were insufficient evidence, would you still vote to convict?” …or, conversely, “Sir, even if the prosecution were to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty, would you still vote to acquit?”

[Asimovian]

@drewder

The ones which are seemingly denied to folks not facing the death penalty.

I don’t feel like either this statement or Shodan’s cites gets us any closer to a reasonable way to determine which appeals are frivolous and which ones aren’t.

For example, this is the sentence immediately following Shodan’s quote from the NY Times article:

@NY Times article

But according to a study of death penalty cases by James S. Liebman of Columbia University Law School, 42 percent of of the 357 habeas petitions filed in Federal court, between July 1976 and June 1991, brought reversals of either sentences or convictions.

So, by that measure, more than 40% of the appeals not only had some merit, but were won. Who can say how many beyond that had reasonable arguments even if they weren’t won?

I’m not suggesting there’s no such thing as a frivolous appeal. I’m saying I don’t see a reasonable way to eliminate them without risking throwing out appeals with actual merit. I’m asking specifically how one draws the line.

[Mallard]

@Stoid

Is it really just as simple as “People who like the death penalty will like me more and vote for me if I get people sentenced to death.”?

That’s the only reason I can think of, since it’s inefficient and expensive. Add in the possibility of error, it seems like it’s just smarter to skip it and go for life without parole. Apart from the above.

Anyone got anything else?

Probably the best way to put groups like “the innocence project” out of business? :dubious:

[RivkahChaya]

@Velocity

Out of curiosity, might a jury be rigged even further: “Sir, if there were insufficient evidence, would you still vote to convict?” …or, conversely, “Sir, even if the prosecution were to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty, would you still vote to acquit?”

Actually, when I was on a jury, the second question came up, because apparently interpret the “Do not judge” line in the gospels as meaning that they can’t participate in a vote to convict someone, and if they are forced to, should go in with the a priori decision to vote “not guilty.”

There was the real shmuck as voir dire who disregarded his jury notice, failed to talk to his professors (he was a graduate student) and ended up being one of the people dragged into the court by the sheriff. He told the judge he couldn’t serve because he had an exam that day, and had a real attitude about it. His exam was THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE WORLD. He didn’t want to serve, it was an inconvenience for this snowflake, and why should he have to? As soon as he heard the religious guy get off by saying that he would automatically vote for acquittal, he suddenly had the same religion. Tose of us who did make the jury were glad we didn’t have to deal with him, so whatever.

[Stoid]

@Asimovian

I’m not suggesting there’s no such thing as a frivolous appeal. I’m saying I don’t see a reasonable way to eliminate them without risking throwing out appeals with actual merit. I’m asking specifically how one draws the line.

FAR too difficult a question, unless you’re okay with an answer along the lines of “These are criminals we’re talking about here, not real humans… they did SOMETHING to get the death penalty! This is just liberal pussyfooting’ bullshit! They get one appeal and then done!”

[Bricker]

@Velocity

Out of curiosity, might a jury be rigged even further: “Sir, if there were insufficient evidence, would you still vote to convict?” …or, conversely, “Sir, even if the prosecution were to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty, would you still vote to acquit?”

No… both of those answers would allow a strike for cause, but by the side not benefitting. In other words, the prosecutor might ask, “If there were insufficient evidence, would you still vote to convict?” but the defense could ask that the juror be dropped if he answered “Yes.”

(I am eliding for simplicity’s sake the process of “rehabilitating” a juror but if anyone’s interested, I’ll go into gory details)

So you can’t really get favorable jurors for your side seated that way. The death qualification, in contrast, is purely pro-prosecution.

[Max_Torque]

@Bricker

No… both of those answers would allow a strike for cause, but by the side not benefitting. In other words, the prosecutor might ask, “If there were insufficient evidence, would you still vote to convict?” but the defense could ask that the juror be dropped if he answered “Yes.”

(I am eliding for simplicity’s sake the process of “rehabilitating” a juror but if anyone’s interested, I’ll go into gory details)

So you can’t really get favorable jurors for your side seated that way. The death qualification, in contrast, is purely pro-prosecution.

The death qualification ensures that jurors can follow the law. If the potential juror can’t at least consider the death penalty, then he cannot consider the full range of punishment, which means he cannot follow the law. Hence, disqualified.

It works the other way, too. Do you know how many otherwise-great jurors we lose because they can’t consider the minimum (or probation) for child sex cases?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Stoid

Anyone got anything else?

I’ve never been a prosecutor, but I know lots and I tend to believe that “it’s my job” is the largest part of it. Nearly all lawyers are forced to pursue remedies that they personally find objectionable. I may have to explain to a judge why a poor little old lady should pay a giant insurance’s company’s attorney’s fees and costs for pursuing a frivolous claim, even though she is on a fixed income and barely making ends meet. Criminal defense attorneys are forced to argue that their clients should go free, even though they may be fully aware that their clients are factually guilty of crimes that carry a mandatory custodial sentence.

You get the idea. I am personally opposed to the death penalty - both on princple and in practice - but if I worked for the state attorney’s office I would have to seek the death penalty when the facts of the case warranted it nonetheless.

Anything that is expensive can be made less expensive if you remove the things that cost all the money. That is an indisputable fact, for sure.

A fact which in no way alters the reality that the death penalty is more costly by far than LWOP. Inherently. Because all the things that drive up the cost of the death penalty are inherent in having the death penalty in the United States of America, with our whole constitution thing.

This absolutely bears repeating.

[QUOTE=Max Torque]
Some crimes are worse than all other crimes, and they deserve a punishment that’s worse than all other punishments.
[/QUOTE]

If you are going to argue that the death penalty is different in quality and character to life imprisonment - and I agree - then you probably shouldn’t complain about how it triggers so many additional post-conviction proceedings.

[Stoid]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Criminal defense attorneys are forced to argue that their clients should go free, even though they may be fully aware that their clients are factually guilty of crimes that carry a mandatory custodial sentence.

Just as an aside, I have such a problem with the above notion, which seems to be that it is the defense attorney’s job to get their client off. Which is true only in the sense that a given client may have expressed that expectation to their lawyer and their lawyer may have agreed to that expectation.

But in terms of a defense attorney’s legal and ethical obligation as an officer of the court and a participant in the American system of justice, the job of the defense attorney it is to make sure that their client gets a fair trial. To make sure there is no cheating, nothing underhanded, to make sure their client get the full benefit of all the rights to which they are entitled.

Somewhere along the way that has been bent into the idea that the purpose of the defense is to get their client off.

It is certainly to be hoped that if their client is in fact innocent of the charges against them that their defense attorney’s diligent efforts to assure the fairest possible trial for their client will result in their client going free.

But if their client is guilty, then their job is to diligently make sure their client gets a fair trial, and it is to be hoped that a fair trial will result in a conviction.

[Hail_Ants]

@Stoid

Just as an aside, I have such a problem with the above notion, which seems to be that it is the defense attorney’s job to get their client off. Which is true only in the sense that a given client may have expressed that expectation to their lawyer and their lawyer may have agreed to that expectation.

But in terms of a defense attorney’s legal and ethical obligation as an officer of the court and a participant in the American system of justice, the job of the defense attorney it is to make sure that their client gets a fair trial. To make sure there is no cheating, nothing underhanded, to make sure their client get the full benefit of all the rights to which they are entitled.

Somewhere along the way that has been bent into the idea that the purpose of the defense is to get their client off.

It is certainly to be hoped that if their client is in fact innocent of the charges against them that their defense attorney’s diligent efforts to assure the fairest possible trial for their client will result in their client going free.

But if their client is guilty, then their job is to diligently make sure their client gets a fair trial, and it is to be hoped that a fair trial will result in a conviction.

‘Somewhere along the way…’?!?

Are you serious?! It has always been and will always be the defense’s job to get their clients off. Doing anything & everything short of breaking the law (wink-wink). If a criminal commits the perfect crime, leaving not enough direct evidence to convict him and he gets acquitted, then he got a fair trial. If this starts happening a lot then it’s society’s job to amend the laws. A defense attorney that lets his ‘conscious’ seriously effect his efforts to defend an apparently guilty client could (and should) be disbarred.

The death penalty has two primary aspects: A practical application and a moral one. The practical takes the form of applying it for killing prison guards (i.e. guarding individuals with life or long sentences) and committing first degree murder of a police officer (their job also allows special protections). The practical aspect acts as a deterrent to potential and future offenders where there otherwise would be little to none.

A moral application would be applying it to murder for hire, serial killing, torture-murder etc. Crimes whose heinousness deserves extra punishment. I see a real problem with not applying it in these cases just because it’s ‘more expensive’…

[Stoid]

@Hail_Ants

‘Somewhere along the way…’?!?

Are you serious?! It has always been and will always be the defense’s job to get their clients off. Doing anything & everything short of breaking the law (wink-wink)…

I was ver specific. Certainly the client wants to get off and they hire an attorney to do that. But it isn’t actually “the job” of the defense, as officers of the court, to get their client off.

According to the American Bar, the “Defense Function”

(b) The basic duty defense counsel owes to the administration of justice and as an officer of the court is to serve as the accused’s counselor and advocate with courage and devotion and to render effective, quality representation.

(e) Defense counsel, in common with all members of the bar, is subject to standards of conduct stated in statutes, rules, decisions of courts, and codes, canons, or other standards of professional conduct. Defense counsel has no duty to execute any directive of the accused which does not comport with law or such standards. Defense counsel is the professional representative of the accused, not the accused’s alter ego.

And if you read the whole thing, it lists lots of do’s and don’ts that defense attorneys regularly flout as part of their strategies to “get the client off”.

I acknowledge for the third time: getting off is what the client wants. It’s certainly what they are expecting and hoping for. But it is not actually the true function of the defense.

[RivkahChaya]

Well, it’s also the function of the defense to make sure the client is fairly charged, and if a client the attorney knows did the deed is being overcharged-- charged with first degree murder for something that should have been negligent homicide, for example, then the only way to assure the client is treated fairly is to try to get him acquitted.

But yeah, in order to defend his client zealously, sometimes the defense attorney doesn’t want to know as many details as possible-- sometimes to be ethical, the defense attorney needs to remain ignorant of some things-- as opposed to the prosecutor, who wants to know every possible things that may come up in regard to the victim.

[Shodan]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Anything that is expensive can be made less expensive if you remove the things that cost all the money. That is an indisputable fact, for sure.

A fact which in no way alters the reality that the death penalty is more costly by far than LWOP. Inherently. Because all the things that drive up the cost of the death penalty are inherent in having the death penalty in the United States of America, with our whole constitution thing.

This absolutely bears repeating.

Why does it bear repeating? It’s wrong.

The death penalty is not inherently more expensive because of the Constitution. It’s more expensive because of the endless appeals. If endless appeals were necessitated by the Constitution, then life without parole would be just as expensive as the DP, because LWOP would also be endlessly appealed.

Since LWOP is not endlessly appealed, it must be the case that endless appeals are not mandated by the Constitution.

Or maybe they are, in which case LWOP will be just as expensive as the DP. Actually probably more so, since a small minority of those on death row are eventually executed and that brings the appeals to an end. Which would not happen if there were no DP.

So either DP opponents are conscientiously working for the rights of the accused, in which case LWOP will cost as much or more than the DP because they will endlessly appeal LWOP, or they are not really concerned with the rights of the accused so much as they are preventing the death penalty, in which case they are being untruthful about the inherent cost of the DP.

Regards,
Shodan