The Death Penalty Takes Another Hit

[Lucky]

So many have already come to the conclusion that the death penalty should be abandoned if we are to call ourselves a civil society, yet I have been one of those who thought that, in very limited circumstances, it should be kept.

I didn't argue that it was a deterrent, as some do, because crimes with the death penalty keep happening anyway. I doubt it's a consideration for most people who kill.

But I believe that there are truly evil people who do truly evil things, and know darn well what they do. I think of people like WIlliam Bonin, who put hot rods up the butts of young blond hitchkikers in California some 42 times. Then there's John Wayne Gacy. Lots more in that department. And people who kill the president I didn't think deserved to live. Basically, my argument was that we had to have such a penalty for our worst criminals. Why pay to keep them for life in prison? Too many chances they might get out.

Yet I have had no trouble opposing super-max prisons as cruel and unusual punishment. These are the places where the prisoner is locked in a small cell 23 hours a day, and even when let out, exercises alone with no human contact. I think that is no way to treat prisoners.

But today a study was released of thousands of older death penalty cases, and mistakes were found at an alarming level. It's too late to help someone who has already been executed but now I believe it should be the last straw in the argument for the death penalty. It's a punishment where mistakes simply cannot be made.

"An unprecedented federal review of old criminal cases has uncovered as many as 27 death penalty convictions in which FBI forensic experts may have mistakenly linked defendants to crimes with exaggerated scientific testimony, U.S. officials said."

Since we have been unable to do the job with perfection, then we should abandon the penalty. I know others have long since come to this view, but for me, having seen in court some of the most dangerous people alive, it took longer.

The study, as reported in the Washington post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/us-reviewing-27-death-penalty-convictions-for-fbi-forensic-testimony-errors/2013/07/17/6c75a0a4-bd9b-11e2-89c9-3be8095fe767_story.html?hpid=z3

[RA1]

Interesting story but it only alluded to "modern" use of DNA and, in fact, mainly or entirely was referring to "old" cases before the widespread use of DNA. The "witches" dunked at Salem until they confessed no doubt would not stand up in court today. One thing that you implied but did not say is that a murderer who is executed will not do it again. Also I have seen it reported that executing someone costs more than life imprisonment. Special cells, special handling, access to lawyers, the library, going forth and back to court; all done for many years before the execution.

For the above reasons and more, if someone is convicted using modern methods of proof and under unusual circumstances, I am still for the death penalty.

Of course, I am well aware of the fallacies of witnesses and other shortcomings of past evidence but according to a friend of mine who is a world class DNA expert there is little chance for error when matching is done properly. Naturally there is more to it than that. Just because DNA proves a person was there does not mean he or she committed the crime.

Best regards,

RA1

[TotallyOz]

I am not for the death penalty as it is being used. Currently, only those states like Texas executes with high numbers and I would not want my fate in the hands of anyone from there (except 4Aces).

However, I am for anyone who is sentenced to life in prison being able to apply for death instead. I would much prefer to die then to live my entire life in a prison and I think the state would much prefer to save the money.

[RA1]

TOZ-

Interesting concept but very unlikely to ever be pursued in PC USA. Probably everyone I know to include me has considered what they would prefer if or when faced with life and death decisions. That not only includes life imprisonment but also many diseases and other everyday possibilities such as being wheel chair bound as the result of a transportation accident. There may be worse fates than life imprisonment.

Your solution might be considered a little "kinky" by some but then that is often what we are all about, isn't it?

As I continue to get older and find some more of life's results I find myself thinking that there is a plan in such. Old age and frailty and disease and other things "sneak" up on us and we gradually become used to them and deal with them in various ways. That possibly could include prison life but it is not anything I wish upon anyone but take some solace in knowing much is possible.

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest zipperzone]

I would find isolation in a small cell with no human contact, far worse than a death penalty.

It would be interesting to know how much money is spent on a yearly basis for the entire number of felons who are serving life in prison with no chance of parole. I imagine the figure would be staggering.

[RA1]

Isolation such as you describe is possible but very rare. In fact you are most likely to be alone in a cell only if you are on death row.

Basically in the US, there is no such thing as no chance of parole. Even being given 400 life sentences to be served consecutively still has some chance of parole. I cite Charles Manson as one example. He has come up for parole consideration. This is one reason some folks continue to favor the death penalty.

Best regards,

RA1

[AdamSmith]

Basically in the US, there is no such thing as no chance of parole. Even being given 400 life sentences to be served consecutively still has some chance of parole. I cite Charles Manson as one example. He has come up for parole consideration. This is one reason some folks continue to favor the death penalty.

Can you give examples? Everything I read indicates that "life without parole" is explicitly that: a sentence of no way out, except for clemency (and I can't find any examples of clemency granted for life-without-parole convictions), overturning of a sentence on finding of wrongful conviction, or escape. Parole is not an option.

Life without parole is entirely distinct from multiple life sentences. Manson for instance is eligible for parole review specifically because he was not sentenced to life without parole.

One of many such sources:

What is life in prison without parole?

General Reference (not clearly pro or con)

Law.com, an online resource for legal news and information, in a dictionary entry accessed on Aug. 18, 2008, defined life in "prison without the possibility of parole" as the following:

"[A] sentence sometimes given for particularly vicious criminals in murder cases or to repeat felons, particularly if the crime is committed in a state which has no death penalty, the jury chooses not to impose the death penalty, or the judge feels it is simpler to lock the prisoner up and 'throw away the key' rather than invite years of appeals while the prisoner languishes on death row. Opponents of capital punishment often advocate this penalty as a substitute for execution. It guarantees the criminal will not endanger the public, and the prospect of never being outside prison is severe punishment. Contrary arguments are that this penalty does not deter murderers, there is always the possibility of escape or killing a guard or fellow prisoner, or some soft-hearted Governor may someday reduce the sentence."

Aug. 18, 2008 - Law.com

Derral Cheatwood, PhD, Professor of Sociology at the University of Texas, San Antonio, in his entry for the 1996 edition of the Encyclopedia of American Prisons titled "Life Without Parole," wrote:

"A life-without-parole sanction is a legal provision that specifies that the remainder of the criminal's natural life will be spent in prison. The life-without-parole sanction gained popularity as people realized that a normal life sentence, even a 'natural life' sentence, does not necessarily mean that the offender will be behind bars for life. Almost every state has a provision in its laws so that an offender sentenced to life becomes eligible for parole after a set number of years, or can accrue 'good time' credits and thus be released. Further, in most states the governor, sometimes in concert with a board, may commute a prisoner's sentence or may pardon an individual. In those states, a governor could pardon a prisoner with a life sentence outright, or could commute a life-with-out-parole sentence so that the individual would then be eligible for parole...

There are two fundamental types of life-without-parole statutes. One addresses the problem of habitual offenders or career criminals, while the other reflects a just-deserts morality toward the most serious criminal offenders. In the vast majority of the states with such statutes, the sanction may be applied for a single crime, most commonly first degree murder, rather than for any pattern of criminal behavior. Since the majority of these statutes apply to first degree murder, they are referred to as capital offender statutes. As of 1990, approximately thirty states had some variation on a life-without-parole sanction for capital offenders. The laws are quite similar, with minor variations in each state. In six states the life-without-parole provision is found among the legislated duties and responsibilities of the parole board or parole commission. These laws restrict the authority of the parole board to consider parole or early release in specified capital cases.

The penalty may be an alternative to capital punishment or to a normal life sentence, depending upon the circumstances of the offense and offender..."

1996 - Derral Cheatwood, PhD

Adam Liptak, JD, Legal Correspondent and Columnist for the New York Times, in an Oct. 2, 2005 article titled "To More Inmates, Life Term Means Dying Behind Bars," wrote:

"A survey by The New York Times found that about 132,000 of the nation's prisoners, or almost 1 in 10, are serving life sentences. The number of lifers has almost doubled in the last decade, far outpacing the overall growth in the prison population. Of those lifers sentenced between 1988 and 2001, about a third are serving time for sentences other than murder, including burglary and drug crimes.

Growth has been especially sharp among lifers with the words 'without parole' appended to their sentences. In 1993, the Times survey found, about 20 percent of all lifers had no chance of parole. Last year, the number rose to 28 percent.

The phenomenon is in some ways an artifact of the death penalty. Opponents of capital punishment have promoted life sentences as an alternative to execution. And as the nation's enthusiasm for the death penalty wanes amid restrictive Supreme Court rulings and a spate of death row exonerations, more states are turning to life sentences.

Defendants facing a potential death sentence often plead to life; those who go to trial and are convicted are sentenced to life about half the time by juries that are sometimes swayed by the lingering possibility of innocence.

As a result the United States is now housing a large and permanent population of prisoners who will die of old age behind bars. At the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, for instance, more than 3,000 of the 5,100 prisoners are serving life without parole, and most of the rest are serving sentences so long that they cannot be completed in a typical lifetime...

Fewer than two-thirds of the 70,000 people sentenced to life from 1988 to 2001 are in for murder, the Times analysis found. Other lifers -- more than 25,000 of them -- were convicted of crimes like rape, kidnapping, armed robbery, assault, extortion, burglary and arson. People convicted of drug trafficking account for 16 percent of all lifers"

Oct. 2, 2005 - Adam Liptak, JD

[RA1]

As with everything these days, it is complicated and anyone likely would be a fool to be "sure" of anything with so much in flux. Perhaps I should have said, in the US there basically is no sentence that will keep someone in prison for life certain. Pardons by governors as well as the Prez enter into it as well as parole. It also varies by state. The Supremes seemingly would like to rule life without parole "cruel and unusual punishment". I don't think they have yet but..........

OTOH, death by legal execution does seem to be somewhat permanent. Of course, that is both the "good" and bad point of it, isn't it?

Best regards,

RA1