I was talking to my daughter about the crazy thinking of Democrats. I mentioned how Ca. doesn't do the death penalty. I told my daughter about Charles Manson so she looked it up. 1969-2017 all those years on death row.
It is a vexed issue, “the state” taking a life. There are certainly cases I believe it is warranted (both here and the US - plus others) but it is a narrow band. Manson is a good example where it is clear cut but there are also many where there has been a doubt.
I am not persuaded by the argument that the conviction might have been in error. That's me, and maybe me only.
When we base our response to a law on the exception we are doomed, My biggest issue is the legal BS on what can be appealed and the idea if it hurts a little its cruel. If there is no more pain than a medical procedure its not cruel.
One a day every day all 50 states! This will accomplish 3 things, 1 offenders will never become repeat offenders. 2 open spaces in prisons for other offenders. 3 send a clear message to the criminals that this will not be tolerated!
The death penalty has a long and hallowed history in human society. At various times and places it has applied to everything from homicide to walking through an open gate. Shoplifting, littering, you name it and we've probably executed people for it. The one question few people ask and none can answer is "How many capital crimes have been prevented by the existence of the death penalty?" I suspect it deters a lot of smart criminals, and very few stupid ones. The one sure statement anyone can make is that the death penalty (once applied) eliminates all further inclination toward criminal behavior on the part of the executed. The number of repeat offenders is not only 0%, it's also 0. That makes it the most effective crime prevention strategy of all. The hopelessly naive whine about the death penalty being sanctioned murder and a painful punishment. Of course it's sanctioned murder: that's the only lawful kind. We sanction murder all the time, in war and in law enforcement. (Except that, correctly speaking , it's not murder. It's homicide.) Further, the death penalty should not be painless. It should be excruciatingly painful, and it should be a lengthy process. That's because some people simply cannot grasp the concept of their own death--but they can clearly understand that they don't want to be lowered slowly into a vat of boiling oil (for example). The death penalty should be a deterrent on every possible level.
I am amused when my DW watches old Perry Mason reruns from the late 50s. When someone is killed, at some point you can count on Perry intoning "My (or the) defendant could get the gas chamber!" Knowing this is Califlower, we laugh. Much of the argument on capital punishment is that "An innocent man' could be executed. And back in the the day - say prior to solid DNA science they might have made a case. And I will agree that dirty cops, forced 'confessions', mal or misfeasance is always an issue - capital case or not.. Elected DAs are the worst for fake evidence, misplaced evidence or just hiding exculpatory evidence. The worst thing that can happen to you is be accused of a sensational crime in an election cycle Duke Lacrosse anyone? and that wasn't even a murder.... But the "he had a bad childhood" or Diminished capacity (ie thwacked out on drugs/lifelong boozer) carry little weight against the crime itself. For me, a special level are those animated piles of steaming excrement that molest, torture & kill children or pregnant women. For those criminals, I would agree to the functional equivalent of boiling oil. A Society (or culture) that cannot or will not protect its own against the evil mankind is capable of is a Society doomed find itself in the dustbin of history. We had some discussion on this very issues set some time back in the Starship Trooper thread.
Since the DP was ruled constitutional by SCOTUS in ‘76, over 170 of those on death row have been exonerated, as in clearly they were innocent. DNA helped many but not all. About 1900 have been executed and about 2600 are on death row. So, at best, judicial decisions are actually right no better than 90% 170/1900) to 96% (170/4500). Given some of those currently on death row will be exonerated, the right percentage is probably around 94-95%. Of those whose appeals were denied, did we get those 95% right and 5% wrong? Who knows. I just know that a 5% chance we execute innocent people isn’t good enough for me. It is believed in some quarters that around 150 innocent people have been executed. That’s not good enough for me when we have a cheaper alternative that can be sort of undone (they can’t get those lost years back) if we determine a conviction was wrong. The sequence of appeals generally cost taxpayers well over a million bucks - prosecutors, investigators, public defenders, judges, court staff, etc. The cost to keep them locked up for say an average of 30-35 years, when considering the net present value of money is less than the total costs to ultimately execute them. There just isn’t much deterrence as most murderers aren’t thinking rationally with a cost benefit analysis when committing murder. The parts of the US with the highest execution rates have higher murder rates, not vise versa if it was effective as a deterrent. I’m not convinced executions do much positive for the victims’ families either. 8-10 years with appeals and retelling in court the impact to them over and over and over. Life w/o parole doesn’t get near the number of appeals as death sentences. Give the families a break and let them get on with their lives and stop dragging them back into court. No execution is actually kinder to the victims’ families. And then there is the family of the perpetrator, generally they didn’t ask for this either. So, I come to the position that: 1. Its just cheaper to lock them up for ever. I’m a cheap ass, save the tax dollars. 2. It is clear that “beyond a reasonable doubt” is not a high enough standard when we get it right only 95% or less of the time. Change the standard for DP to “guilty beyond absolutely any and all doubt” and I could accept that. And hanging, asphyxiation (strap em down put a mask on them with only nitrogen or argon or a small room), firing squad, injection, guillotine... they are fine by me. Those are all quick and not torturous. 3. Life w/o parole is more compassionate to everyone. But thats just me. AT
I do not believe for a moment the DP acts as a significant deterrent to serious offending. Simply put the majority of the offenders who rise to the level that it is on the table simply do not believe they will be caught. It does however stop recidivism in those cases. There are people who I believe have given up the right to draw breath and who, no matter the term of incarceration, pose a risk to society. It is those whom I would not quibble. I also believe that the manner of death should be quick and decisive. We should not sink to the same depths of depravity as those being executed. Remember too, as has been noted, the DP has been applied (the world around) for many offences neither heinous or life taking/destroying. The standard we apply to others today may well apply to us all tomorrow. Remember many have been put to the sword for simple dissenting language.....
I worked in corrections for 5 years. I got out because of the inmates who truly were the lowest form of society's dregs. There are people in our society who can not accept nor abide by the most simple of laws. I went into the job against the DP, but I left as one of it's greatest proponents. Sure the innocent sometimes wind up in prison and even on death row, but now I realize that the small percentage that do are the price we pay to attempt to maintain lawful order. The recidivism rate is astronomical, proving that prisons aren't much of a deterrent to crime but more of a training ground where inmates learn law and get tips and tricks to be criminal on a higher level. I would only change the DP to be non-applicable to those with no record, giving them life with no parole. I would also limit the appeals process to one appeal, with sentence carried out immediately upon the second conviction.
Pretty amazing how long a good executioner can draw a death out with just a hacksaw and hot pot of tar to stop the bleeding.
That alone is reason enough for cases in which it is within the rules. The cost reduction is also a benefit, even if that cannot be considered in the application. The law is not a perfect institution, there will be times when it misses the mark, as with the infrequent execution of an innocent. Argue it all you want, but nothing man creates is foolproof; there will be prices to pay for man's lack of perfection.
....most good executioners prided themselves on the speed and finality of their work. What you refer to is a torturer not an executioner. I have met both at different times. A skilled hangman was an in demand profession here. At one point the Victoria was unable to recruit one so one from NSW went down to assist. The state archives (can’t recall now if NSW or Vic) had the executioners notes and they were detailed as to the speed and cleanliness of the process. What rope, what drop, condemned’s weight etc. They considered anything less than a quick clean kill as a failure not to be repeated !
Yeah,That hangman at Nuremberg had it down to a science...Even to a point of hanging the women first in order to give men the courage...lol
Ah! But salt, great fluffy billowing clouds of salt ground fine as face powder--there's the mark of the true professional! For the highly skilled, the flaying is merely foreplay...
I had a class in high school where we talked about the DP and because of the costs of appeals, it was cheaper to keep someone alive than to put them to death. it doesn't seem right though.
