Skip to main content Secondary menu User menu * Join * OR * Log In MNN - Mother Nature Network Friday, December 27, 2013 SPECIAL FEATURES: * Leaderboard * Nest * Quizzes * Photos * Blogs * Videos * Joy of Less Search form _______________ Search Social links IFRAME: //www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com% 2Fmothernaturenetwork&send=false&layout=button_count&width=100&show_fac es=false&action=like&colorscheme=light&font&height=21 IFRAME: http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/follow_button.1330977499.html#_=133 1053246641&id=twitter-widget-2&lang=en&screen_name=mothernaturenet&show _count=false&show_screen_name=false&size=m Main menu * Earth Matters + Browse all » + Animals + Climate & Weather + Energy + Politics + Space + Translating Uncle Sam + Wilderness & Resources * Health + Browse all » + Allergies + Fitness & Well-Being + Healthy Spaces * Lifestyle + Browse all » + Arts & Culture + Travel + Natural Beauty & Fashion + Recycling + Responsible Living * Green Tech + Browse all » + Computers + Gadgets & Electronics + Research & Innovations + Transportation * Eco-Biz & Money + Browse all » + Green Workplace + Personal Finance + Sustainable Business Practices * Food & Drink + Browse all » + Beverages + Healthy Eating + Recipes * Your Home + Browse all » + At Home + Organic Farming & Gardening + Remodeling & Design * Family + Browse all » + Babies & Pregnancy + Family Activities + Pets + Protection & Safety Breadcrumb Navigation MNN.COM › Earth Matters › Politics x * Tweet * * * * Pin It * Email * Bookmark and Share Share * Earn Points What's this? 9 controversial death penalty cases in the U.S. The Troy Davis case re-ignites an old debate: When is the death penalty the right answer? Here are several cases from the last two centuries that garnered plenty of media attention — and created more unanswered questions. By Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience Wed, Sep 21 2011 at 10:32 AM Related Topics: Activism Members of Amnesty International gather in Paris to protest the execution of Georgian Troy Davis EXECUTION PROTEST: Members of Amnesty International gather in Paris earlier this week to protest the execution of Troy Davis. Davis was executed Wednesday night. (Photo: ZUMA Press) Georgia inmate Troy Davis was put to death last night for the 1989 shooting of a police officer. Davis' case received national and international attention because of concerns about witness testimony. Seven of nine eyewitnesses who implicated Davis in the shooting recanted their testimony, and others say that the man who originally implicated Davis was actually the killer. Public figures as diverse as former President Jimmy Carter and conservative U.S. Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia called for reconsideration of Davis' sentence, but on Sept. 20, the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles declined to grant him clemency. Davis' case was particularly publicized, but his is not the first death penalty case surrounded by controversy. "What's happened in the last 10 years in the United States is that there has been a dramatic increase in opposition to the death penalty," said Michael Radelet, a sociologist at the University of Colorado who specializes in death penalty issues. "I think that's part of why Troy Davis is getting attention." The Davis case also grabbed headlines because Davis has "a strong case for innocence," Radelet said. "I have to admit, this one really stumps me," Radelet said earlier this week. "It really surprises me. I'm just astonished that they're going to let this execution go forward." [Execution Science: What's the Best Way to Kill a Person?] Of course, every death penalty case comes wrapped in some degree of debate, given deep disagreement over whether the death penalty is ever moral. Here is a by-no-means-exhaustive list of some of the most controversial cases of the 20th and 21st centuries: Sacco and Vanzetti: Italian anarchists (1927) Death penalty controversy is not a new phenomenon. Italian immigrants Ferdinando Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were executed in 1927 after a highly contested series of trials over the shooting death of two men during a 1920 armed robbery. [The History of Human Aggression] Sacco and Vanzetti were followers of Italian anarchist Luigi Galleani, and anti-Italian sentiment almost certainly played a role in their executions, Radelet said. The accused men waged a then-unprecedented six-year legal battle that went all the way to the Supreme Court twice, and public figures (Albert Einstein among them) called for new trials. But even a confession to the murders by another man, ex-convict Celestino Madeiros, could not save Sacco and Vanzetti's lives. They died in the electric chair on Aug. 23, 1927. Later, several anarchist leaders spoke out to say that Sacco was guilty but Venzetti was not, though historians still debate whether either man really pulled the trigger. The Scottsboro Boys: Race in Alabama (1931) Based on the judgment of all-white juries, eight black teenage boys were sentenced to death for the rape of two white women on a freight train in 1931 (a ninth boy, only 12, was judged too young for the electric chair). The trials took place in just a day — with a lynch mob demanding the surrender of the teenagers outside the jail before the trials — and only lawyers who would defend the accused included a retiree who hadn't tried a case in years and a Tennessee real estate lawyer unfamiliar with Alabama law. The convictions led to demonstrations in the heavily black neighborhood of Harlem in New York City, and the case eventually made it to the Supreme Court, where the convictions were reversed because of the lack of an adequate defense. Amid enormous public interest, charges were dropped against four of the men. Three were re-sentenced to life in prison; a fourth, Clarence Norris, was re-sentenced to death, later reduced to life in prison. Gov. George Wallace pardoned Norris in 1976. To this day, the Scottsboro case remains shorthand in public dialogue for unfair, racially biased convictions and sentencing. Bruno Hauptmann: The Lindbergh baby (1932) The abduction and murder of the 20-month-old son of Charles and Anne Lindbergh was known as "The Crime of the Century" in 1932. Two years later, German immigrant Bruno Hauptmann was arrested after allegedly spending some of the ransom money given by the Lindberghs before they knew that their baby was dead. [Criminal Minds: A Psychiatrist's View from Inside Prison] The crime of the century led to the trial of the century, with Hauptmann maintaining his innocence to the end. Later analyses would question much of the evidence that sent Hauptmann to his death, including eyewitness accounts and a lack of Hauptmann's fingerprints at the scene. Books have been written both supporting the 1932 verdict and refuting it, and Hauptmann's widow fought until her death in 1994 to have her dead husband's conviction overturned. Caryl Chessman: Death penalty without murder (1960) Californian Caryl Chessman became a flashpoint for anti-death penalty sentiment in the 1950s. Chessman was convicted of robbery, kidnapping and rape in 1948; the jury determined that Chessman had caused bodily harm during one of the kidnappings, making him eligible for death. From death row, Chessman wrote books maintaining his innocence and insisting that his original confession had been coerced. There was widespread outrage over the case. Among his supporters, Chessman counted former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt, writer Ray Bradbury and poet Robert Frost. Chessman missed his chance at a stay of execution (his ninth) on May 2, 1960. As the gas chamber at San Quentin Prison filled with toxic fumes, a legal secretary called to say that a federal judge had issued one more stay of execution. But it was too late for Chessman, who gasped a few times and died. Carlos De Luna: The wrong man? The state of Texas put Carlos De Luna to death in 1989 for the killing of a convenience store clerk in 1983. Until the end, De Luna maintained his innocence; years after his death, in 2006, the Chicago Tribune reported that another man, Carlos Hernandez, had bragged about killing the clerk to friends and family. "He said he was the one that did it, but that they got somebody else — his stupid tocayo — for that one," Dina Ybanez, an acquaintance of Hernandez, told the Tribune. "Tocayo" means namesake in Spanish. A detective in Corpus Christi, Texas, where the killings took place, told the Tribune that the investigation surrounding the death was sloppy and that detectives failed to follow up on tips that Hernandez was talking about the killing. The Tribune investigation also turned up questions about whether the killing was really a robbery and about eyewitness identifications of De Luna — though some of De Luna's actions, including lying to police about his whereabouts that night, left some prosecutors convinced of De Luna's guilt. [History's Most Overlooked Mysteries] Teresa Lewis: A woman on death row (2010) The first woman to die by lethal injection in the state of Virginia, Teresa Lewis was convicted of paying to have her husband and stepson murdered in 2002. Her case drew outcry, because testing had pegged Lewis' IQ at 72, just two points above that classified as intellectually disabled. Lewis' attorneys advised her to plead guilty in hopes of leniency, but she instead received the death penalty. The two hitmen who killed her husband and stepson received life sentences. Her supporters, among them legal novelist John Grisham, sent thousands of appeals for clemency to Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, to no avail. Lewis was executed on Sept. 23, 2010. Humberto Leal: An international incident (2011) The controversy around Humberto Leal's death was not focused on his guilt, but on his legal rights. Leal, a Mexican citizen, was convicted of the 1994 rape, kidnapping and murder of 16-year-old Adria Sauceda, whose body was found bludgeoned on a dirt road in San Antonio, Texas. But police had not informed Leal of his right to call the Mexican consulate upon his arrest, putting the case on shaky grounds. In 2004, the International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled that Leal and other Mexican nationals on death row had been denied their right to contact their consulate under the Vienna Convention. The Supreme Court in 2008 held that the international court's judgment was binding, but Congress would have to pass a law to ensure individual states would comply. That never happened. Citing fears that Leal's execution would harm America's standing in the world, the Obama administration entreated the Supreme Court to stay the execution until Congress could pass the binding law. The Supreme Court concluded that Congress had plenty of time to do so, and denied the appeal. Leal died by lethal injection on July 7, 2011. Duane Buck: Racial bias? (2011) In a rare move on Sept. 15, 2011, the Supreme Court halted the execution of Texas death row inmate Duane Buck. The stay was a surprise because the Supreme Court rarely jumps in on death penalty cases unless there is doubt about the defendant's innocence; in this case, it wasn't Buck's guilt that led the Supreme Court to step in, but the testimony of a psychologist at his sentencing who said that black criminals were more likely to commit violence in the future than criminals of other races. (Buck was convicted of killing his ex-girlfriend and her friend in 1995.) The psychologist's comment has led to cries of racial bias, and in 2000, then-Texas Attorney General John Cornyn (now a U.S. senator) recommended that six cases in which the psychologist gave the racially tainted testimony be reopened. All the cases but Buck's were, and all five of those defendants were re-sentenced to death. The Supreme Court will now decide whether to hear Buck's case. If it doesn't, Buck will have to again appeal to Texas' Board of Pardon and Paroles, which has once before refused to commute his sentence to life in prison. If the board again turns down Buck's request, only Texas Gov. Rick Perry could halt Buck's execution. Cameron Todd Willingham: Innocent of arson? (2004) Of the 235 people put to death during the tenure of Texas Gov. Rick Perry, the case of Cameron Todd Willingham might be the most controversial. Willingham was convicted and executed for the deaths of his three young daughters, who died in a fire at the family's home. Prosecutors alleged that Willingham set the fire and killed the girls to cover up abuse; Willingham's wife, who was not home at the time of the blaze, denied at the time that he abused his children. The crux of Willingham's case, however, revolved around whether the fire was set on purpose at all. Central to Willingham's conviction was an analysis by Deputy Fire Marshal Manuel Vasquez concluding that lighter fluid or some other accelerant had been spread throughout the hallways of the home. But in 2004, a second fire investigator, Gerald Hurst, looked into Willingham's case. Hurst found multiple scientific errors in Vasquez's report and concluded that there was no evidence of arson. A 2009 report by the Texas Forensic Science Commission would later come to the same conclusion. Despite Hurst's criticisms, both the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and Perry declined to halt Willingham's execution. He was put to death in 2004. But that wasn't the end of the Willingham case. In 2009, the case became intertwined with politics after Perry replaced three members of the Texas Forensic Science Commission two days before a meeting on the report, leading critics to accuse the governor of trying to hush up talk of Willingham's potential innocence. When the commission released its report in April 2011, it took no stance on Willingham's guilt or innocence. With Perry running for president, the Willingham case may again enter the public consciousness. But an admission of fault is unlikely, UC Boulder's Radelet said. There have only been a handful of post-mortem pardons in the U.S., one in 1891 in Illinois and one in January 2011, when then-Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter pardoned a disabled man executed in 1939, Radelet said. With presdential politics at play, he said, there is even less motive to look deeply at the Willingham case. "If Rick Perry ever admitted that Willingham was innocent, his political life would be threatened," Radelet said. You can follow LiveScience senior writer Stephanie Pappas on Twitter @sipappas. Follow LiveScience for the latest in science news and discoveries on Twitter @livescience and on Facebook. Related on LiveScience: * Top 10 Weird Ways We Deal With the Dead * Understanding the 10 Most Destructive Human Behaviors * After Death: 8 Burial Alternatives That Are Going Mainstream MNN homepage photo: Isaac Steiner You might also like: mnn-nest Join the conversation Sign in with one of these accounts to add your comment. Log in or create an account * Sign in using this account: Comments Loading… EDITORS' PICKS tease recycling quiz line ^tease talent show line tease mocktails Advertisement TODAY'S MOST POPULAR ON 1. 12 tips for kicking the refined sugar habit 2. Too beautiful to be real? 16 surreal landscapes found on Earth 3. Vancouver aims to stomp out cigarette litter with new recycling scheme 4. 10 items you didn't know were made in America 5. How 'hygge' can help you get through winter 6. 15 famous people who mysteriously disappeared 7. 13 surprising home remedies for acid reflux 8. 500 years of the greatest comets ever seen 9. Oops! Earth's oldest 'diamonds' turn out to be just polishing grit 10. Amazing underwater 'crop circles' spun by Japanese puffer fish + Add this to my site NEWSLETTER Mother Nature. Delivered Email Address * _________________________ GO [ ] Daily [X] Weekly Advertisement Advertisement Footer menu * Quick Links + Joy of Less + About Us + Advisory Board + Editors' Blog + Press + Privacy + Sitemap + Terms of Service * MNN Tools + Advice + Blogs + Day in History + Eco-glossary + Infographics + Lists + Photos + Videos * Connect + The Nest + Contact Us + Mixed Greens + Newsletters + RSS + Social + TreeHugger + Mobile * Channels + Earth Matters + Health + Lifestyle + Green Tech + Eco-Biz & Money + Your Home + Family + State Reports * Follow MNN + Facebook + Twitter + Pinterest + Tumblr + Google+ + StumbleUpon comscore Copyright © 2013 MNN Holdings, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Website by GLICK INTERACTIVE | Powered by CIRRACORE SPONSORS * Dunkin\ * Coca-Cola Company * Diageo * Walmart * UL * UPS * Mercedes-Benz * Aflac [B7880641.9;sz=1x1;ord=534042623?] [m?ci=aflac-ca&at=view&rt=banner&st=image&pc=1045665&ca=7355604&cr= AFL242388&ce=93937624&pr=iag.tfid,1324&pr=iag.cte,AFL242388] [a.gif?vzcid=9281&vzadid=mnn120x60&vzsid=mnn&ord=1689697667] * SC Johnson * CSX [B4970170.8;sz=1x1;ord=763447099?] * Georgia-Pacific - Recipes [?t=pp&px=16128&rnd=2081328893] * Zep Inc. * Georgia-Pacific - Green Workplace * PGi * AT&T * MillerCoors [?t=pp&px=16128&rnd=175651919] * Southern Company Quantcast Donate Now Truthout Friday, 27 December 2013 / TRUTH-OUT.ORG * Edward Snowden, Person of the Year Eugene Robinson: I can't think of any individual who had more influence in 2013 than Edward Snowden. * Year-End Legislation Could Close National Security Loophole, Protect Government Whistleblowers A bill could restore due process rights of appeal for feds. * * Home + News + Opinion + Video + Art o Cartoons o Graphic Journalism o Truthout on Flickr * BuzzFlash + Buzzflash Headlines + Buzzflash Commentary * Speakout * Progressive Picks * * About Us + Submission Guidelines + Contact + Newsletter Sign-Up * Donate Search___________________ Go! * Skip to content From Capital Punishment to Guns, Old Fears Weigh Like a Nightmare on Today's Debate Wednesday, 15 May 2013 11:05 By Paul Jay, The Real News Network | Video * Tweet * font size decrease font size decrease font size increase font size increase font size * Print * Email Media [EMBED] More at The Real News PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay in Baltimore. The current debate about gun control, the effectiveness of the war on drugs, much, in fact, of the big debates that take place throughout American culture have their roots in pre-Civil War debates about execution. So says author Stephen John Hartnett, who's the author of the book Executing Democracy: Capital Punishment and the Making of America. Here's a couple of quotes from Executing Democracy. In the post-revolutionary period, Robert Annan argued in favor of hangings, largely on the grounds that abolishing the gallows, quote, would introduce universal anarchy and ruin. From this perspective, the gallows stands as a defense mechanism against not only crime, but revolution more broadly. Snapping necks is an antidote to too damn much democracy. Further down, Hartnett writes: in each case, it was easier to condemn the individual sinner than to address the larger questions of economic inequality, political disenfranchisement, gender and racial oppression, national prejudice, or inexplicable human folly that left such criminals in the desperate conditions that led to their crimes. Now joining us from Denver is Stephen John Hartnett. He's a professor and chair of the Department of Communication at the University of Colorado, Denver, and author of the book, as I said, Executing Democracy: Capital Punishment and the Making of America. Thanks very much for joining us, Stephen. STEPHEN JOHN HARTNETT, PROF. COMMUNICATIONS, UC DENVER: It's fun to be here, Paul. Thank you. Jay: Now, it seems the sort of objective scientific data on executing people seems to make it clear there is no evidence that it deters people from murdering each other. Yet the argument continues on--the pro-execution argument continues. So it really seems it doesn't have that much to do with the evidence about deterring things. It has to do with something deeper. And what is that? Hartnett: Well, first let's just reaffirm your first part of your question, that executing people has absolutely nothing to do with deterrence. We really need to keep emphasizing that simple point. It has nothing to do with stopping crime. So you're right about that. What does it have to do with is prolonging longstanding national prejudices about race, class, national others, and so on. So it's a kind of psychological defense mechanism that really has nothing to do with the facts about crime. Jay: Now, in the book, you talk about much of the roots of capital punishment in America have to do with the slave society and the defense of the slave system. Hartnett: That's exactly right. I argue, and especially in Volume 1, that the death penalty historically was part of the arsenal of violence used both to repress slaves in the South and to intimidate the opponents to slavery in the North. And so it's interesting to think that those Americans who supported the death penalty have always also been at war with free speech. Jay: There's a kind of rationality, if you want, of sorts, you could say macabre nationality, but it makes sense that if you're slave owners, you want to terrorize slaves, and, you know, probably the best way to terrorize people is to kill some of them. So, I mean, there's some, you could say, evidence that might have worked. But, as I said, as we go forward, there doesn't seem to be a rationality to it. But why does it continue? So--'cause even at the time of slave society, pre-Civil War, there was a big movement to abolish capital punishment. Why does it continue despite all evidence? Hartnett: Well, that's a really complicated question, Paul. And first it's important to note that the kind of Machiavellian rationality of the death penalty didn't even work back in the day. The slave owners thought that if they threatened to whip and tar and feather and execute slaves, it would make them comply. And of course it didn't. All it did was teach the slaves that violence is how you solve political solutions. So even the Machiavellian rationality was clearly wrong in its implementation. But despite the fact that we know that, the death penalty has continued on up into the 21st century. And, again, I think it has done so not because it deters crime, not because it's a rational response to society's problems, but because it satisfies, as Robert Annan said in the first passage you read, it satisfies the psychological need to feel like we're doing something in the face of tragedy. Jay: Now, one of the thesis of your book is that the roots of this ideology is framed in sort of religious dogma, as in the 16th century and before just about everything was. But if you executed someone, it wasn't just meant to deter crime; it was also meant to send that person to Hell. You were acting in the name of God. Hartnett: That's right. Jay: But in your book, you talk about how that outlook starts to bump up against modernity in the United States. Hartnett: Right. And the thing that's really hard to kind of grasp about American history is that up until the Civil War, this was a profoundly religious society. And certainly up until the 1830s and '40s, it was largely a Calvinist society. And in the Calvinist worldview, anyone who sinned was sinning not only against society's laws but against God's laws. And so executing criminals was one way of placating God. You literally did not want God to unleash his terrible destruction upon the earth if he thought you weren't complying with his commandments. And so executions were considered both a legal response to crime, but also a way of satisfying an angry god. Jay: And as I--in the quote I referred to in the introduction, you talk about this fear of the world spinning out of control, a sense of anarchy. But there's a real political character to this fear, a fear of rebellion, of a rising, I guess, first of all, rising of slaves, but then after slave society, you know, the rising of oppressed people. But that's always equated to anarchy and society collapsing and falling apart. And if you don't have execution--and take it forward to the debate today, if you don't have guns and you don't have this war on drugs and you don't have prisons with big populations, again, of people whose forebears were slaves, then the society's going to completely fall apart at the seams. Hartnett: Yeah. And part of what the books chronicle is that we've had this longstanding mythology of Americans' love of democracy, freedom, liberty, equality, justice. And, in fact, all of those terms have always been not only debated but hotly opposed by large segments of the population. And so whether it's Robert Annan, a Calvinist minister, or whether it's, say, George Washington, who was not at all a fan of what we would today call democracy, you've always had these elites afraid of either slave uprisings or the immigrant problems caused by the Irish coming in, what would happen when the church's authority declined in the face of secular humanism. And so, literally every generation of Americans, there's been some of us who cheer the coming of democracy, but there've been many more who feared the coming of democracy. And for those who fear democracy, the death penalty is part of the grab bag, again, of weapons, part of the arsenal of violence that could be used to put the lid on democracy. Jay: And you talk about a historical hatred of the working class. I mean, I think we forget that the American elite is--you know, really was part of the British elite and had shared the values and outlook. And the British enslaved the Irish long before Africans were enslaved in the United States, and this ability to hate and enslave white workers was very, very imbued in this class as well. Hartnett: Yeah. And, in fact, if you go back and you look at the data about early American history, the working class was made of not only millions of slaves in the South, but millions of indentured Irish servants in the North. And this was obviously--these were conditions that did not make for a happy working class. And so labor relations were incredibly volatile and incredibly violent. And you're right, Paul, to point out that the kind of capitalist elite of today lived in great fear of what would happen if the masses rose up. Jay: Now, when we look at the gun debate now, the prison debate, the drug debate, and of course the execution debate, how much is this still about race? Hartnett: I think race is one of the driving factors, Paul. Fear of slave rebellions is what drove the development of Southern culture before the Civil War. Fear of what would happen when freed slaves came north is one of the things that led to the production of the whole Reconstruction society. Fear of what would happen after the rights achieved in the Civil Rights movement are directly what led to the construction of the prison-industrial complex as we know it today. So, literally every generation of Americans have instituted some kind of social policy to give a kind of institutional weight to their fear of African Americans, their fear of Chicanos and Latinos whose land we stole in 1848. Jay: And there's another part to the fear, too, which in a sense has, I think, some legitimacy to it, which is, you know, you live in these societies that have been kind of stable for a long time, and there's some sense of order, some sense of morality, you could say. Even in slave society, of course, it was amoral when it came to the slaves, but there was some sense of some right and wrong, of ethics, of some code, of course, white to whites. And when the society starts to fall apart--and even today, where rural life, you know, in rural life, at least imagined rural life, there's sort of, I think, a--where--what is idealization of American rural life, but still, you know, there's this sense that in decades past there was more norms, there was more stability, people were more civil to each other, and they look at the cities and they see the cities as these crazy things they don't understand and all these people who they don't understand where they're coming from, and they look at mass culture and they see a kind of lack of morality in the mass culture, and I think with some legitimacy that critique, and they go--you know, these old ideas are there. They don't know what else to grasp on to. And the old ideas are you need order, and order comes from force. Hartnett: Yeah, and I like your line there, Paul, that they don't know what else to grasp on to. So when the Industrial Revolution, for example, starts to fracture a 1,000-year-old rural culture, a lot of Americans don't know how to respond, and so they retreat to nostalgia, they retreat to some idealized social order that of course never existed. But then they think that capital punishment will somehow help us return to that idealized order. And so a key part of supporters of capital punishment is they always have in the back of their mind this nostalgic sense that if we just killed enough criminals, we'd get back to this idealized life of harmony, of order, of good morals, of good manners. And of course that society never existed in the first place. Jay: Now, one of the points you make in your book I thought was very interesting was that it was the Industrial Revolution, it was mass production and the discipline of having to go to work, you know, eight, nine, ten hours every day and work at an assembly line where you had to do a very disciplined thing actually started to deal with some of the disorder and violence in the society. And, of course, that ran up against something at the end of the Civil War. I saw a quote from Abraham Lincoln where he said the biggest threat to the United States following the war is going to be alcoholism and the violence associated with alcoholism. Hartnett: Yeah. I mean, the Industrial Revolution felt to many Americans like a catastrophe. The farm systems were breaking down. Cultures based around bartering and local production were breaking down. The cities were exploding. And they didn't really have kind of urban demographics and urban zoning like we do today, and so the cities were chaotic. The cities were full of immigrants, full of runaway slaves, full of soldiers hopped up on morphine. As President Lincoln said in this quote you just read, there was a great alcoholism rate. It was just incredible. So the cities were rough and tumble. The cities were very, very hard, very rough-edged. And there were many Americans who thought the way we make the cities more humane and more enlightened is we build public schools, we build public hospitals, we build public parks, we give education to the working class. Now, another faction said, no, we need to snap some necks and build some prisons. And we still have that divide in America today between those who think they can kill their way to justice and those who think that the only way you build a just society is by creating the conditions of a more fully imagined democracy. Jay: And you can see it. The evidence is, I think, in front of people's eyes if they want to see it. In the areas, cities, places where there's modern production, modern industrial work, and jobs, people have a secure income, they're not, you know, losing sleep every night about losing their homes, you have a relatively stable, safe place. Crime is not very high. And it's no brain surgery rocket science to see that it's in urban centers where there's very, very high unemployment, desperate poverty that you have high crime. So if you want to deal with it, it's not more prisons and more guns. It's as you say. It's more schools and more jobs. Hartnett: That's right, Paul. And, really, the simplest way to think of this is that crime is an index of unhappiness. And whenever you have a culture driven by racial injustice, lack of jobs, lack of education, lack of hope, then you're going to have crime. And the simple question is: do you then snap the necks of young men, assuming that that will somehow increase the happiness index in your society? Obviously, that won't work. Or could you just simply do the reasonable thing, which is to step back and say, what do we need to do to raise the standard of hope in our violent cities? And, of course, that means schools, hospitals, better roadways, better parks, better family counseling. We need to make the social safety net effective enough so that young men don't think joining gangs is a rational alternative. Jay: Now, one sees this normally as sort of a Republican-Democratic debate. But actually there's lots of Democratic parties--parties meaning at state levels and even at the national level--lots of the Democratic Party is not anti-execution. There's lots of pro capital punishment people in the Democratic Party, and there's been lots of governors of states run by Democrats that are in on executing people, too. Hartnett: Yeah. And, you know, a couple of the obvious examples are Bill Clinton taking time out of his presidential campaign to go back to Arkansas so he could execute a mentally retarded prisoner, thinking that that gesture of being hard on crime would win him southern votes. Another example, flip side of that, is that you now have the state of California obviously going broke--it's been broke for decades now--and the Republicans in California are finally realizing they need to reduce the prison system. So both parties can look--or can land on both sides of these issues. My position would be to say that both parties, however, have largely cornered the market on cowardice, because neither party is doing the obvious thing of decreasing the prison population, ending capital punishment, and folding our resources back into schools. That's the root problem. Jay: Alright. Thanks for joining us, Stephen. Hartnett: Thanks for having me, Paul. Jay: Thank you for joining us on The Real News Network. This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source. [email_this_story_640.gif] Paul Jay Paul Jay is CEO and Senior Editor of The Real News Network. As Senior Editor of TRNN Paul has overseen the production of over 4,500 news stories and is the Host of our news analysis programming. As Executive Producer of CBC Newsworld's independent flagship debate show counterSpin he produced over 2,000 shows during its 10 yrs on air. He is an award-winning documentary filmmaker with over 20 films under his belt and was founding Chair of Hot Docs!, the Canadian International Documentary Film Festival (now the largest in North America). __________________________________________________________________ Show Comments Hide Comments View the discussion thread. blog comments powered by Disqus back to top Enter your email add Submit tog torss tot tofb Holiday Progressive Picks The Crash of 2016 IFRAME: //www.facebook.com/plugins/likebox.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook. com%2Fpages%2FTruthout%2F83865976093&width=292&height=258&colorscheme=l ight&show_faces=true&border_color&stream=false&header=false Follow @truthout Latest Stories * Why Charter Schools Are Foolish Investments for States Facing Economic Challenges By Paul Thomas, AlterNet | Op-Ed * California's Top 10 Environmental Disasters - Featuring Erin Brockovich By Emerson Urry, EnviroNews | Video Interview * How Do You End Homelessness? If You're This State, You Offer People Homes By Robin Marty, Care2 | Report * Economic Update: There Are Alternatives By Richard D Wolff, Economic Update/Truthout | Radio Segment * Joo-Hyun Kang: Ending the Stop-and-Frisk Regime By Laura Flanders, GRITtv | Video Interview * Buzzflash Headlines * New Revelation that AG Eric Holder Is Protecting JPMorgan Chase NYC From Criminal Investigation - BuzzFlash * For 1.3 Million Long-Term Jobless, Another Step Closer to the Edge - The Washington Post * The Battle Within the Democratic Party - The Atlantic 2014 Peace Calendar Featured Videos * Joo-Hyun Kang: Ending the Stop-and-Frisk Regime Joo-Hyun Kang: Ending the Stop-and-Frisk Regime By Laura Flanders, GRITtv | Video Interview * "Ties That Bind": Tales of Love and Gratitude From the Past Decade With StoryCorps Founder Dave Isay "Ties That Bind": Tales of Love and Gratitude From the Past Decade With StoryCorps Founder Dave Isay By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! | Video Interview * Bread and Puppet Theater Founder Peter Schumann on 50 Years of Art and Resistance Bread and Puppet Theater Founder Peter Schumann on 50 Years of Art and Resistance By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! | Video Interview * © 2013 Truthout Diemer.ca Radical Digressions * Home * Articles * The Attic * Browse * Quotes * Links * Contact Search Diemer.ca ________________ Go Samplings Luxemburg was the leading exponent of a Marxism in the spirit of Marx. One indication of this, paradoxical at first glance, is that she was one of the very few leading Marxists who did not treat Marx's writings as holy writ. On Rosa Luxemburg We need only look at activities of the thousands of people working in grassroots groups across this country, and around the world, to see that people do join with others to block what they see as harmful and to fight for what they consider to be desirable and just. When they do, that which seemed impossible to achieve starts to become possible. What Do We Do Now? Blogs * Latest Post * Notebook 6 * Notebook 5 * Notebook 4 * Notebook 3 * Notebook 2 * Notebook 1 Words of Wisdom * He who would do good to another must do it in Minute Particulars. General Good is the plea of the scoundrel, hypocrite, and flatterer. * – William Blake * More Quotes... Favourite Links * Connexions * CounterPunch * Marxist Archive * News & Letters * Bureau of Public Secrets * Noam Chomsky * Israel/Palestine * Sources * More Links... In a Direct Line - Photo by Ulli Diemer The Capital Punishment Debate By Ulli Diemer Part I On December 11, 1962 the last execution in Canada took place here in the middle of our neighbourhood*, at the Don Jail, when the murderers Lucas and Turpin were hanged back to back. Ten years before that, in December 1952, the Don was the site of another double hanging when Jackson and Suchan went to the gallows at midnight while outside, waiting for news of the murderers' death, a drunken crowd milled about, celebrating and providing living proof of the uplifting effect which the death penalty has on society. A Hanging in Quebec, 1902 The deliberate legally sanctioned taking of a human life is a potent emotional totem, an act through which we participate symbolically in the forbidden act of killing. No wonder then that the "debate" over capital punishment is so emotional, so categorical, so barren of analysis of whether the death penalty actually makes practical sense. The latest round of demands for the restoration of hanging illustrates vividly the blind emotionality the subject arouses. The demands are spurred by the recent killings of several policemen; supposedly the death penalty would be an answer. Yet look at the nature of these killings. A teenager with no record of crime or violence rams a police car broadside without warning, killing the officer, and then shoots himself dead. A young man tells his girlfriend that he is going to shoot someone, goes out and machine-guns the first handy policeman, then turns the gun on himself. A man lures a police officer to his home on a pretext, kills him, and then kills himself. A man who has sworn to his friends that he will never allow himself to be taken alive guns down a civilian and a policeman before being killed in a shootout in which an other policeman also dies. How can capital punishment be used to punish those who are already dead? How can it deter someone who is out to die? What possible relevance does the death penalty have to any of these tragedies? In short, none. They are merely an emotional trigger for those who have come to believe that the abolition of the death penalty represents part of a slide to social chaos which could be reversed if only the noose were brought back. There have been many studies of the relationship between capital punishment and the incidence of murder. The universal conclusion has been that there is no relationship. In the United States, it was found that states without capital punishment had slightly lower murder rates than those with it. In Canada, despite the recent incidents of police murders, killings of policemen have in no way increased since the death penalty for killing police officers was abolished. In fact, the most policemen ever killed in Canada in one year -- 11 -- died in 1962, when the death penalty was last carried out. The following year, with the noose put away, not a single policeman was killed. Hardly an indication that Canada is full of potential police killers held in check by the death penalty alone. And common sense does suggest to us that anyone mentally stable enough to be deterred by anything is as likely to be deterred by the prospect of 25 years in prison as by the prospect of death. Neither threat is likely to deter the criminal who is convinced that he won't be caught anyway. A prison sentence is not only an effective deterrent, but it also offers an important advantage over capital punishment: it is possible to make amends for a mistake. We have had in Canada three well-publicized cases recently of prisoners serving lengthy jail sentences for crimes they did not commit. What restitution would it be possible to make to Donald Marshall, for example, if he had been hanged for the murder to which another man confessed after Marshall had served 11 years in prison? Part II The death penalty, emotional beliefs not-withstanding, is not a deterrent. In country after country, it has been found that the existence, abolition, or re-introduction of capital punishment has no discernible effect on the murder rate. What does have a discernible effect, on the murder rate, on other crimes of violence, and on the crime rate in general, are various social factors. Every percentage rise in unemployment, for example, is accompanied by a corresponding rise in mental illness, suicide, and crimes such as wife beating, child abuse, robbery - and murder. This is not to say that being unemployed or poor directly causes people to become criminals - most unemployed people are no more likely to commit a crime than their employed counterparts. But it is to say that being unemployed with little hope of getting a job puts a serious strain on people. If they are young, male, and given to hanging around - what else is there to do? - that strain may well be compounded by regular harassment from police, who at times seem determined to turn such youths into police haters. Most cope with the strains of poverty and unemployment in ways that do not bring them to the attention of the police. But inevitably some do not. And inevitably, as the number of the poor and the unemployed increases, so does the prison population. Society can't afford the small amounts required to help people become decently self-sustaining, but can afford to spend the far greater amounts required to keep people in jail. Canada stands out among Western countries for keeping more of its population in jail despite a lower crime rate. Those who wind up in prison for a period of time are given plenty of encouragement in their choice of a criminal path by prison conditions which are designed to humiliate and frustrate rather than rehabilitate. Even so, there are those who demand that prisons be even harsher than they presently are. Their conviction is that penitentiaries aren't bleak enough, aren't brutal enough, don't do enough to degrade inmates. They prescribe jails that would be even more efficient in producing hardened and bitter criminals. The rest of us, unless we are prepared to execute or imprison for life everyone ever convicted of any offense, may question the wisdom of this course of action. Who do we want to eventually release back onto our streets? A man who during his time in prison was treated fairly and humanely and given a chance to make a new beginning? Or a man who comes out bitter and angry, wanting to get revenge for the way he was treated, convinced by his experience in jail that all of society, including the state which put him away, operates on the basis of brutality, vengeance, and hypocrisy? As any parent knows, we teach much more by what we do than by what we say. No matter how piously we justify brutal prison conditions or capital punishment, the message we give is a simple one: violence and force are a normal and legitimate way of dealing with problems. Violence solves problems. Even the state, with all its power and resources, chooses to use violence to keep people in line. We may be sure that inevitably this is the message that will get across. In the United States a study has even found that the publicity given to the crimes of people about to be executed has actually brought forth imitators who commit similar crimes. The crimes of some murderers especially are almost beyond comprehension. It is hard to believe that a human being could sink to the level they have. But at least the rest of us can put them aside as sick aberrations. They are so far removed from us that some of the horror is taken away. What is more horrifying, in a sense is the picture of a society cold-bloodedly organizing itself to kill. Deciding that killing people is a way to solve problems, and setting up a machinery to do so. Paying jurors and judges, carpenters and electricians, doctors and priests, and hangmen, all to take part in a planned and deliberate taking of human life. Paying them for their participation. All in a day's work. This kind of cold blooded killing is the most horrifying of all. Especially when alternatives are available, and we refuse to take them. * "Our neighbourhood" refers to the area of Toronto east of the downtown where the Don Jail is located. Published in Seven News, November 1984. Also available in French: La Peine Capitale. También disponible en español: El Debate de la Pena Capita. Also available in Chinese. Also available in Korean. Ulli Diemer Contact [EM-Diemer.gif] Subject Headings: Capital Punishment - Crime Prevention - Crime & Punishment - Criminal Law - Justice System - Murder EM-Diemer-big.gif Home • Articles • Quotes • The Attic • Links © 1984 Ulli Diemer. Contact Advertisement Follow ABA missing Facebook icon missing LinkedIn icon missing Twitter icon American Bar Association myABA | Log InLog Out ____________________ (BUTTON) [user-add-global-nav.png] JOIN THE ABA [user-add-global-nav-hover.png] JOIN THE ABA [shopping-cart-global-nav.png] SHOP ABA [shopping-cart-global-nav-hover.png] SHOP ABA [calendar-global-nav.png] CALENDAR [calendar-global-nav-hover.png] CALENDAR [user-group-global-nav.png] MEMBER DIRECTORY [user-group-global-nav-hover.png] MEMBER DIRECTORY * Membership + Join or Renew + Benefits of Membership + Dues and Eligibility + Membership FAQ + Travel Services + ABA Advantage Discounts * ABA Groups + ABA Leadership + Centers & Commissions + Committees + Departments & Offices + Divisions + Forums + Sections + View All Groups * Resources for Lawyers + Career Center + Ethics & Professionalism + Model Rules of Professional Conduct + Books & Related Products + Solo & Small Firm Resource Center + Legal Profession Statistics * Publishing + Books + Periodicals + ABA Journal + Discount Pricing for Libraries + Book Discounts for Bars * CLE + CLE Courses by Topic + Distance Learning Events + In-Person Events + Mandatory CLE + CLE FAQs + Free CLE + ABA Essentials * Advocacy + ABA Policy + Governmental & Legislative Work + Amicus Curiae Briefs + Diversity Initiatives + Rule of Law Initiative + Other ABA Initiatives * News + + Contact Media Relations + Reporter Alerts + Media Credentials + Top Stories + News Releases + Multimedia + * About Us + ABA Mission and Goals + ABA History and Timeline + Careers + ABA Departments + ABA Governance and Policies + Requests for Proposals + Financial Reports + Affiliated Organizations + ABA Charities + Donate + Contact the ABA + ABA Online header Home > Publications > Human Rights Magazine Home > 2007 (Vol. 34) > Spring 2007 - The Death Penalty The Global Debate on the Death Penalty Vol. 34 No. 2 By Sandra Babcock Sandra L. Babcock is an associate clinical professor and clinical director of the Center for International Human Rights at Northwestern University Law School in Chicago. The debate over capital punishment in the United States—be it in the courts, in state legislatures, or on nationally televised talk shows—is always fraught with emotion. The themes have changed little over the last two or three hundred years. Does it deter crime? If not, is it necessary to satisfy society’s desire for retribution against those who commit unspeakably violent crimes? Is it worth the cost? Are murderers capable of redemption? Should states take the lives of their own citizens? Are current methods of execution humane? Is there too great a risk of executing the innocent? We are not alone in this debate. Others around the world—judges, legislators, and ordinary citizens—have struggled to reconcile calls for retribution with evidence that the death penalty does not deter crime. They have argued about whether the death penalty is a cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. They have weighed its costs against the need for an effective police force, schools, and social services for the indigent. National leaders have engaged in these discussions while facing rising crime rates and popular support for capital punishment. Yet, while the United States has thus far rejected appeals to abolish the death penalty or adopt a moratorium, other nations have—increasingly and seemingly inexorably—decided to do away with capital punishment. Indeed, the gap between the United States and the rest of the world on this issue is growing year by year. In June 2007, Rwanda abolished the death penalty, becoming the one hundredth country to do so as a legal matter (although eleven of these countries retain legislation authorizing the death penalty in exceptional circumstances, most have not executed anyone in decades). An additional twenty-nine countries are deemed to be abolitionist in practice since they have either announced their intention to abolish the death penalty or have refrained from carrying out executions for at least ten years. As a result, there are now at least 129 nations that are either de facto or de jure abolitionist. According to Amnesty International, there are sixty-eight countries that retain the death penalty and carry out executions. But even this number is misleading. In reality, the vast majority of the world’s executions are carried out by seven nations: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United States, Pakistan, Yemen, and Vietnam. Many Americans know that the nations comprising Europe (except Belarus) and South America are abolitionist. But how many are aware that of the fifty-three nations in Africa only four ( Uganda, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan) carried out executions in 2005? Even in Asia, where many nations have long insisted that the death penalty is an appropriate and necessary sanction, there are signs of change. The Philippines abolished the death penalty in 2006, and the national bar associations of Malaysia and Japan have called for a moratorium on executions. The international trend toward abolition reflects a shift in the death penalty paradigm. Whereas the death penalty was once viewed as a matter of domestic penal policy, now it is seen as a human rights issue. There are now three regional human rights treaties concerning the abolition of the death penalty: Protocols 6 and 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by 160 nations (including the United States), restricts the manner in which the death penalty may be imposed and promotes abolition. Many human rights organizations and intergovernmental organizations, such as the European Union, see the death penalty as one of the most pressing human rights issues of our time and accordingly have taken an active role in persuading countries to halt executions. The Supreme Court’s View of International Law As the international chorus of abolitionist voices swells, domestic courts and policy makers have engaged in a heated debate over the role of international law in U.S. death penalty cases. The debate came to a head in mid-2005 after the Supreme Court held in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), that the execution of juvenile offenders violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy observed that although international law did not control the Court’s analysis, it was both “instructive” and “significant” in interpreting the contours of the Eighth Amendment. The Roper Court noted that only seven countries had executed juvenile offenders since 1990: Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and China. But even those countries had disavowed the practice in recent years, leaving the United States as “the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty.” Id. at 575. The Court looked to treaties that prohibit the execution of juvenile offenders, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has been ratified by every country in the world apart from the United States and Somalia. After examining these sources and reviewing international practice, the Court concluded that the “overwhelming weight of international opinion” was opposed to the juvenile death penalty. The Court’s majority opinion prompted a scathing dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia. After noting that the Court’s abortion jurisprudence was hardly consistent with the more restrictive practices of most foreign nations, he commented: “I do not believe that approval by ‘other nations and peoples’ should buttress our commitment to American principles any more than . . . disapproval by ‘other nations and peoples’ should weaken that commitment.” Id. at 628. Conservative commentators and legislators likewise attacked the Court’s citation of foreign law. What many critics of Roper failed to recognize, however, is that the Court has long looked to the practices of the international community in evaluating whether a punishment is cruel and unusual. In Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130 (1879), the Court cited the practices of other countries in upholding executions by firing squad. And in its oft-cited opinion in Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958), the Court declared that banishment was a punishment “universally deplored in the international community of democracies.” Since then, the Court has frequently referred to international law in a series of death penalty cases interpreting the meaning of the Eighth Amendment. The Court’s attention to international practice in death penalty cases is undoubtedly related to the flexible and evolving character of the Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. In Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (1910), the Court held that the “cruel and unusual punishments” clause “is not fastened to the obsolete, but may acquire meaning as public opinion becomes enlightened by a humane justice.” Id. at 378. In Trop, the Court reaffirmed that the clause “must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” 356 U.S. at 100. The Eighth Amendment involves nothing more, and nothing less, than evaluating whether a punishment violates human dignity. Courts around the world have wrestled with these same questions. When South Africa’s Constitutional Court decided that the death penalty was an unconstitutionally cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment, it surveyed the decisions of several foreign courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Like that Court, the South African court did not consider foreign sources to be controlling. Nevertheless, it observed that “international and foreign authorities are of value because they analyse [sic] arguments for and against the death sentence and show how courts of other jurisdictions have dealt with this vexed issue. For that reason alone they require our attention.” State v. Makwanyane, Constitutional Court of the Republic of South Africa, 1995, Case No. CCT/3/94, ¶ 34, [1995] 1 LRC 269 . The high courts of India, Lithuania, Albania, the Ukraine, and many others have likewise cited international precedent in seminal decisions relating to the administration of the death penalty. In light of this history, the practice of citing international precedent hardly seems to warrant the storm of controversy surrounding it. But whether one agrees or disagrees with the Court’s approach, a majority of the current justices favors consideration of international law. In the next few years, a number of capital cases will once again offer the Court an opportunity to look beyond U.S. borders and survey international law and the practices of foreign states. Execution of Persons Who Did Not Kill Article 6(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides that the death penalty may only be imposed for the “most serious crimes.” T he United Nations (UN) Human Rights Committee, which interprets the ICCPR’s provisions, has observed that this provision must be “read restrictively to mean that the death penalty should be a quite exceptional measure.” Human Rights Committee, General Comment 6, Art. 6 (Sixteenth session, 1982) ¶ 7; Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, U.N. Doc. HRI\GEN\1\Rev.1 at 6 (1994). In a death penalty case from Zambia, where the prisoner received a death sentence for participating in an armed robbery, the committee held that the sentence was not compatible with Article 6(2) because the petitioner’s use of firearms did not cause death or injury to any person. The UN Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty, adopted by the UN Economic and Social Council in 1984, defines “ most serious crimes” as “intentional crimes with lethal or other extremely grave consequences.” Referring to those safeguards, the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary and Arbitrary Executions has concluded that the term “intentional” should be “equated to premeditation and should be understood as deliberate intention to kill.” United Nations, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions , U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.85, 19 Nov. 1997, ¶ 13. Yet in the United States, several states authorize the death penalty for persons who are “major participants” in a felony, such as burglary or robbery, even if they never killed, intended to kill, or even contemplated that someone would be killed while committing the crime. In California and Georgia, persons may be sentenced to death for accidental killings during a felony or attempted felony. Moreover, Texas, South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and North Carolina allow for the imposition of a death sentence in some cases for the rape of a minor, even if the victim did not die. These laws will be subject to strong legal challenges in coming years, although this will not be an easy battle, as demonstrated by the recent Louisiana supreme court decision upholding a death sentence against an offender who was convicted of raping a child. Louisiana v. Kennedy, No. 05-KA-1981 ( La. May 22, 2007). Available data indicate that prosecutors rarely seek the death penalty against “non-triggermen,” and executions of these persons are few and far between. These two factors alone indicate that the imposition of the death penalty on persons who have committed nonlethal crimes may be ripe for challenge. In the event that the Supreme Court examines the issue, it is highly likely it will consider international practice. In Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982), a case involving a defendant sentenced to death under the felony-murder rule, the Court noted that international norms were “not irrelevant” to its analysis, observing that the doctrine of felony murder had been abolished in England and India, severely restricted in Canada and a number of other Commonwealth of Nations countries, and was unknown in continental Europe. Execution of the Severely Mentally Ill Although the Supreme Court has held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of the mentally incompetent, state and federal courts have routinely concluded that severely mentally ill prisoners are sufficiently competent that they may lawfully be executed. Consequently, dozens of prisoners suffering from schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and other incapacitating mental illnesses have been executed in the United States during the last ten years. In June 2007, however, the Court overturned a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, holding that the court had used an overly restrictive definition of incompetence. Panetti v. Quarterman, 127 S. Ct. 2842 (2007). This decision may encourage state and federal courts to take greater care in evaluating the mental status of those facing imminent execution, but it does not prohibit courts from sentencing severely mentally ill prisoners to death, nor does it guarantee that severely mentally ill prisoners will not be executed in the future. In Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), in which the Court struck down the execution of the mentally retarded, the Court cited an amicus curiae brief submitted by the European Union (EU) as evidence that “within the world community, the imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed by mentally retarded offenders is overwhelmingly disapproved.” Id. at 316 (citing in n.21 Brief for European Union as Amicus Curiae at 4). The current Court likely would be open to considering similar amicus briefs in a future case challenging the execution of the severely mentally ill. A substantial body of international precedent exists regarding the execution of the severely mentally ill. The UN Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty prohibit imposing the death penalty “on persons who have become insane.” In 1989, the UN Economic and Social Council expanded this protection to cover “persons suffering from . . . extremely limited mental competence, whether at the stage of sentence or execution.” United Nations Economic & Social Council, Implementation of the Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of Rights of those Facing the Death Penalty, E.S.C. Res. 1989/64, U.N. Doc. E/1989/91 (1989), at 51, ¶ 1(d).The UN Commission on Human Rights has urged countries not to impose the death penalty on persons suffering from any form of mental disabilities. And the EU has consistently asserted that executions of persons suffering from severe mental disorders “are contrary to internationally recognized human rights norms and neglect the dignity and worth of the human person.” EU Memorandum on the Death Penalty (Feb. 25, 2000), at 4, www.eurunion.org/legislat/deathpenalty/eumemorandum.htm. Racial and Geographic Disparities Arbitrariness in capital sentencing was one of the factors that led the Supreme Court to strike down existing state death penalty laws in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972). Four years later, in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), the Court’s decision to uphold the newly revised laws was based on its determination that the statutes minimized the risk of arbitrary sentencing by channeling the discretion of capital juries. But thirty years later, factors such as race and geography continue to lead to great disparities in capital sentencing. These disparities have led to a different sort of arbitrariness, one that may not be consistent with international norms. Studies have repeatedly shown that race matters when determining who is sentenced to death. It has been said that, as a statistical matter, race is more likely to affect death sentencing than smoking affects the likelihood of dying from heart disease. In Philadelphia, the odds that an offender will receive a death sentence are nearly four times higher when the defendant is black. A 2006 study confirmed that defendants’ skin color and facial features play a critical role in capital sentencing. And over the last twenty years, social scientists have repeatedly observed that capital defendants are much more likely to be sentenced to death for homicides involving white victims. Enormous geographical disparities arise as well. This derives, in part, from the lack of uniform standards to guide the discretion of state prosecutors in seeking the death penalty. Prosecutors are almost always elected officials, and their support or opposition to the death penalty in a given case is often influenced by the level of popular support for capital punishment within a given community. In San Francisco, for example, the local prosecutor never seeks the death penalty because she is morally opposed to it. In Tulare County, located in California’s conservative Central Valley, the chief prosecutor is a zealous advocate of capital punishment. As a result, two persons who commit the same crime, and who are ostensibly prosecuted under the same penal code, may be subject to two radically different punishments. Article 6(1) of the ICCPR provides that nations may not “arbitrarily” take life. The term is not defined in the text of the treaty, nor has the UN Human Rights Committee had an opportunity to elaborate on its meaning in the context of an otherwise lawfully imposed capital sentence. In evaluating “arbitrary arrest and detention,” however, that committee concluded that arbitrariness encompasses elements of inappropriateness, injustice, and lack of predictability. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, a human rights body of the Organization of American States, has found that geographic disparities in the application of the death penalty in the United States can result in a “pattern of legislative arbitrariness” whereby an offender’s death sentence depends not on the crime committed but on the location where it was committed. In Roach and Pinkerton v. United States, Case 9647, Annual Report of the IAHCR 1986–87, the Inter-American Commission concluded that such geographic disparities constituted an arbitrary deprivation of the right to life and subjected the petitioners to unequal treatment before the law in contravention of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. These sources are generally considered to be nonbinding. But that does not mean that they are not persuasive. Five justices of the Supreme Court—like many judges throughout the world—find it a worthwhile endeavor to consider international norms in evaluating whether the application of the death penalty comports with basic human dignity, whether it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, and whether it is consistent with contemporary standards of decency. As the community of nations continues to debate the pros and cons of capital punishment, the United States should take a seat at the table, listen, and learn. + Print + Feedback + + A A Advertisement + About the Magazine + Copyright Information Request Reprint Permission American Bar Association American Bar Association, Attorneys, Chicago, IL + For the Public + ABA-Approved Law Schools + Law School Accreditation + Public Education + Public Resources + Resources For + Bar Associations + Diversity + Government and Public Sector Lawyers + Judges + Law Students + Lawyers of Color + Lawyers with Disabilities + + Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Lawyers + Military Lawyers + Senior Lawyers + Solo and Small Firms + Women Lawyers + Young Lawyers + Stay Connected + Twitter + Facebook + LinkedIn + ABA Career Center + Contact Us Online Terms of Use | Code of Conduct | Privacy Policy | Your Privacy Rights | Copyright & IP Policy | Advertising & Sponsorship | © 2013 ABA, All Rights Reserved Visit CQ Press' website. Death Penalty Debate: Research Paper Topics Quick Takes on Current Debates Death Penalty Pro/Con Should capital punishment be abolished in the United States? Document from CQ Researcher "CQ Researcher offers in-depth analysis and reporting on current and controversial issues." — School Library Journal Pro Richard C. Dieter Executive Director, Death Penalty Information Center. Written for CQ Researcher, November 2010 It is past time to end the free ride that the death penalty has been given for years and start to examine it like any other government program in terms of costs and returns. Per person, the death penalty is probably one of the most expensive state programs, and it produces no measurable gain in public safety. While states were spending millions of dollars on a single capital case, the average police budget had to be cut by 7 percent this year. States are letting prisoners go early, curtailing ambulance services and closing schools. Programs that clearly benefit the safety of society are being slashed because of the budget crisis, but death penalty expenditures continue to rise. Some say you can't put a price on justice, but you can put a price on programs that actually lower crime. Cities like New York and Washington have been enormously successful in cutting murder rates without the death penalty through programs like community policing and new technologies that focus on high-crime areas. States have a choice: They can execute perhaps one person per year at a cost of $10 million, or use the same money to hire 200 police officers. The death penalty is not needed and is not regularly carried out in most of the country. Over 80 percent of our executions are in the South, mostly in a few states. Over 99 percent of murders do not result in an execution. Those cases that do end in a death sentence are often overturned and, when done over with a fair trial, frequently result in a life sentence anyway. The costs of the death penalty are not only measured in dollars spent. Executions can't be undone, and they risk innocent lives. More than 135 people have been freed from death row and exonerated since the death penalty was reinstated. The death penalty divides the community by distinguishing between “worthy” and “unworthy” victims, with the difference often falling along racial and economic lines. The selection of who lives and who dies cannot be rationally explained. Just this year, an organized-crime boss got off with time served after seven years for 11 murders, while a grandmother with a 72 I.Q. was executed. Replacing the death penalty with a maximum sentence of life in prison without parole, and using the resources saved to reduce crime, is simply a matter of responsible government. Con Kent Scheidegger Legal Director, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. Written for CQ Researcher, November 2010 The American people remain solidly in support of capital punishment. Three-quarters of the people believe it should be imposed at least as often as it is at present, according to a recent Gallup Poll, and this number has remained rock steady over the 10 years Gallup has been asking the question. The horrible murders in Connecticut of Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her daughters illustrate why. For some crimes, anything less is a gross miscarriage of justice. In addition, the preponderance of evidence supports what common sense has always told us — the death penalty has a deterrent effect and saves innocent lives when it is actually enforced. The studies showing deterrence have been criticized, but the criticisms have been answered, and their conclusion still stands. Having failed to convince the people of their position on grounds of justice, the opponents of the death penalty are now resorting to a cost argument. The death penalty takes so long and costs so much for the few executions actually carried out, the argument goes, that we should simply throw in the towel and give up, sacrificing justice to expediency. The argument assumes that long delays and exorbitant costs are an inherent part of the death penalty. They are not. Much of the delay can be eliminated with the proper reforms, and much of the cost can be cut at the same time. For example, John Allen Muhammad, the D.C. Sniper, was executed less than six years from the date of sentence. That is not uncommon in Virginia, a state that has taken reform of its death penalty reviews seriously. Capital cases are complex, to be sure, but this case was as complex as they come, and it was thoroughly reviewed in a quarter of the time a capital case takes in California. Most of the delay and expense reviewing capital cases has nothing to do with questions of actual guilt or innocence. It is the choice of sentence for a clearly guilty murderer that is litigated over and over in court after court. We can eliminate much expense and delay by having only one full review for the penalty and limiting all further reviews to claims with a substantial bearing on actual innocence. As President Bill Clinton said in a different context many years ago, “Mend it; don't end it.” __________________________________________________________________ Document Citation Jost, K. (2010, November 19). Death penalty debates. CQ Researcher, 20, 965-988. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2010111 906 Buy the PDF Capital Punishment I. Introduction Capital Punishment, legal infliction of death as a penalty for violating criminal law. Throughout history people have been put to death for various forms of wrongdoing. Methods of execution have included such practices as crucifixion, stoning, drowning, burning at the stake, impaling, and beheading. Today capital punishment is typically accomplished by lethal gas or injection, electrocution, hanging, or shooting. [CapitalPunishmentElectrcChr.jpg] The death penalty is the most controversial penal practice in the modern world. Other harsh, physical forms of criminal punishment–referred to as corporal punishment–have generally been eliminated in modern times as uncivilized and unnecessary. In the majority of countries, contemporary methods of punishment–such as imprisonment or fines–no longer involve the infliction of physical pain (see Corporal Punishment). Although imprisonment and fines are universally recognized as necessary to the control of crime, the nations of the world are split on the issue of capital punishment. About 80 nations have abolished the death penalty and an almost equal number of nations (most of which are developing countries) retain it. The trend in most industrialized nations has been to first stop executing prisoners and then to substitute long terms of imprisonment for death as the most severe of all criminal penalties. The United States is an important exception to this trend. The federal government and a majority of U.S. states provide for the death penalty, and from 50 to 75 executions occur each year throughout the United States. II. The Death Penalty Debate The practice of capital punishment is as old as government itself. For most of history, it has not been considered controversial. Since ancient times most governments have punished a wide variety of crimes by death and have conducted executions as a routine part of the administration of criminal law. However, in the mid-18th century, social commentators in Europe began to emphasize the worth of the individual and to criticize government practices they considered unjust, including capital punishment. The controversy and debate over whether governments should utilize the death penalty continue today. The first significant movement to abolish the death penalty began during the era known as the Age of Enlightenment. In 1764 Italian jurist and philosopher Cesare Beccaria published Tratto dei delitti e delle pene (1764; translated as Essay on Crimes and Punishments, 1880). Many consider this influential work the leading document in the early campaign against capital punishment. Other individuals who campaigned against executions during this period include French authors Voltaire and Denis Diderot, British philosophers David Hume and Adam Smith, and political theorist Thomas Paine in the United States. Critics of capital punishment contend that it is brutal and degrading, while supporters consider it a necessary form of retribution (revenge) for terrible crimes. Those who advocate the death penalty assert that it is a uniquely effective punishment that deters crime. However, advocates and opponents of the death penalty dispute the proper interpretation of statistical analyses of its deterrent effect. Opponents of capital punishment see the death penalty as a human rights issue involving the proper limits of governmental power. In contrast, those who want governments to continue to execute tend to regard capital punishment as an issue of criminal justice policy. Because of these alternative viewpoints, there is a profound difference of opinion not only about what is the right answer on capital punishment, but about what type of question is being asked when the death penalty becomes a public issue. A. Brutality Early opponents of capital punishment objected to its brutality. Executions were public spectacles involving cruel methods. In addition, capital punishment was not reserved solely for the most serious crimes. Death was the penalty for a variety of minor offenses. The allegations of brutality inspired two different responses by those who supported executions. First, advocates contended that capital punishment was necessary for the safety of other citizens and therefore not gratuitous. Second, death penalty supporters sought to remove some of the most visibly gruesome aspects of execution. Executions that had been open to the public were relocated behind closed doors. Later, governments replaced traditional methods of causing death–such as hanging–with what were regarded as more modern methods, such as electrocution and poison gas. The search for less brutal means of inflicting death continues to recent times. In 1977 Oklahoma became the first U.S. state to authorize execution by lethal injection–the administration of fatal amounts of fast-acting drugs and chemicals. Lethal injection is now the preferred method of execution in the majority of U.S. states. However, modern opponents of capital punishment contend that sterilized and depersonalized methods of execution do not eliminate the brutality of the penalty. B. Dignity In the debate about execution and human dignity, supporters and opponents of the death penalty have found very little common ground. Opponents of capital punishment assert that it is degrading to the humanity of the person punished. Since the 18th century, those who wish to abolish the death penalty have stressed the significance of requiring governments to recognize the importance of each individual. However, supporters of capital punishment see nothing wrong with governments deliberately killing terrible people who commit terrible crimes. Therefore, they see no need to limit governmental power in this area. C. Effectiveness Early opponents of capital punishment also argued that inflicting death was not necessary to control crime and properly punish wrongdoers. Instead, alternative punishment–such as imprisonment–could effectively isolate criminals from the community, deter other potential offenders from committing offenses, and express the community's condemnation of those who break its laws. In his Essay on Crimes and Punishments, Beccaria asserted that the certainty of punishment, rather than its severity, was a more effective deterrent. Supporters of capital punishment countered that the ultimate penalty of death was necessary for the punishment of terrible crimes because it provided the most complete retribution and condemnation. Furthermore, they argued that the threat of execution was a unique deterrent. Death penalty supporters contended that capital punishment self-evidently prevents more crime because death is so much more feared than mere restrictions on one's liberty. Supporters and opponents of capital punishment still debate its effectiveness. Social scientists have collected statistical data on trends in homicide before and after jurisdictions have abolished capital punishment. They have also compared homicide rates in places with and without the death penalty. The great majority of these statistical comparisons indicate that the presence or absence of capital punishment or executions does not visibly influence the rate of homicide. Opponents of capital punishment maintain that these studies refute the argument that the death penalty deters crime. Many capital punishment opponents consider the deterrence argument fully negated and no longer part of the debate. However, supporters of the death penalty dispute that interpretation of the statistical analyses of deterrent effect. Capital punishment advocates note that because the death penalty is reserved for the most aggravated murders, the deterrent effect of capital punishment on such crimes may not be apparent in data on homicide rates in general. Supporters also urge that the conflicting results of various studies indicate that the deterrent effect of the death penalty cannot not be proven or disproven with any certainty. They maintain that in the absence of conclusive proof that the threat of execution might not save some people from being killed, capital punishment should be retained. D. Human Rights A unique facet of the modern debate about capital punishment is the characterization of the death penalty as a human rights issue, rather than a debate about the proper punishment of criminals. Modern opposition to the death penalty is seen as a reaction to the political history of the 20th century, most notably the Holocaust–the systematic mass killing of Jews and others during World War II (1939-1945). All the major nations in Western Europe utilized capital punishment prior to World War II. After the defeat of the National Socialist (Nazi) and Fascist governments of Germany and Italy, those two nations became the first major powers in Europe to abolish capital punishment. The postwar movement to end capital punishment, beginning in Italy and Germany and then spreading, represented a reaction to totalitarian forms of government that systematically violated the rights of the individual (see Totalitarianism). The human rights focus on the death penalty has continued, especially in settings of dramatic political change. When people view capital punishment as a human rights issue, countries that are becoming more democratic have been eager to abolish the death penalty, which they associate with the former regime and its abuses of power. For example, a number of former Communist nations abolished capital punishment shortly after the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1991. Similarly, the multiracial government of South Africa formed in 1994 quickly outlawed a death penalty many associated with apartheid, the official policy of racial segregation that had been in place since the late 1940s. III. World Trends For most of recorded history, capital punishment was available to every government for especially serious crimes and often for a great variety of less serious offenses. The term felony, which today signifies all serious crime, was the traditional classification in England for crimes punishable by death. Since the 18th century, the long-term trend in nations of Western Europe and North and South America has been a reduction of the number of capital crimes (criminal offenses punishable by death) and the execution of fewer criminals. A. Early Efforts Against the Death Penalty Some distinctive doctrines in criminal law originated in efforts to restrict the number of capital crimes and executions. For instance, in the late 18th century, when all murder in the United States was punishable by death, Pennsylvania pioneered in dividing murder into two categories. The state enacted laws that authorized punishment of first-degree murder by death, while second-degree murder was punishable by imprisonment only. Elsewhere, penal codes uniformly required death for certain serious crimes. In these jurisdictions, discretionary powers to commute death sentences gradually expanded. (A commutation substitutes a lesser penalty for a more severe one–for example, replacing execution with a life sentence.) Today in many nations, including Turkey and Japan, the death penalty remains legal but the number of executions has declined over time. Although many jurisdictions limited imposition of the death penalty, no government had formally abolished capital punishment until Michigan did so in 1846. Within 20 years Venezuela (1863) and Portugal (1867) had formally eliminated the practice as well. By the beginning of the 20th century the death sentence had been abolished in a handful of nations, such as Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Norway, and The Netherlands. Although not formally eliminated, it had fallen into disuse in many others, including Brazil, Cape Verde, Iceland, Monaco, and Panama. B. After World War II The defeat of the Axis powers provided a foundation for the elimination of the death penalty in Western Europe. Some of the nations involved in the war saw abolition of capital punishment as a way to disassociate themselves from the atrocities that had taken place. Italy formally abolished the death penalty in 1947 and the Federal Republic of Germany did so in 1949. The British government instituted a Royal Commission to study capital punishment in 1950 and abolished the death penalty in 1965. (Northern Ireland did not abolish capital punishment until 1973.) By the early 1980s every major country in Europe had stopped executing criminals. Coincident with this trend in Western Europe, many countries belonging to the Commonwealth of Nations, an association of countries formerly affiliated with the British Empire, eliminated capital punishment. For instance, Canada conducted its last execution in 1962 and abolished the death penalty in 1976. New Zealand held its last execution in 1957 and Australia stopped executing criminals ten years later. A similar burst of abolitionist activity coincided with the breakup of the Soviet Union. East Germany, the Czech Republic, and Romania all outlawed capital punishment between 1987 and 1990. Throughout the former Communist countries, abolition of the death penalty was a political act far removed from the usual domain of criminal justice policy-making. Eliminating the death penalty was one of many ways the citizens of these countries rejected unlimited state power over individual life. For example, in Romania the overthrow of dictator Nicolae Ceausescu was followed by his execution and that of members of his family. Shortly thereafter, the new government abolished capital punishment, which was associated with Ceausescu's brutal, tyrannical rule. C. Current Status By the late 1990s, for the first time in history, the world's nations were almost evenly divided with respect to capital punishment. As of 2000, 72 countries no longer authorized the penalty of death for any crimes. Another 13 countries authorized capital punishment only for exceptional crimes, such as crimes under military law and crimes committed in exceptional circumstances, such as during wartime. Amnesty International, a private organization working to abolish the death penalty, characterizes 23 other nations as "de facto abolitionist" because they have not conducted an execution in at least a decade or have made an international commitment not to carry out executions. In 2000, 87 nations authorized the death penalty for some crimes. Typically, capital punishment is reserved for individuals who commit the most violent or serious crimes, such as murder and treason. However, some governments authorize capital punishment for nonviolent or nonfatal crimes. For example, in Libya importing alcohol and trading in foreign currency are capital crimes, and in the United States large-scale drug trafficking is punishable by death. Although the number of nations with and without capital punishment is almost equal, there are definite patterns by region and by level of economic development. None of the countries in Western Europe utilize capital punishment, nor do most countries in South America. Asian countries and Islamic nations tend to practice capital punishment. The majority of countries in Africa also authorize the death penalty. In general, industrial democracies have abolished the death penalty, while nonindustrialized nations are much more likely to retain capital punishment. Only two advanced industrial democracies, the United States and Japan, retain the death penalty. A number of newly industrialized Asian nations, such as South Korea, also practice capital punishment. Dictatorships and other forms of totalitarian governments tend to be highly active in conducting executions. Although the trend has been that fewer countries allow executions, the worldwide trend in the number of executions conducted cannot be reliably established. According to Amnesty International, a total of 1,813 prisoners were executed in 31 countries in 1999. Five nations–China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the United States–conducted 85 percent of all these executions. However, information about executions is somewhat unreliable because not all executions are reported and not all reported executions can be confirmed. The worldwide trend toward abolition of capital punishment will likely continue. Among industrialized nations, those that have abolished the death penalty have shown no tendency to reverse this policy, and transnational agreements in Western Europe now support abolition of capital punishment. Only major political instability could be expected to reverse the trend in Europe, Canada, and South America. Among nations that have retained capital punishment, pressure to reduce or eliminate the death penalty appears to be increasing. China and the Islamic nations of Asia and the Middle East are likely to continue executions. IV. Capital Punishment in the United States The United States stands apart from the general trends on capital punishment. It is the only Western industrialized nation where executions still take place. Furthermore, it is the only nation that combines frequent executions with a highly developed legal system characterized by respect for individual rights. Many public opinion polls indicate that capital punishment enjoys significant support in the United States. Nonetheless, it remains a highly controversial and hotly contested issue. Opponents even question whether a high level of support actually exists for the death penalty. They note that public-approval ratings of capital punishment as a preferred penalty decline when the alternative punishment is a "true" life sentence–that is, life imprisonment with no possibility of release. A. Distribution of Authority The United States has a federal system of government, in which power is divided between a central (national) authority and smaller local units of government (see Federalism). Federal law provides the death penalty for more than 40 crimes, including treason, various forms of aggravated murder, and large-scale drug trafficking. However, the federal government has conducted no executions since 1963. Fewer than 1 percent of the persons presently sentenced to death are under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Capital punishment in the United States, therefore, is primarily a matter of state law and practice. In the U.S. system, the states possess the primary responsibility for defining crimes and enforcing criminal law. The federal government provides basic rules, including rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, but each state chooses its own criminal penalties. This basic arrangement holds for the death penalty as well. Both law and practice regarding the death penalty vary widely in the 50 states. Twelve states do not have a death penalty. The most serious form of punishment in such states is life imprisonment, sometimes without the possibility of parole. The other 38 states all provide that some forms of aggravated murder can be punished with death. Several states also authorize capital punishment for the nonlethal offenses of drug trafficking, hijacking, treason, and sexual assault. However, in 1999 all persons under sentence of death in the United States had been convicted of some form of murder. B. Capital Punishment and the Constitution For the first 150 years of U.S. history, the federal government played a minor role in setting policy toward the death penalty. The majority of states provided capital punishment and executions were common until the late 1950s. Some states abolished capital punishment at their own initiative, beginning with Michigan in the late 1840s. By 1965, 13 states had no death penalty, and the number of executions in those states that retained capital punishment laws had drifted downward from 199 in 1935 to 7. The reduction in executions in the United States during the 1940s and 1950s paralleled declines that were taking place in Europe and countries formerly affiliated with Britain. By the mid-1960s, a growing debate over abolition of capital punishment had shifted from state legislatures to the federal courts. Opponents of the death penalty initiated a series of lawsuits contending that the death penalty as administered in the United States violated several amendments to the U.S. Constitution. These cases alleged that capital punishment violated the 14th Amendment, which prohibits the government from depriving citizens of life, liberty, or property without "due process of law," as well as the 8th Amendment, which forbids cruel and unusual punishments. In the 1972 decision of Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that allowing a jury unlimited discretion to choose between a death sentence and a prison sentence for a convicted criminal constituted cruel and unusual punishment. This ruling invalidated every state death penalty statute, because all of the states that retained capital punishment in 1972 used a standardless system, in which the jury received no guidance in deciding sentences. As a result, an official moratorium on executions was initiated that year and continued until 1976. Following the Furman decision, states quickly passed new death penalty legislation. The new statutes still gave juries discretion to choose between prison and the death sentence. However, the laws also restricted the types of murder for which the death penalty could be imposed. In addition, the new statutes provided instructions on factors that judges and juries should take into account when deciding between prison and death. In the 1976 case of Gregg v. Georgia the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such systems of guided discretion did not violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Soon after that case was decided, 35 states had passed laws providing systems of guided discretion in death penalty cases. The first execution under these laws was that of Gary Gilmore by firing squad in Utah in 1977. Gilmore's execution launched the modern era of capital punishment in the United States. C. Current Conditions The current U.S. system of capital punishment differs from that of the pre-1972 era because many federal constitutional standards must now be obeyed in death penalty cases. For example, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Eighth Amendment forbids the execution of defendants who, due to mental illness, are not capable of understanding the meaning of their pending execution. In the 1988 case of Thompson v. Oklahoma, the Court rejected an attempt to impose the death penalty on an individual who was under the age of 16 at the time he committed his crime. The Court has also indicated that only individuals convicted of crimes that result in a death are eligible for the death penalty. Contemporary laws that authorize capital punishment for individuals who commit offenses that do not result in death have not yet been challenged and reviewed by the Court. Since reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976, more than 600 executions have taken place in the United States. Of the 38 states that allowed capital punishment in 1999, only 29 had actually conducted an execution in the previous two decades. Very few states make executions a regular practice. Six of the 29 states that had executed criminals since 1977–Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, Texas, Virginia, and Georgia–conducted 70 percent of all the executions. Geographically, executions are highly concentrated in Southern states. In 1997 Texas put to death 37 prisoners, as many as all the rest of the states combined. Every year in the United States juries sentence between 200 and 300 criminals to death. The number of death sentences is a tiny fraction of the total number of murders that occur each year–about 1 percent. However, the number of death sentences far exceeds the number of executions. The result of this steady supply of condemned prisoners is a huge and ever-growing death row population. In 1998 about 3,500 prisoners were under death sentence in the United States. Between reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976 and the end of 1998, three women have been executed in the United States. In July 1998, 48 women remained on death row. The 74 individuals sentenced to death for crimes they committed while juveniles made up about 2 percent of the U.S. death row population in July 1998. Between 1976 and 1998, U.S. jurisdictions executed 13 offenders who were under the age of 18 when they committed their capital crimes. In February 1999 Oklahoma executed a prisoner who had committed his crimes at the age of 16, becoming the first U.S. jurisdiction to execute such an individual since 1940. D. Delay, Efficiency, and Fairness When executions do happen in the United States, they are usually conducted a decade or more after the condemned prisoner has been convicted of the capital crime. There are two reasons why a gap of many years exists between a state death penalty and an actual execution. The first is the obvious point that all legal appeals of the death sentence must be finished before an execution can take place; otherwise, the defendant's appeal would be meaningless. Consequently, imposition of the preferred punishment for the crime–death–is postponed during the appeal process. By contrast, punishment for individuals sentenced to prison rather than death need not be postponed during the appeal process. Criminals who serve their sentences while the appeal continues are subjected to their punishment simultaneously. A second factor contributing to delay between sentencing and execution is the procedural rule known as exhaustion of remedies. Under the U.S. federal system, defendants must finish all appeals in state courts before they can even begin to seek review of their convictions in the federal courts. This requirement that a prisoner first "exhaust state remedies" provides states with the opportunity to correct errors in their own courts before the federal courts step in. However, as a result of this doctrine, a defendant may wait many years before the case even begins in a federal court. Yet if the federal courts did not scrutinize cases where a defendant alleges a violation of constitutional rights, the states could enforce only those constitutional rights they wish to uphold. If the federal courts wait their turn and then provide a full inquiry, a long delay between conviction and execution will result. This long gap between crime and punishment frustrates supporters of capital punishment. In recent years the Congress of the United States has passed two separate federal laws intended to reduce the delay between sentencing and execution. These laws limit the authority of federal courts to hear appeals in death penalty cases. Critics of this attempt to curtail appellate review include the nation's largest organization of attorneys, the American Bar Association (ABA). In 1997 the ABA adopted a resolution calling upon all jurisdictions that utilize capital punishment to refrain from conducting executions until those jurisdictions had implemented certain policies to ensure that death penalty cases are administered fairly and impartially. One of the ABA's recommended policies focused on "preserving, enhancing, and streamlining state and federal courts' authority and responsibility" regarding appeals. A basic conflict between the efficiency of a criminal justice system and its fairness to accused persons lurks behind the problem of delay. Providing procedural safeguards to avoid punishment of innocent persons and ensure that even guilty persons have every chance to demonstrate errors in the process of their conviction is not the swiftest way to run a criminal justice system. Ensuring due process of law is time-consuming and expensive. Widespread public support always exists for cutting back on defendants' rights in criminal cases. After all, these rights make it more difficult to protect the community from criminals. Limiting federal court authority to hear appeals reduces delay. However, this increased efficiency comes at a price. The chance of unjust executions increases when federal judges cannot hear all claims of legal error. Reducing access to courts saves time and money but increases the likelihood of significant error. For death penalty convictions, the consequence of error is the ultimate punishment of death. E. Disparity in Application Critics of capital punishment in the United States object to perceived arbitrariness and discrepancies in its administration. Numerous studies have documented the influence of race on sentencing decisions. However, supporters and opponents provide varying opinions on the meaning of the disparity in treatment of offenders as a result of race. Those who believe the states administer the death penalty in a racially biased manner emphasize the disproportionate numbers of African Americans on death row. Critics of the application of the death penalty also note that the race of the victim provides a statistically clear determinant of whether or not a defendant receives a sentence of death or imprisonment. Thus, although about half of all murder victims in the United States are nonwhite, 80 percent of all death sentences are imposed for murders of whites. Supporters of capital punishment attribute statistical disparities in sentencing to the different circumstances surrounding the offenses. For example, supporters claim that murders of white victims more often involve a killing during the course of a robbery or other felony, an aggravating factor that makes the murderer eligible for a death sentence. Legal challenges to imposition of the death penalty based on allegations of racial discrimination have achieved little success. In the 1987 decision of McCleskey v. Kemp, the Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence of an African American man convicted in Georgia of killing a white police officer during the course of a robbery. The defendant had submitted data to the Supreme Court indicating that defendants in Georgia charged with killing white victims were more than four times as likely to receive a death sentence than those convicted of killing a nonwhite victim. In a 5-to-4 vote, the Court concluded that while the study indicated "a discrepancy that appears to correlate with race," the defendant had not clearly demonstrated that the jury in his particular case acted with discriminatory purpose. While not rejecting the validity of the statistical analysis, the Court refused to overturn a particular death sentence without evidence that the issue of race had influenced the jury in that specific case. Contributed By: Franklin E. Zimring, B.A., J.D. Professor of Law and Director of the Earl Warren Legal Institute, University of California at Berkeley. Co-author of The Citizen's Guide to Gun Control, Capital Punishment and the American Agenda and other books. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE "Capital Punishment," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2000 http://encarta.msn.com © 1997-2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. © 1993-2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. #Abolish the Death Penalty - Atom Abolish the Death Penalty - RSS Abolish the Death Penalty Abolish the Death Penalty is a blog dedicated to...well, you know. The purpose of Abolish is to tell the personal stories of crime victims and their loved ones, people on death row and their loved ones and those activists who are working toward abolition. You may, from time to time, see news articles or press releases here, but that is not the primary mission of Abolish the Death Penalty. Our mission is to put a human face on the debate over capital punishment. Monday, July 08, 2013 Warren Hill: Another Unfortunate Case for Georgia UPDATE at 3:10pm on July 18,2013: Max Blau ‏[DEL: @ :DEL] MaxBlau Judge Tusan: the Georgia law "unconstitutionally limits" [DEL: # :DEL] WarrenHill's access to courts and his Eighth Amendment rights. Looks like Warren Hill will NOT be executed tomorrow night... The state of Georgia is once again in the spotlight regarding a death penalty case which, when examined by anyone with a sense of justice, makes the Peach State start reeking of even more rotten fruit. Or perhaps a better analogy: strange fruit. No, this is not quite a lynching any more than any execution could be termed as such, but Warren Hill now faces execution on Monday, July 15. Yes, Hill is guilty of the murder which got him to death row, but we now know with certainty that his execution would be in violation of a prohibition of capital punishment for those found to have intellectual disability, which used to be referred to as “mental retardation.” [warren-lee-hill.jpg] Ironically, Georgia was the first state to prohibit the execution of the intellectually disabled. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed the execution of such people in Atkins v.Virginia. Still, Georgia scheduled Mr. Hill’s execution date despite new findings from doctors who previously testified as State experts that Mr. Hill does not have ‘mental retardation’ (the legal term still used). Earlier this year, these three doctors reviewed Mr. Hill’s case and revised their original diagnoses. Now, every doctor who has examined him agrees: Mr. Hill has mental retardation. Even so Georgia plans to move forward. Of course, the powers that be in Georgia just don’t seem to care what others think. They executed Troy Davis nearly two years ago now despite very real doubts about his guilt. More than 26 years ago, Georgia killed Warren McKleskey after the U.S. Supreme Court denied relief because doing so would have acknowledged the racism in our legal system. There’s many other cases to discuss – they are all ugly with injustice. Of course, all of this happens because the powers that be can hide in the convoluted process of the law. In April this year, a Georgia court ruled that it could not consider the new doctor findings because of procedural barriers. In fact, no court has ever considered this critical new information on its merits. With Mr. Hill days away from execution, it is unconscionable that technicalities are standing in the way of fair review of the evidence. In addition to the unanimous doctor diagnoses, Georgia courts have also repeatedly found that Mr. Hill is intellectually disabled. In 2002, and again in 2012, a Georgia state court judge affirmed that Mr. Hill is a person with mental retardation – but said that Mr. Hill did not meet Georgia’s unique standard for legally proving it – the strictest in the nation. Indeed, Georgia is the only state in the country that requires a defendant to prove mental retardation “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Now, as a result of procedural technicalities and the State’s impossibly strict burden of proof, Georgia risks executing a person with clear mental retardation. That is why Mr. Hill’s case has received extensive and diverse outpouring of support from mental health experts, intellectual disability organizations, legal experts, several of the jurors from trial, and even President Jimmy Carter and Rosalyn Carter. Notably, the family of the victim also does not wish to see Mr. Hill executed, specifically citing his intellectual disability. Executing Warren Hill would violate the U.S. Constitution and be yet another dark stain on the Georgia criminal justice system. Even conservative death penalty supporters are saying this. The courts should grant a stay of execution to ensure that the State of Georgia does not put to death a mentally retarded man. Posted by abe@abolition.org at 2:33 PM No comments: Links to this post Friday, April 15, 2011 Abolish the Death Penalty: Marie Deans - RIP Abolish the Death Penalty: Marie Deans - RIP Posted by abe@abolition.org at 10:26 PM No comments: Links to this post Marie Deans - RIP “As we were about to finish the class this young girl raised her hand and said, ‘You have changed by mind. You have got to get around everywhere, you have got to give everybody this message.’ This is our First, Big, Public...: Here we are Folks and we mean it. It is not the end of our Journey, but it is a coming home. It feels that way to me. This Journey of Hope has got to go on until we reach real justice.” --Marie Deans on the Indiana Journey of Hope - the first Journey, which was then a project of MVFR, which Marie founded in 1976. Dear Friends, Henry called a little while ago to share the news that Marie Deans died earlier this evening. R.I.P. Once details are set, I'll share those here. I know that many of you have no idea who Marie was - she's been pretty much out of the loop for a decade or more. Here's a bit... Click on the URL's to see images. For those of us who were around in the 70's, 80's, and 90's (I started in 1988 or so), this woman needs no introduction. Love her or hate her, there's no denying she made a big difference. from http://www.vadp.org/banquet.htm Marie Deans has been known as the “mother” of the anti-death penalty movement in Virginia. Since coming to Virginia in 1983, Marie has fought endlessly for legal access, more humane conditions on Virginia’s death row, and assuring legal representation for each condemned man. She provided assistance in over 220 trial level cases in Virginia, and only two of those defendants went to death row. She was part of the legal team in numerous clemency petitions, including those for Joe Giarratano, Earl Washington and Roger Coleman. She founded the Virginia Coalition on Jails and Prisons in 1983 and was forced to close its office in 1993 due to lack of funds. Having experienced the loss of her mother-in-law in 1972, Ms. Deans founded Murder Victims’ Families for Reconciliation in 1976. and from http://www.journeyofhope.org/pages/marie_deans.htm In 1990 Marie Deans and Joe Ingle were honored by the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty when they were presented the Abolitionist of the Year Award for their work with the Southern Coalition of Jails and Prisons. Marie Deans realized the need for a group for murder victims family members who were opposed to the Death Penalty after her mother-in-law Penny was killed. Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation emerged as the first organization of its kind, murder victim family members against the Death Penalty. Marie worked for many years with the Southern Coalition on Jails and Prisons before concentrating on the Virginia Coalition on Jails and Prisons. Marie Deans was one of first abolitionists of the post-Furman era movement. Marie has been a friend to many men on Virginia’s Death Row and has spent countless hours with their families around the times of their execution. 34 of Marie’s habeas clients asked her to stay with them on their deathwatches and until they were killed, and she did. The Joe Giarratano case is one of Marie’s success stories *** I did not get around to sending a note to Marie until today. She won't get it in the mail, but maybe she'll get it anyway.... Here's the part that demonstrates just one bit of how she lives on in our movement today.... Dear Marie, I am so glad to be able to send you this little hug. I hope you are comfortable. And I am glad you have some time to reflect a bit on the world of a difference YOU have made in so many lives. Marie, you inspired me in so many ways. Most notably, I can still see and hear the welcome you and Henry gave to the Virginia Journey of Hope ...From Violence to Healing in 1996, when you talked about the evolution of the name to Virginians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty. [VADP started as Virginians Against the Death Penalty, then became Virginians Against State Killing, and when the annual Quality of Life poll in Virginia started asking if people preferred executions or life imprisonment and more than 50% preferred the latter - way back in the early 1990's, then went with what Virginians wanted - the current VADP.] It was on that Journey that I was inspired to start up CUADP, and it was your experiences coupled with my own that led us to take that name – Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty. Of course, now that I’m at NCADP, CUADP has become defunct. BUT, I wonder if you know just how many others have followed in your footsteps with the “For Alternatives” motif. Let me tell you: Following Virginians…For Alternatives to the Death Penalty California Crime Victims… (and several local CA County Coalitions) California People of Faith... Citizens United… Coloradans… Floridians… (I started that one too!) Georgians… Louisiana Coalition… Missourians… New Jerseyans… New Yorkers… Oregonians… Pennsylvanians… South Dakotans… Tennesseans… Unitarian Universalists… Utahns… (I may be missing one or two) And perhaps most notable of all, the collaborative of funders [supporting] our movement calls itself FADP – Funders for Alternatives to the Death Penalty! SO, thank YOU for that. *** I then went on to share with her a little about what MVFR is up to these days so that she can know the latest with her legacy, and shared some personal updates as well. I can't remember the last time I saw Marie, but I think it was at that VADP awards banquet referenced above. In any case, we should remember our elders in this movement.... Have an excellent weekend... --abe Abraham J. Bonowitz Director of Affiliate Support National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty www.ncadp.org abe@ncadp.org 202-331-4090 - Office 561-371-5204 - Mobile Posted by abe@abolition.org at 10:23 PM No comments: Links to this post Friday, October 09, 2009 World Day Against the Death Penalty "Shouting from the Rooftops" on World Day Against the Death Penalty October 8, 2009 October 10th marks the sixth anniversary of World Day Against the Death Penalty, an event begun by the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty to urge countries around the world that still implement capital punishment to abolish it. We hope you can join us in observing World Day Against the Death Penalty this year by joining our “Shouting from the Rooftops” campaign. Read the article about Cameron Todd Willingham and share it with friends; write letters to the editors of your local newspapers, using our online tool; and make a video of yourself and your friends and family shouting from rooftops about Cameron’s case and calling for an end to the death penalty. Each year, World Day has a theme, and this year the focus is on educating youth between 14 and 18. The goal is to teach young people – who will be the politicians, defendants, judges, attorneys and citizens of the future – that the death penalty is an attack on basic human rights. So when you do something especially meaningful this World Day Against the Death Penalty by “Shouting from the Rooftops,” don’t forget to involve your family members and friends! Posted by abe@abolition.org at 3:37 PM No comments: Links to this post Wednesday, September 23, 2009 Shouting from the Rooftops! Posted by abe@abolition.org at 1:52 AM No comments: Links to this post Tuesday, March 31, 2009 Cesar E. Chavez... The Path to Nonviolence On what would have been his 82nd Birthday, NCADP presents this guest commentary about Cesar E. Chavez, by Magdaleno Leno Rose-Avila, NCADP's Death Penalty Abolitionist of the Year, 1994. Cesar E. Chavez A Clear Voice Against Violence As a community and farm worker organizer early in his career, Cesar E. Chavez studied Gandhi, King and others, building a solid foundation for his nonviolent political/moral position. When I first met Cesar I was not impressed by either his speaking style or his being a vegetarian. And he was far too religious for me. I did not understand how this humble man with an eighth grade education could plan to lead a revolution believing in and practicing nonviolence. I was in my twenties and I wanted action… a revolution like Che’s. I wanted to confront those who did violence to our community with a taste of their own violence… In later years I learned that his position of nonviolence was a wonderful place from which to respect all life - even the lives of those who hate you and what you stand for. On the picket lines Cesar would not let us respond with swear words and name calling to those who would call us by the worst of names. Instead he would make us shout to them in the following manner. BROTHERS, SISTERS JOIN US … JOIN THE STRIKE … WE DON’T WANT TO HARM YOU… WE MUST ALL WORK TOGETHER FOR A BETTER LIFE FOR ALL FARMWORKERS… So it was this calling of our enemy brother and sister that made us value their lives as much as we valued our own. When some of our strikers were killed by agents of the growers Cesar instead lead us in prayer, forgiveness and a re-dedication to our strike, our boycott and our commitment to non-violence. Cesar Chavez, and co-founder of the UNITED FARM WORKERS UNION Dolores Huerta, were always voices to stand up against violence including the penalty of death. Today Dolores continues to raise her voice against this act of violence. Cesar’s example turned the minds and hearts of young militants like me and many others from a road filled with revenge to one of forgiveness and reconciliation. At first it was hard to be non-violent but as the years and tests passed, I personally found a new freedom in forgiving and by loving my enemies. It is when you truly embrace non violence that you can find a peace and liberation that can help others to heal and live full lives. Cesar today would have called Governor Bill Richardson and would have thanked him for abolishing the death penalty in New Mexico. And then would have asked him to make calls to convince the other governors. He, Dolores, the Filipinos and others at the core of this non-violent movement encouraged that we all become strong and dedicated voices in our communities, for non-violence… And yes we can overcome violence and change our world for the better. We can, and we will abolish the death penalty. SI SE PUEDE ... YES WE CAN DREAM A BETTER WORLD. Written by Magdaleno Leno Rose-Avila Former United Farm Workers Union Organizer Founding Executive Director Cesar E. Chavez Foundation Executive Director Social Justice Fund NW Posted by abe@abolition.org at 8:30 AM No comments: Links to this post Friday, March 27, 2009 Montana Takes Another Step On Wednesday the Montana House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the death penalty repeal bill in that state. Click here for coverage from the Helena Independent Record. The committee is expected to vote next week. The Montana Standard is running the death penalty as its Question of the Week. Go to that site, scroll down to find it on the right, and Vote for Abolition! And visit the Montana Abolition Coalition for more details. Urge anyone you know who lives in Montana to be sure to sign up on that site and to take any actions requested of Montana residents - such as contacting MT State Reps ASAP! Go Montana! Posted by abe@abolition.org at 12:13 PM No comments: Links to this post Wednesday, March 18, 2009 Abolition - It's Just Common Sense Last Friday, March 13, 2009, as I sat in the gallery of the New Mexico Senate listening to that body debate whether to pass a bill to repeal New Mexico’s death penalty statute, I felt very much like I had been there before. In fact, 15 months ago, December 13, 2007 I was in the gallery of the New Jersey Assembly listening to pretty much the same debate. As in New Jersey, New Mexico’s legislature sent the bill to the Governor’s desk, and today, Governor Richardson signed the bill. This makes New Mexico only the second state since 1965 to legislatively repeal its death penalty. As a person who used to support the death penalty who is now working to abolish it, I feel both proud and privileged to have so far been a part of two successful repeal campaigns. It validates my own experience, clearly demonstrating that the more you know about the death penalty, the less you like it. I find validation in the years of daily grind, working on the front lines to sow and tend to the seeds of abolition, and helping other individuals and groups do so as effectively as possible. And it validates my experience that no one can do this alone – it takes a team of many, and it takes time. To me, this victory comes not as a surprise, but with a very happy sigh of relief. Moving any bill through a legislature and all the way to an executive signature is no small feat. I’m relieved that we did it *this year*. I will not be surprised to see at least one more legislative repeal in another state this year, and I will not be surprised when we finish this job across this country sometime in the next decade or two. We will finish this struggle. We will finish it just as long as leaders like the legislators who sponsored and pushed these bills in New Jersey and New Mexico continue to step forward. We will finish this struggle as long as people of faith and people of good conscience – regular people making themselves heard - continue to raise their voices in concert with all those who participated with the New Mexico Coalition to Repeal the Death Penalty and its many coalition partners. We will finish this struggle as long as scholars continue to uncover the facts about the failures of the system. We will finish this struggle as long as more and more members of the law enforcement community continue to step up and show us how it is wrong and does not work as a tool to fight crime. We will finish this struggle as long as “Voices of Experience” like murder victim family members and survivors of wrongful conviction put an undeniable face on this issue. We will finish this struggle because it is the common sense thing to do. Our challenge is to help more people understand why the death penalty is a bad public policy, and give greater backing to legislators and governors willing to stand up for what is right. Our challenge is to support the people and organizations doing this work day in and day out. Our challenge is make and keep a promise to leave this world a better place for our children by working to abolish the death penalty in the United States and worldwide. It’s just common sense. Today is Abolition Day in New Mexico – March 18, 2009. I am keeping my promise. Posted by abe@abolition.org at 8:20 PM No comments: Links to this post Governor Richardson's Press Release For Immediate Release Contact: Gilbert Gallegos March 18, 2009 505.476.2217 Governor Bill Richardson Signs Repeal of the Death Penalty SANTA FE – Governor Bill Richardson today signed House Bill 285, Repeal of the Death Penalty. The Governor’s remarks follow: Today marks the end of a long, personal journey for me and the issue of the death penalty. Throughout my adult life, I have been a firm believer in the death penalty as a just punishment – in very rare instances, and only for the most heinous crimes. I still believe that. But six years ago, when I took office as Governor of the State of New Mexico, I started to challenge my own thinking on the death penalty. The issue became more real to me because I knew the day would come when one of two things might happen: I would either have to take action on legislation to repeal the death penalty, or more daunting, I might have to sign someone’s death warrant. I’ll be honest. The prospect of either decision was extremely troubling. But I was elected by the people of New Mexico to make just this type of decision. So, like many of the supporters who took the time to meet with me this week, I have believed the death penalty can serve as a deterrent to some who might consider murdering a law enforcement officer, a corrections officer, a witness to a crime or kidnapping and murdering a child. However, people continue to commit terrible crimes even in the face of the death penalty and responsible people on both sides of the debate disagree – strongly – on this issue. But what we cannot disagree on is the finality of this ultimate punishment. Once a conclusive decision has been made and executed, it cannot be reversed. And it is in consideration of this, that I have made my decision. I have decided to sign legislation that repeals the death penalty in the state of New Mexico. Regardless of my personal opinion about the death penalty, I do not have confidence in the criminal justice system as it currently operates to be the final arbiter when it comes to who lives and who dies for their crime. If the State is going to undertake this awesome responsibility, the system to impose this ultimate penalty must be perfect and can never be wrong. But the reality is the system is not perfect – far from it. The system is inherently defective. DNA testing has proven that. Innocent people have been put on death row all across the country. Even with advances in DNA and other forensic evidence technologies, we can’t be 100- percent sure that only the truly guilty are convicted of capital crimes. Evidence, including DNA evidence, can be manipulated. Prosecutors can still abuse their powers. We cannot ensure competent defense counsel for all defendants. The sad truth is the wrong person can still be convicted in this day and age, and in cases where that conviction carries with it the ultimate sanction, we must have ultimate confidence – I would say certitude – that the system is without flaw or prejudice. Unfortunately, this is demonstrably not the case. And it bothers me greatly that minorities are overrepresented in the prison population and on death row. I have to say that all of the law enforcement officers, and especially the parents and spouses of murder victims, made compelling arguments to keep the death penalty. I respect their opinions and have taken their experiences to heart -- which is why I struggled – even today – before making my final decision. Yes, the death penalty is a tool for law enforcement. But it’s not the only tool. For some would-be criminals, the death penalty may be a deterrent. But it’s not, and never will be, for many, many others. While today’s focus will be on the repeal of the death penalty, I want to make clear that this bill I’m signing actually makes New Mexico safer. With my signature, we now have the option of sentencing the worst criminals to life in prison without the possibility of parole. They will never get out of prison. Faced with the reality that our system for imposing the death penalty can never be perfect, my conscience compels me to replace the death penalty with a solution that keeps society safe. The bill I am signing today, which was courageously carried for so many years by Representative Gail Chasey, replaces the death penalty with true life without the possibility of parole – a sentence that ensures violent criminals are locked away from society forever, yet can be undone if an innocent person is wrongfully convicted. More than 130 death row inmates have been exonerated in the past 10 years in this country, including four New Mexicans – a fact I cannot ignore. From an international human rights perspective, there is no reason the United States should be behind the rest of the world on this issue. Many of the countries that continue to support and use the death penalty are also the most repressive nations in the world. That’s not something to be proud of. In a society which values individual life and liberty above all else, where justice and not vengeance is the singular guiding principle of our system of criminal law, the potential for wrongful conviction and, God forbid, execution of an innocent person stands as anathema to our very sensibilities as human beings. That is why I’m signing this bill into law. #30# Posted by abe@abolition.org at 8:15 PM No comments: Links to this post Albuquerque Journal On-Line Poll Says REPEAL! The Albuquerque Journal started this poll sometime before midnight on the evening of March 16, 2009. On-line polls are notoriously unscientific - a measure of people who happen upon them and care to express their opinion. To its credit, the Journal put in a place a protection that allows only one vote per computer. There appears to be strong interest in the poll, and the percentages have been pretty steady since about 5pm on March 17. This snapshot of the poll results was grabbed at about 10:40am on March 18. Amazingly, the above unscientific poll results mirror somewhat those of a scientific poll of likely New Mexico voters conducted by the New Mexico firm, Research & Polling, INC., completed in December, 2008. The 1st question below includes the concept of restitution combined with life in prison, and the 2nd shows simple preferences for life imprisonment without the concept of a restitution program. And would you support or oppose replacing the death penalty with a sentence of life without possibility of parole for people convicted of murder, plus restitution to the victim's family, meaning the prisoner would work in prison to pay compensation to the family of the murder victim? Random Sample 64% Support* 29% Oppose 6% Don’t know/won’t say Would you support or oppose replacing the death penalty with a sentence of life without possibility of parole for people convicted of murder, meaning the person convicted would never be released from prison for the rest of his or her life? Statewide Random Sample 53% Support 37% Oppose 10% Don’t know/won’t say Posted by abe@abolition.org at 9:49 AM No comments: Links to this post In New Mexico, The People Speak! For Immediate Release Contact: Caitlin Kelleher March 17, 2009 505.476.2299 Governor Bill Richardson Continues to Hear from New Mexicans Today on HB 285 SANTA FE – Governor Bill Richardson continues to hear from New Mexicans about a bill to repeal the death penalty and today released details on the more than 9,400 calls, emails and walk-ins he’s received on the issue. The Governor has heard from a total of 9,413 constituents who voiced their opinion on House Bill 285. Of those, 7169 were FOR the repeal of the death penalty and 2244 were AGAINST. After lawmakers passed the bill on Friday, the Governor urged New Mexicans to call and email him on their thoughts of the bill. The Governor then met with more than 100 New Mexicans at his office on Monday, many of which had concerns either pro or con, the repeal of the death penalty. The Governor has until midnight on Wednesday, March 18^th to take action on HB 285. ## Caitlin Kelleher Media Coordinator for Governor Richardson Office of the Governor State Capitol, Suite 400 Santa Fe, NM office 505.476.2299| cell 505.795.2480 Posted by abe@abolition.org at 9:11 AM No comments: Links to this post Older Posts Home Subscribe to: Posts (Atom) Blog Archive * 2013 (1) + July (1) o Warren Hill: Another Unfortunate Case for Georgia * 2011 (2) + April (2) * 2009 (16) + October (1) + September (1) + March (7) + February (7) * 2008 (66) + November (1) + October (3) + August (3) + July (1) + June (8) + May (4) + April (9) + March (8) + February (14) + January (15) * 2007 (220) + December (32) + November (18) + October (19) + September (22) + August (18) + July (16) + June (15) + May (15) + April (18) + March (19) + February (12) + January (16) * 2006 (206) + December (16) + November (6) + October (14) + September (15) + August (15) + July (17) + June (22) + May (22) + April (17) + March (16) + February (20) + January (26) * 2005 (237) + December (22) + November (28) + October (21) + September (21) + August (20) + July (17) + June (21) + May (18) + April (25) + March (20) + February (11) + January (13) * 2004 (131) + December (27) + November (16) + October (13) + September (13) + August (26) + July (17) + June (19) Contributors * David Elliot * JNobs * The Central Pennsylvania Abolitionist * karl * abe@abolition.org Links * National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty * Anti-Death Penalty Information * Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty * Journey of Hope * Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights * Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation * Network for Justice * Quixote Center / Equal Justice USA * Death Penalty Information Center Simple template. Powered by Blogger. #National Post | News » Tide may be turning for U.S. capital punishment as recent votes reveal states divided on life and death issue Comments Feed Four men allegedly kept captive in bare Houston ‘dungeon,’ malnourished and ‘almost invalids’ Rehtaeh Parsons law: Report suggests it should be illegal to distribute intimate photos of someone without their consent alternate alternate National Post | News WordPress.com [;loc=top;sz=728x90,960x86,970x250;tile=1;blog=world;nk=print;pr=np;ck= news;sck=world;aid=339945105;author=jbrean;cinf=united-states;cinf=jame s-liebman;cinf=capital-punishment;cinf=carlos-deluna;cinf=dzhokhar-tsar naev;tag=kimberly-lagayle-mccarthy;page=story;dcopt=ist;ord=971776?] National Post IFRAME: //www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com% 2Fnationalpost&send=false&layout=button_count&width=150&show_faces=fals e&action=like&colorscheme=light&font=arial&height=21 * Home * Financial Post * News * Comment * Personal Finance * Investing * Tech * Sports * Arts * Life * Health * Homes * Driving * Classifieds * Subscribe * News * World * Israel & The Middle East [;loc=top;sz=120x90;tile=2;blog=world;nk=print;pr=np;ck=news;sck=world; aid=339945105;author=jbrean;cinf=united-states;cinf=james-liebman;cinf= capital-punishment;cinf=carlos-deluna;cinf=dzhokhar-tsarnaev;tag=kimber ly-lagayle-mccarthy;page=story;ord=971776?] World TRENDINGIce storm | BlackBerry | Ashley Smith | Rob Ford | Lotto 6/49 numbers | Holiday Gift Guide | Canada Post | Mandela | Nigella Lawson | Mike Duffy | Nigel Wright | UFC Tide may be turning for U.S. capital punishment as recent votes reveal states divided on life and death issue [e9bf315d6af23cb2ad26d622d9eb0e5a?s=34&d=mm] Joseph Brean | July 19, 2013 3:33 PM ET More from Joseph Brean | @JosephBrean Carlos DeLuna was executed allegedly in place of someone else in Texas in 1989, a report out May 15, 2012 says. * * Twitter * Google+ * LinkedIn * Email * Comments * More * Tumblr * Pinterest * Reddit * Digg * FarkIt * StumbleUpon Lawyers for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev applied this week to add a death penalty expert to his defence team, in expectation the United States will seek capital punishment for the accused Boston Marathon terrorist. Prosecutors in Ohio, meanwhile, are still deciding whether to seek the same for Cleveland kidnapper Ariel Castro. Texas last month gave a lethal dose of pentobarbital to Kimberly Lagayle McCarthy, 52, for the 1997 robbery and murder of her neighbour, Dorothy Booth, 71, a retired psychology professor. The crime was so brutal that, after asking for a cup of sugar, McCarthy attacked Ms. Booth with a knife and a candelabra, and cut off her finger to steal her wedding ring. HO / AFP / Getty Images The crack addict and former wife of a founder of the radical New Black Panther Party was suspected in two other deaths. She became the 500th person to be executed in Texas since 1982 (the 502nd was carried out Thursday), six years after the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment after a four-year legal moratorium. Since then, America has become an outlier among industrialized nations: it is the only executioner in the New World, alone with Japan in the Group of Seven and Belarus in the Organization for Security & Cooperation in Europe. Public support for capital punishment remains strong, solidly 60% in both the U.S. and Canada, which abolished it in 1976, and came within two dozen House of Commons votes of reinstating it in 1987. But there are signs this modern period of American justice might not last. In March, Maryland became the most recent of five states in six years to abolish capital punishment. What these votes have revealed is a country formally divided, state against state, on a life and death issue. AP Photo /Tony Dejak Virginia, Ohio and national leader Texas are lined up against New York, New Mexico and Michigan, with California unsure where to stand, as it curiously registers death sentences but does not carry them out. Only nine states used it in 2012. It was 13 the year before. The national tally is 32 with, 18 without, and closing. “I think what’s taking place is a gradual movement away from the death penalty that now has, by almost any measure, made it into an institution used by a minority of the population in a minority of the counties,” said James Liebman, professor of law at Columbia Law School in New York. National Post Graphics “But the counties that are using it are sticking to it, and the question really is how long the majority in the U.S. will continue to be prepared to subsidize the use of the penalty by the minority.” About half of Americans live in a jurisdiction that does not execute. Just one county in 10 returned even a single death sentence over a given year, and only 1% did so at a rate of more than one a year, according to research by Robert Smith, assistant professor of law at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. What this reflects is the geographical pattern of the American death penalty, a lens through which its legal vulnerabilities are being targeted. Places like Duval and Clay counties in Jacksonville, Fla., shine especially brightly from this angle, he said. For instance, out of the 406 inmates waiting on Florida’s death row, 60, or about 15%, were convicted in Duval County. “As everywhere else in the country is getting better, they’re getting worse,” Prof. Smith said. Others include New Orleans, he said, where being charged with a downtown murder at the state level makes the death penalty unlikely, because a jury will be drawn from areas with high African-American populations, which are disproportionately opposed to it. But if the charge is taken up by federal prosecutors, the jury pool widens into the suburbs, and execution becomes far more likely. Prof. Liebman said the counties responsible for this trend are characterized by parochialism and libertarianism. They are “pockets” that “simultaneously resist the idea of government control … and feel under stress from outside forces of modernization.” The result is a heightened fear and revulsion at out-of-the-blue stranger crimes. Related * ‘We’re just thinking about…justice’: Texas’s 500th execution draws victim’s friends, family, death penalty opponents * Woman who was youngest person on U.S. death row for stabbing murder released after 27 years in jail * Ariel Castro, the man accused of holding three women captive, pleads not guilty on 977 counts The bombing of the Boston Marathon upended that equation, he says. It made the entire country share in these emotions and feel the threat of strange, unbidden forces. Mr. Tsarnaev, now controversially on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine, has pleaded not guilty to 30 charges, of which 17 carry the death penalty. Handout Massachusetts has not executed anyone since the electric chair deaths of two gangsters in 1947. The penalty was abolished for state crimes in 1984, in a legal decision that found it was unfairly applied only to those accused who pleaded not guilty. However, the Marathon bombing is a federal case. “The man deserves to die if he’s found guilty,” said John DiFava, chief of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology police force, outside the Boston courthouse after the plea. His officer Sean Collier, 27, was killed during the police manhunt. “He’s guilty of killing other people. He’s guilty of inflicting hurt on other people. Where does it stop? We let him live at our expense, for the rest of his life? I’m sorry. He deserves the death penalty.” The decision of Eric Holder, the U.S. attorney general, whether to seek it will be a strict and cautious one based on objective law, Prof. Liebman said, “but I still think that underneath it all, they are definitely going to be responding to the national sense of violation and unpredictable threat from these outside forces.” According to the Death Penalty Information Center, at least 142 Americans have been sentenced to death, then exonerated since the 1970s, either by acquittal, pardon or dismissal of charges. If you think of how do you get to abolition, you can never possibly get to it through a legislative route, not in our lifetime “If you think of how do you get to abolition, you can never possibly get to it through a legislative route, not in our lifetime. We’re not going to see places like Texas or Alabama [vote to abolish the death penalty],” Prof. Smith said. The likeliest route, he said, is for the Supreme Court to use the same analysis by which it banned death penalties for juveniles, by recognizing it is unjustly applied in practice, confined to a narrow cluster of counties, disproportionately given to people with low IQs, addictions and histories of abuse. Some may even be innocent. The executed innocent remains the prosecutor’s greatest possible failure and the most compelling martyr for abolitionists. As Antonin Scalia, the U.S. Supreme Court’s long-serving staunch conservative, once famously said, there has not been “a single case — not one — in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit. If such an event had occurred … the innocent’s name would be shouted from the rooftops.” AP Photo / Pat Sullivan, File There is reason to believe that is no longer true, if it ever was. Cameron Todd Willingham, executed by Texas in 2004 for the deaths by arson of his three children, is a primary candidate, now much of the expert evidence that convicted him has been revealed as unscientific. “There are, right now, across the country, probably 150 cases … where there is testable DNA, never tested, that could be used to confirm or disconfirm the accuracy of the conviction and execution,” said Prof. Liebman. “We’d get an error rate.” Those tests cannot be conducted, however, because forensic evidence, unlike documents, remains in control of police and prosecutors, the very people who stand to lose by the revelation, Prof. Liebman said AFP PHOTO/Fanny CARRIER Rev. Carroll Pickett has first-hand experience with final justice. He attended Texas’s first modern execution and 94 more until he retired in 1995 as chaplain of the Huntsville prison. He has since become a well-known death penalty opponent and author. “I know for a fact that I watched four innocent men being killed by the state of Texas, and many more men die who should never have been sent to the chamber,” Rev. Pickett wrote. “I’ve calculated that of the 95 some 35 were ‘fall partners’ — that is, there were two or more people involved in the crime and they were not the one who pulled the trigger.” One of these four innocents, he and others believe, was Carlos DeLuna, who called Rev. Pickett “daddy” before he died and is the subject of Los Tocayos Carlos (The Wrong Carlos), a new academic analysis by Prof. Liebman in the Columbia Human Rights Law Review. DeLuna was convicted for the 1983 stabbing death of Wanda Lopez, a gas station attendant in Corpus Christi. “We believe we’ve proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Texas executed Carlos DeLuna for a crime that was actually committed by another man named Carlos Hernandez,” Prof. Liebman said. “We are shouting this from the rooftops as best we can.” National Post jbrean@nationalpost.com Facebook Find National Post on Facebook * * Twitter * Google+ * LinkedIn * Email * Comments * More * Tumblr * Pinterest * Reddit * Digg * FarkIt * StumbleUpon Most Popular Prev Next * [bud.jpg?w=140] From 'toque' to 'mickey,' ten Canadianisms that leave other English speakers utterly confused * [wallaceville1.jpg?w=140] High River homeowners could have properties seized if they refuse Alberta's offer to buy flood-ravaged land * [ice-storm-light.jpg?w=140] Thousands of Canadians enter sixth day without power after 'worst ever blackout' * [pjt-icestorm-8.jpg?w=140] Toronto ice storm 2013: Photos show city looking like crime scene with taped-off downed branches * [usb.jpg?w=140] Federal department sought to ban USB drives to curb risk of privacy breaches * [icelandelves.jpg?w=140] Iceland's elves delay massive road project: 'Hidden folk' advocates say construction disturbs elf church * [japan.jpg?w=140] Japanese prime minister angers China by visit to 'war crimes' shrine * [mao-zedong-gold.jpg?w=140] Chairman Mao's old Shanghai home reopening inside luxury mall known as a cradle of 'cosmopolitan chic' * [icestorm2.jpg?w=140] Canadians in three provinces stay in dark five days after ice storm as efforts continue to restore power * [robfordcity.jpg?w=140] Toronto city councillors call for Rob Ford to declare a state of emergency — which would hand over powers to deputy mayor * [wolverine1.jpg?w=140] Alberta researchers tracking elusive and notoriously ferocious wolverines * [noah.jpg?w=140] Mary, Noah ... and Brad Pitt as Pontius Pilate? Hollywood seeks endorsements from evangelical pastors * [church1.jpg?w=140] As congregations dwindle in Nova Scotia, historic church shipped south to be 'resurrected' in Louisiana * [torontoicestorm.jpg?w=140] Five killed by carbon monoxide as 220,000 face freezing eastern Canada winter without power * [guy-earle.jpg?w=140] Slurs force comic to pay $15,000 for ‘tirade of ugly words' against lesbian patron after appeal falls flat * [mountie-joint.jpg?w=140] Workplace rules on medical marijuana not consistent among Canadian federal agencies * [parliament.jpg?w=140] Ottawa moves to name more government buildings after prominent Canadian women * [young-mp.jpg?w=140] Just 19 when he was elected in 2011, Canada's youngest MP now a two-time committee chair * [bob-and-doug1.jpg?w=140] Don't tell Bob and Doug: 'Eh' on the decline as young, urban Canadians adopt new expressions * [tricorder.jpg?w=140] Howard Leventhal impersonated Health Canada to fool people into investing in bogus Star Trek-inspired 'medical tricorder' * [iraq-guard1.jpg?w=140] U.S. condemns Christmas Day bombings that targeted Christians and killed at least 37 in Iraq * [argentina.jpg?w=140] Carnivorous fish injure 70 Argentine river bathers; 7 children lose parts of fingers or toes * [455555741.jpg?w=140] Fidel Castro reveals brother Raul’s words to Barack Obama, spoken in English: ‘Mr. President, I’m Castro’ * [de-ice-roads.jpg?w=140] Milwaukee tries to save some cheddar with pilot program to use cheese to de-ice roads * [icestormtoronto.jpg?w=140] 'Catastrophic ice storm' slams into Toronto, strands travellers across the province * [scoc_robinson_20131223.jpg?w=140] After decades long battle, Supreme Court rules animator's Robinson Crusoe cartoon was ripped off * [thamar-zeidan.jpg?w=140] Anatomy of an 'honour' killing: Why a Palestinian community demanded a father murder his divorced daughter * [na00-jb-quantum-8.jpg?w=140] The quantum computing revolution: BlackBerry billionaire Mike Lazaridis is betting on tech that hasn't been invented … yet * [royal-family-will-kate.jpg?w=140] Royal family attends Christmas service without baby prince as Queen says birth of grandson brought 'happiness and hope' * [domenico-manno.jpg?w=140] 'Don Corleone' figure who helped install Rizzuto family to top of Canadian Mafia released from U.S. prison * [china_drone.jpg?w=140] Successful first test flight for China's new unmanned stealth drone, the Sharp Sword * [navy_unmanned_aircraft.jpg?w=140] 'A chance to see the future': U.S. Navy lands fighter-jet sized drone on aircraft carrier for first time * Starbucks History * [christmas-santa-sikh.jpg?w=140] Non-Christians 'aren’t actually offended' by holiday traditions says host of party for Christmas rookies * [stephen-harper.jpg?w=140] Letter warning Stephen Harper against appointing Arthur Porter to oversee spy agency raised no red flags * [russia-us-missile-defence.jpg?w=140] Neighbours on edge as Russia reportedly deploys state-of-the-art missiles near EU border * [stephen-harper6.jpg?w=140] Stephen Harper thanks 'brave men and women in uniform' in annual Christmas message * [untitled-115.jpg?w=140] Kingston fire: Crane operator saved from blazing inferno by daring helicopter rescue * [topshots-china-us-politics-obama-family.jpg?w=140] Barack Obama’s half brother Mark Obama Ndesandjo writes of shared father’s alcohol-fuelled domestic abuse * [wolf-bite.jpg?w=140] With a wolf's jaws clamped around her neck, Dawn Hepp survived by just keeping calm * [454447915.jpg?w=140] Christians pressured into silence on faith as governments ignore problem: Former Archbishop of Canterbury * [marijuana-truck.jpg?w=140] How Canadians can be charged with driving under the influence of cannabis without ever smoking a joint * [john-yoko.jpg?w=140] John Lennon lauds Canada's good 'vibrations,' predicts Beatles' breakup in long-lost Mississauga interview * [paula-elliott.jpg?w=140] Underground Supper Club that brought High River residents together to 'break bread' shut down by province * [feat5.jpg?w=140] Devyani Khobragade reveals how she 'broke down' after 'stripping and cavity searches' as row between U.S. and India deepens * [boring_seattle_tunnel.jpg?w=140] 'The object': Something deep and mysterious has blocked the world's biggest tunnel boring machine under Seattle * Lotto Max numbers for Friday, December 20, 2013 * [catholic.jpg?w=140] U.S. court reverses conviction of Roman Catholic church official jailed in clergy abuse scandal * [storm-1.jpg?w=140] Happy holidays? Thousands of Canadians face cold, dark Christmas after ice storm * [screen-shot-2013-12-11-at-5-47-24-pm.jpg?w=140] Ethan Couch prosecutors try again to jail spoiled 'affluenza' teen for drunken wreck that killed four Topics: News, World, Capital punishment, Carlos DeLuna, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, James Liebman, Kimberly Lagayle McCarthy, United States blog comments powered by Disqus ____________________ Submit [;loc=top;sz=300x250,300x251,300x600;tile=3;blog=world;nk=print;pr=np;c k=news;sck=world;aid=339945105;author=jbrean;cinf=united-states;cinf=ja mes-liebman;cinf=capital-punishment;cinf=carlos-deluna;cinf=dzhokhar-ts arnaev;tag=kimberly-lagayle-mccarthy;page=story;ord=971776?] Today's Top News Videos Mandela Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom, reviewed: Biopic focuses on the power of one rather than the cause of many [mandela-walk-to-freedom.jpg?w=100] There is a bit of a contradiction at the heart of this earnest and eminently capable Nelson Mandela biopic, embodied in the hand of South Africa’s saviour ‘I’m no Morgan Freeman’: Idris Elba on the unique challenges of playing Nelson Mandela in Long Walk to Freedom [idris-mandela.jpg?w=100] British actor Idris Elba does not look like Nelson Mandela. He does not sound like Nelson Mandela. But he was determined to capture the spirit of the South African leader for the film Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom A Joint Venture with eOne: Reflections on Mandela the visionary [mandela2_rev.jpg?w=100] Robert V. Taylor met Nelson Mandela only once — yet their lives and ambitions have been inextricably intertwined. A Joint Venture with eOne: A leader’s legacy of forgiveness [mandela_main_pic_rev.jpg?w=100] Joudel Janoska recalls gathering around a television with her family to watch Nelson Mandela leave the prison he had spent 27 years in. In association with Executive Summary 12.20.13: Northern Gateway gets go-ahead [gateway2.jpg?w=100] Enbridge’s oil-sands pipeline cleared a major hurdle as Canada’s energy regulator ruled the $6.5 billion conduit can move ahead under 209 conditions In association with Today's Top Viral Videos [;loc=bot;sz=300x250,300x252,300x600;tile=2;blog=world;nk=print;pr=np;c k=news;sck=world;aid=339945105;author=jbrean;cinf=united-states;cinf=ja mes-liebman;cinf=capital-punishment;cinf=carlos-deluna;cinf=dzhokhar-ts arnaev;tag=kimberly-lagayle-mccarthy;page=story;ord=971776?] [wordpress_logo.gif] Powered by WordPress.com VIP Our Partners * Infomart * The Province * Vancouver Sun * Edmonton Journal * Calgary Herald * Regina Leader-Post * Saskatoon StarPhoenix * Windsor Star * Ottawa Citizen * The Gazette Classifieds * Remembering * Celebrating * Classifieds Marketplace * Workopolis * FlyerCity * Classifieds Self-Service Services * Advertise with us * Subscribe * Subscriber Services * ePaper * Newsletters * Site map Legal * Privacy * Terms * Contact us * Copyright & permissions Connect with Us * Twitter * Facebook * LinkedIn * Pinterest © 2013 National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized distribution, transmission or republication strictly prohibited. [;loc=top;sz=1x1;tile=3;blog=world;nk=print;pr=np;ck=news;sck=world;aid =339945105;author=jbrean;cinf=united-states;cinf=james-liebman;cinf=cap ital-punishment;cinf=carlos-deluna;cinf=dzhokhar-tsarnaev;tag=kimberly- lagayle-mccarthy;page=story;ord=971776?] [p?c1=2&c2=10276888&cv=2.0&cj=1] Advertising * Mobile * | * Newsletters * | * RSS * | * Subscribe * | * Subscriber services + Manage subscription on MyTimes + Register subscription + Digital access + Delivery issues / feedback + Temporary stops + Make a payment + Print Replica + Subscriber rewards * Subscriber: Log out | Subscriber Log In | * Contact/Help + Site feedback/questions + Frequently asked questions + Home delivery issues + Send us news tips + Send letters to the editor + Submit event listings + Request corrections + Company information * * Traffic * The Seattle Times Winner of Nine Pulitzer Prizes Search Follow us: facebook twitter ____________________ [search.gif]-Submit Advanced Search | Events & Venues | Obituaries * Home Home + Forums + Graphics & databases + Photography + Video + Special reports + Corrections Shortcuts + Today's news index + Trending with readers + Historical archives * News News + Local News + Nation & World + Obituaries + Health care + Politics + Education + Special reports + Community partners Blogs & Columns + Danny Westneat + Nicole Brodeur + Jerry Large + Ron Judd + Monica Guzman + Sarah Stuteville + The Today File + The Blotter + Weather Beat + Politics Northwest + Picture This + Seattle Sketcher + HealthCare Checkup + FYI Guy + Education Lab Shortcuts + Traffic + Weather + Lottery The Fund for the Needy Logo The Fund for the Needy Learn how you can help some of the most vulnerable members of our community. Donate now. * Business & Tech Business & Tech + Boeing / Aerospace + Microsoft + Personal technology Blogs & Columns + Brier Dudley's Blog + Microsoft Pri0 + Boeing Blog + Jon Talton + Sunday Buzz Shortcuts + Stock prices * Sports Sports + High School + UW Huskies + WSU Cougars + SU Redhawks + Gonzaga + College sports + Mariners + Seahawks + Sounders FC + Reign FC + Storm + NBA + Hockey + Golf + Snow sports + Outdoors + Other sports Blogs + Husky Football + Husky Men's Basketball + Mariners + Seahawks + NBA in Seattle + Pac-12 Confidential + Sounders FC + High School Sports + Take 2 + Reel Time Fishing NW + Women's Hoops Columns + Jerry Brewer + Larry Stone + Bud Withers + Sideline Chatter Shortcuts + Sports forums + Scores & stats + Sports on TV & radio * Entertainment Entertainment + Movies + Music & Nightlife + The Arts + Books Blogs & Columns + ArtsPage + Lit Life | Mary Ann Gwinn + Nicole Brodeur + Popcorn & Prejudice: A movie blog + SoundPosts Shortcuts + Comics + Games + Horoscopes + TV listings + Today's events + Find events & venues + Submit listings * Food Food & Drink + Food & Drink + Restaurants Blogs & Columns + All You Can Eat | Rebekah Denn + Happy Hour + Taste | Nancy Leson Shortcuts + Search restaurants + Search bars/clubs + Food & drink events * Living Living + Home & Garden + Health & Fitness + Pacific NW Magazine + Pets Blogs & Columns + Domestic Goddess | Rebecca Teagarden + Fit for Life | Nicole Tsong + In the Garden | Ciscoe Morris + The Natural Gardener | Valerie Easton + Now & Then | Paul Dorpat + Carolyn Hax + Rant & Rave Shortcuts + Fairs & festivals + Hobby events * Homes Homes & Real Estate + NW Neighborhoods + Design & Decor + Money Matters Shortcuts + Homes for sale + Rentals + New homes + Open homes + Post a listing * Travel Travel & Outdoors + Travel + Outdoors + Seattle guide + Washington guide + Oregon guide + British Columbia guide + Snow Sports Blogs & Columns + Northwest Traveler + Travel Wise + Destinations | Kristin Jackson + Rick Steves' Europe + Reel Time Fishing Northwest Shortcuts + Outdoor/recreation events * Opinion Editorials & Opinion + Editorials & Opinion + Letters to the Editor Blogs & Columns + Opinion Northwest + Sharon Pian Chan + Lance Dickie + Jonathan Martin + Kate Riley + Thanh Tan Weekly Ads * Jobs Jobs + Find a job + Post a resume + Career center + Post a job * Autos Autos + Find a vehicle + Find a dealer + Research + Sell a vehicle * Shopping Shopping + Weekly Ads + Sunday Market + Holiday Gift Guide + Search classifieds + Post a classified listing Thursday, April 30, 1992 - Page updated at 12:00 AM E-mail article Print Reader Call-In Do You Support Or Oppose The Death Penalty? The execution last week of convicted murderer Robert Alton Harris in California has rekindled the debate over the death penalty. In Washington, Charles Campbell, currently on death row for the 1982 slayings of two women and a young girl in Snohomish County, could face execution as soon as late 1992 or early next year. The U.S. Supreme Court halted executions in 1972, declaring all existing death-penalty statutes unconstitutional. However, executions resumed five years later under new laws, although no one has been executed in Washington since 1963. What do you think? Here's what readers think: I am definitely in favor of the death penalty. Some say it's not a deterrent, but it definitely stops the repeat offender. The second point is that society should not have to pay for these people to live out a natural life. Ken Kromann, Mukilteo I favor the death penalty and I think we should use it more often. For example, murderers, rapists, child molesters and drug dealers should all be put to death. Justice and execution should be swift. If we look at other countries throughout the world that have no crime problem, we'll see that there's definitely a reason for that. I think with more death sentences, many of the problems that we have in our society today would not be a problem. B. Johnson, Edmonds I think the death penalty's a great idea. If somebody commits a murder, especially a serial killer, society's obligation is to get rid of this person. We shouldn't have to feed and clothe these people. Although I believe that these appeals drag on for years and years, it should be a swift punishment and it should be a swift and speedy trial, just like in the Constitution. As far as a deterrent; sure it's a deterrent 'cause they're dead and not around to kill other people. Society has forgotten about the victim, and they focus too much on the criminal. Stuart Cole, Bothell I am in favor of the death penalty. I believe that you reap what you sow, and I also believe in an eye for an eye. And I also believe that jails shouldn't be the resorts that they are; that if we went back to making jail punishment like it used to be years ago that maybe we could deter so many of the people that appear to not have any qualms at all about going to jail. And we shouldn't worry so much about whether it's humane to execute them because they certainly aren't the least bit worried about how humane they are killing their victims. Verona Montgomery, Everett I favor the death penalty because for me it represents the validation of the value of the life of those who were killed. I think that we are out of balance in our emphasis on the rights of the person who has committed the crime and that perhaps it's one way to restore some of that balance to say that there are some crimes that are so heinous that this is the only penalty that we can impose that will say that "Yes, we value the life of those that died." Rebecca Dawson, Richmond Beach I believe that we should have a death penalty which is imposed for heinous crimes. I believe it acts as a deterrent for the perpetrator and then for rational thinking members of society. I believe it would be an even better deterrent if it were used more frequently and with more certainty. David Mischke, Edmonds At this point, I would say I favor the death penalty. But I wish The Seattle Times would do a story on what life in prison is like, and by that I mean what kind of privileges, what kind of life do these convicts have? I think I could make a more informed choice if I knew that. Kathy Annas, Lynnwood -------------------- NEXT WEEK'S QUESTION -------------------- Do you think public money should be used to take a position for or against airport expansion? Led by Des Moines in South King County, cities impacted by flights at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport are establishing sizable legal defense funds to battle construction of a proposed third runway there. In Snohomish County, Mukilteo and its residents are leading the fight against the addition of commercial airline traffic at Paine Field. Both expansions were recommended by the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee. Mukilteo has set aside $10,000 as a start of a legal defense fund. Save Our Communities (SOC), a private organization, is embarking on a fund-raising program and plans to hire its own attorney. In three months, it raised $45,000. Its goal is to raise $265,000 as a permanent fund if needed in the future. With Snohomish County and a number of cities on record against expansion at Paine Field, some key questions are raised about whether tax money or private donations should pay for legal challenges. What do you think? Please phone your responses, by 8 p.m. Monday, to the Community Voices reader call-in line, 464-3337. Copyright (c) 1992 Seattle Times Company, All Rights Reserved. advertising Get home delivery today! Advertising Most read Most commented Most e-mailed 1. Seahawks' Kam Chancellor repays his biggest debt with the ultimate gift 2. Jon Kitna donating paycheck from Cowboys to Lincoln High School 3. Ethics questions over city job held by mayor-elect's spouse 4. Seahawks' playoff scenarios: Laying out every possibility 5. The Seattle Times restaurant critic's best bites of 2013 6. Superstitious? Heck, yeah. Hawks fans have their rituals 7. Marques Tuiasosopo trying to bring normalcy to Huskies | Larry Stone 8. 40-year-old woman died skiing at Crystal Mountain 9. Secret alpine paradise at Scottish Lakes High Camp 10. Socialist politicians dreaming big in Seattle 1. Socialist politicians dreaming big in Seattle Comments 166 2. Ethics questions over city job held by mayor-elect's spouse Comments 129 3. Health law not first new program with launch woes Comments 122 4. Rakuten Golden Eagles to post Masahiro Tanaka Comments 97 5. Fight Hunger Bowl prediction: For UW, it's back to football Comments 72 6. Video: UW's Marques Tuiasosopo, BYU's Bronco Mendenhall preview the Fight Hunger Bowl Comments 46 7. Whidbey jet noise: Don't be selfish Comments 40 8. Guest: Boeing is overthinking where to build the 777X Comments 22 9. Women aim to block Idaho from gay marriage fight Comments 21 10. Five questions, five answers: BYU Cougars Comments 21 1. Guest: Depending on observation status, Medicare may not cover a hospital stay 2. Avalara bets on its sales-tax software -- and orange 3. Secret alpine paradise at Scottish Lakes High Camp 4. Seahawks' Kam Chancellor repays his biggest debt with the ultimate gift 5. Thousands enroll in Washington online college 6. Socialist politicians dreaming big in Seattle 7. Freight trains force repeated delays on popular Amtrak route 8. Jon Kitna donating paycheck from Cowboys to Lincoln High School 9. Superstitious? Heck, yeah. Hawks fans have their rituals 10. Ethics questions over city job held by mayor-elect's spouse [Photograph_link.gif] Most viewed images More Advertising * Site Map * Home * Local * Nation/World * Business/Tech * Sports * Entertainment * Living * Travel * Opinion * Obituaries * Extras * Forums Contact/Help * Site feedback/questions * Frequently asked questions * Home delivery issues * Send us news tips * Send letters to the editor * Submit event listings * Request corrections * Newsroom contacts * Social media * Report malware Connect * Facebook * Twitter * [googleplus.png] Google+ * Mobile site * Mobile apps * Low-graphic site * Newsletters * RSS * Today's News Index Advertising * Advertise with us * Digital advertising * Classifieds * Death notices * Job listings * Auto listings * Real Estate listings * Rental listings Company * About us * Employment * Historical archives * Pulitzer prizes * Seattle Times store * Purchase photos * Newspapers In Education Subscriber Services * Subscribe * MyTimes * Temporary stops * Make a payment * Print Replica * Subscriber rewards PDF of today's Seattle Times front page Today's front page (PDF) [seattletimeslogo_home.gif] The Seattle Times Company Network: Seattletimes.com | Jobs | Autos | Homes | Classifieds | Rentals | Personals Copyright (c) The Seattle Times Company | Advertise with us | Privacy statement | Terms of service Politix [px_logo_pos_h42.png] * Home * Links * Debates * Quizzes * Opinion * Activity * M * u Join / Login [transparent.gif] Who's Funding Climate Change Denial? c 454 [transparent.gif] What Would Happen If Walmart Raised Salaries by 50%? c 222 [transparent.gif] Take Two Humans. Give One Money. See What Happens Next. c 166 [transparent.gif] Utah's Crazy Idea Should End Homelessness by 2015 c 146 [transparent.gif] Wanted: Conservative Volunteers to Rewrite the Bible and Remove 'Li... c 145 [transparent.gif] Liberal Commercial Talk Radio Disappears in NY, LA, SF in 2014 c 134 [transparent.gif] Report: Obama Did Not Enroll in Obamacare - Despite Saying He Did c 191 [transparent.gif] Hillary Clinton Makes Not-At-All Subtle Hint About That Thing Every... c 229 [transparent.gif] Palin Admits She Didn't Read Duck Dynasty Comments She's Defending c 172 [transparent.gif] Police Saw a Well-Dressed Man Commit a Crime. They Refused to Arres... c 152 [transparent.gif] Why Does The U.S. Have More School Shootings Than Everywhere Else? c 221 [transparent.gif] In 2013 Congress Just Did Less Than 2012, Which Was Less Than Any P... c 96 [transparent.gif] People In This Small Town Aren't Too Pleased With This Year's Holid... c 210 [transparent.gif] Academic Group Slammed For Israel Boycott c 155 [transparent.gif] Should This Woman Lose Her Driver's License for Driving Drunk to Es... c 89 [transparent.gif] Edward Snowden: 'I already won' c 147 [transparent.gif] Rick Perry's Family Christmas Card Is Seriously Aggressive c 137 [transparent.gif] Holiday Pro-Tip: How to Start a Political Fight With Your Family c 88 [transparent.gif] Appeals Court Refuses To Halt Utah Marriages For Same-Sex Couples c 82 [transparent.gif] These Kick-Ass High School Journalists Are Definitely Doing It Right c 62 [transparent.gif] Billy Joel Is Hanging Out With This Prominent Politician c 46 Featured Quizzes * [O5PF082T6H5BVPNV-rsz238x178.jpg] Are you smarter than a 7th grade civics student? 7759 completed * [TVC09ORAITDMAACV-rsz238x178.jpg] What Do You Know About Conspiracy Theories? 5318 completed * [1B114KJA7IVQKSNU-rsz238x178.jpg] Are You as Liberal as President Obama? 7708 completed Follow Us J F T + E D ____________________ subscribe Get top stories emailed to you each day. Follow @TopixPolitix Drss Featured Debates * [bars-party-6.png] Should we change our lifestyles to help reduce global warming? 3440 votes * [pie-gender-6847.png] Is America's government too big? 4898 votes * [s-4151.png] Should all gun buyers receive a background check? 3475 votes * [bars-party-4575.png] Should the minimum wage be raised to $9 per hour? 4761 votes * [pie-gender-1027.png] Do gun control laws need to be more or less strict than they are now? 5723 votes Popular stories * Who's Funding Climate Change Denial? * What Would Happen If Walmart Raised Salaries by 50%? * Take Two Humans. Give One Money. See What Happens Next. * Utah's Crazy Idea Should End Homelessness by 2015 * Wanted: Conservative Volunteers to Rewrite the Bible and Remove 'Liberal Bias' * Liberal Commercial Talk Radio Disappears in NY, LA, SF in 2014 * Report: Obama Did Not Enroll in Obamacare - Despite Saying He Did * Hillary Clinton Makes Not-At-All Subtle Hint About That Thing Everybody Thinks She'll D... * Palin Admits She Didn't Read Duck Dynasty Comments She's Defending * Police Saw a Well-Dressed Man Commit a Crime. They Refused to Arrest Him. What Happened... * Why Does The U.S. Have More School Shootings Than Everywhere Else? * R Load more articles pDo you support the death penalty for a person convicted of murder? f share on Facebook ttweet it • • • Tweet MEmail [m-742.png] Results 69 % Yes 31 % No @Mar '13 V 1,553 votes c 526 comments Detailed Results Next Debate Vote Now ( ) Activity ( ) Stmts (*) Popular 1553 Votes 371 Statements 10 Statements * u 2 min pixil voted v Yes * u Dec 24 Ianjib voted v No * [picture?width=76&height=76] Dec 24 LarryS voted v No * [HAN1IG8ICSCLO40L-rsz76x76.jpg] Dec 24 Tooblue voted v Yes * u Dec 23 DocKozlowski voted v Yes * [picture?width=76&height=76] Dec 22 pph voted v No * [CBSKQ8OJN2LDBMMS-rsz76x76.jpg] Dec 21 Doctor_Who voted v Yes * u Dec 21 sixto voted v Yes * [RF9594QA194NVR6S-rsz76x76.jpg] Dec 21 BakersfieldBob voted v Yes * [picture?width=76&height=76] Dec 21 KeithGilbert voted v Yes * [8NI0QUMDC8G8F9E1-rsz76x76.jpg] Dec 21 KaliHuman v No ! The Justice system gets is WRONG TOO OFTEN. Once you dead you cant be revived once they kill you if your sentence is reversed later due to your innocence. B Vote Up • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * [N4J8PVQCQ323Q2MQ-rsz76x76.jpg] Dec 20 jhowell6 voted v No * [picture?width=76&height=76] Dec 20 JTrueblood voted v No * u Dec 20 Cricket-S voted v Yes * u Dec 19 Dan_P voted v Yes * u u Dec 19 DJGoodwin1 endorsed The_truth v No ! Absolutely not! They may change in prison or whatever they get and influence many people who are considering murding somebody into not doing it. If I kill someone and then die what's the punishment? If I kill someone then have to think about if for 30+years I see a huge punishment B2 • Vote Up r6 Replies e28 Endorsements • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * u Dec 18 bbianch voted v No * [CRAIER826U74ULL9-rsz76x76.jpg] Dec 18 Tamal_Pais voted v Yes * u Dec 17 hdfatboy voted v Yes * u Dec 17 Joshua_Friday voted v Yes * [picture?width=76&height=76] Dec 16 HaroonRiaz voted v No * u Dec 16 jkenlib voted v No * u [picture?width=30&height=30] Dec 14 Titan58 endorsed ir0nw0lfe v Yes ! A civilized society should care more about innocent suffering than the legal maneuverings of the guilty. An state execution is not the loss of innocent life. The loss of innocent life occurred when the murderer committed his crime. If his death brings even one brief moment of closure to the victim's family then that is the value of the murderer's life. B7 • Vote Up r7 Replies e54 Endorsements • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * [picture?width=76&height=76] Dec 14 murphy0071 voted v No * u Dec 14 tbubba42 voted v Yes * [picture?width=76&height=76] Dec 14 NicholeC voted v Yes * [picture?width=76&height=76] Dec 14 CookS voted v Yes * [picture?width=76&height=76] Dec 13 JarlRandwulf v Yes ! With the qualification that it is premeditated and there is ABSOLUTE proof of the person's guilt. B Vote Up • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * [K6LBF7D6LO1UG1T3-rsz76x76.jpg] Dec 12 disguy voted v Yes * [picture?width=76&height=76] Dec 12 jmcalli voted v No * [picture?width=76&height=76] Dec 12 GunPolitics voted v Yes * u Dec 12 lsay voted v Yes * [picture?width=76&height=76] Dec 11 RiskiTimes voted v No * [M0PSDFH1EVTE346U-rsz76x76.jpg] Dec 11 rosebud v No ! Sometimes an innocent person is wrongly convicted. B Vote Up • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * [picture?width=76&height=76] Dec 11 Ric_Hornsby v Yes ! I think that the family of the victim should be able to carry out the sentence if they want to and in any means that they desire. B Vote Up • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * [3MAFS5N826LC87MU-rsz76x76.jpg] Dec 9 ALonelyHeart voted v Yes * u Dec 8 deayalas voted v Yes * [3I6VL2SRAS6OM8BM-rsz76x76.jpg] [11P2D12RCHV0IU8H-rsz30x30.jpg] Dec 8 Poltal endorsed streypuppy v No ! Giving a person death for a muder he/she has commited is giving them an easy way out with no time to suffer like the living relatives of the family has to do the rest of their lives B Vote Up r1 Reply e3 Endorsements • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * u Dec 6 MIBigSarge v Yes ! A person convicted of murder should immediately be given the death penalty, and one appeal. After that it's lights out! B Vote Up • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * [picture?width=76&height=76] Dec 6 sandraluvsmb20 voted v Yes * [picture?width=76&height=76] u Dec 5 1RICHARD endorsed classychazy v Yes ! There are some crimes so heinous that there should always be a option of putting those who do those crimes to death. Technology has advanced to the point of arresting and convicting someone falsely is all most none existence. B1 • Vote Up r2 Replies e86 Endorsements • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * u o Dec 5 seeker endorsed shazbotbaru v Yes ! Yessir, BUT ONLY if there is total and definite proof of the guilt..too many have been executed and have been innocent.. B Vote Up e31 Endorsements • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * u Dec 5 viniketa v No ! Another too general poll question. I don't support it for all murder convictions, no. B Vote Up • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * [0FLQFTS21IKKSKKB-rsz76x76.jpg] Dec 5 Eagle1889 voted v Yes * u Dec 5 Gino voted v Yes * u Dec 4 Wahmuk voted v Yes * [picture?width=76&height=76] Dec 4 JoshuaSL voted v Yes * u Dec 4 JEMORY voted v No * [picture?width=76&height=76] Dec 4 marysrus13 v No ! If the shooter can't be rehabilitated, then lifetime imprisonment in the furthest reaches of the Artic should be the sentence. Death sentences show an archaic attitude that served before rehabilitation has proven worthwhile. If a person cannot be rehabilitated - then that person should be left to his/her own devices for survival AWAY from the rest of humanity. B Vote Up • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * u Dec 4 Chieftain voted v Yes * [8NI0QUMDC8G8F9E1-rsz76x76.jpg] #526 • Dec 21 KaliHuman v No ! The Justice system gets is WRONG TOO OFTEN. Once you dead you cant be revived once they kill you if your sentence is reversed later due to your innocence. B Vote Up • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * [picture?width=76&height=76] #525 • Dec 13 JarlRandwulf v Yes ! With the qualification that it is premeditated and there is ABSOLUTE proof of the person's guilt. B Vote Up • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * [M0PSDFH1EVTE346U-rsz76x76.jpg] #524 • Dec 11 rosebud v No ! Sometimes an innocent person is wrongly convicted. B Vote Up • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * [picture?width=76&height=76] #523 • Dec 11 Ric_Hornsby v Yes ! I think that the family of the victim should be able to carry out the sentence if they want to and in any means that they desire. B Vote Up • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * u #522 • Dec 6 MIBigSarge v Yes ! A person convicted of murder should immediately be given the death penalty, and one appeal. After that it's lights out! B Vote Up • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * u #521 • Dec 5 viniketa v No ! Another too general poll question. I don't support it for all murder convictions, no. B Vote Up • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * [picture?width=76&height=76] #520 • Dec 4 marysrus13 v No ! If the shooter can't be rehabilitated, then lifetime imprisonment in the furthest reaches of the Artic should be the sentence. Death sentences show an archaic attitude that served before rehabilitation has proven worthwhile. If a person cannot be rehabilitated - then that person should be left to his/her own devices for survival AWAY from the rest of humanity. B Vote Up • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * [UISKPPHA4JHB10LA-rsz76x76.jpg] #519 • Dec 4 USview v Yes ! Okay, why the black or white choices only? There are reasons to not impose the death penalty and give a life sentence as there are reasons it should be enforced. B Vote Up • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * u #518 • Dec 2 CVX v No ! The laws have become so bloated that we need to be able to understand exactly what it is we are voting on. Times change and the definitions change. B Vote Up • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * [M960BEGKLQLKT67J-rsz76x76.jpg] #516 • Nov 30 mrcamillon v No ! you test the mind of god you do not have authority too decide when some one dies B Vote Up • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * u #515 • Nov 30 betazed v No ! What does killing them accomplish? If the victims family wants it, they are poor excuses for human beings. If society wants it, they are bloodthirsty. It certainly doesn't bring back anyone the convicted person killed. However you slice it, no one really gains anything. Once they're off the street, the threat is removed and no further force is necessary. B Vote Up • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * [picture?width=76&height=76] #514 • Nov '13 DmB66 v Yes ! For murder, rape, pedophiles, kidnapping and treason. go all out to prove one's innocence and up to 2 appeals for a lessor sentence. failing that hang'em high.. B Vote Up • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * [BN9R1FV0OQTMU6GE-rsz76x76.jpg] #513 • Nov '13 GDI4EVER v Yes ! Yes and you're right 2 wrongs don't make a right but the Death Penalty is not wrong. How can you justify keeping a killer alive forever and We The People pay for it? Especially if a gun was used. Put them to death , bury them and be done with it. B Vote Up • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * [UL40TKHB5N0E9I78-rsz76x76.jpg] #512 • Nov '13 Shamanwolf v Yes ! Rope is cheap, AND environmentally friendly. B Vote Up • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * [9IFFHUBJFULC66FC-rsz76x76.jpg] #511 • Nov '13 Cincinnatus v No ! There are too many convictions overturned for me to be very comfortable with frequent use of the death penalty. Besides, revenge is not the states purpose, and it saves money to just incarcerate them for life. I would offer convicted killers who are serving life terms to end their lives, perhaps by organ donation. B Vote Up • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * [picture?width=76&height=76] #506 • Nov '13 daleone v No ! This question tears me apart! When I see the mistakes that our judges and jury's make it scares me....but on the other hand some people deserve to die for their wicked deeds! But as a Christian I have to believe that to take any life is wrong.....no matter how just it may seem from your point of view. There is a hell....let God make those decisions! B Vote Up • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * [picture?width=76&height=76] #505 • Nov '13 busseja v No ! costs too much. Takes too long. For the prosecution of one we could buy a south pacific island surrounded by spent hydrogen bomb fall out and send them there. B Vote Up • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * [picture?width=76&height=76] #504 • Nov '13 EyesOnPies v No ! I support the death penalty for corporate polluters and people that profit from war. B Vote Up • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * [J3IA09QELEQEVM9U-rsz76x76.jpg] #503 • Nov '13 Dallas_TX_Demz v Yes ! Only if they are punished the same way they killed their victim. B Vote Up • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * u #502 • Oct '13 RickN v Yes ! They won't commit another murder if they are put down. B Vote Up • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * R Load more comments... * u Apr '12 classychazy v Yes ! There are some crimes so heinous that there should always be a option of putting those who do those crimes to death. Technology has advanced to the point of arresting and convicting someone falsely is all most none existence. B1 • Vote Up r2 Replies e86 Endorsements • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * [picture?width=76&height=76] Jun '12 ir0nw0lfe v Yes ! A civilized society should care more about innocent suffering than the legal maneuverings of the guilty. An state execution is not the loss of innocent life. The loss of innocent life occurred when the murderer committed his crime. If his death brings even one brief moment of closure to the victim's family then that is the value of the murderer's life. B7 • Vote Up r7 Replies e54 Endorsements • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * o Jun '12 shazbotbaru v Yes ! Yessir, BUT ONLY if there is total and definite proof of the guilt..too many have been executed and have been innocent.. B Vote Up e31 Endorsements • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * u Apr '12 The_truth v No ! Absolutely not! They may change in prison or whatever they get and influence many people who are considering murding somebody into not doing it. If I kill someone and then die what's the punishment? If I kill someone then have to think about if for 30+years I see a huge punishment B2 • Vote Up r6 Replies e28 Endorsements • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * [G1CPCMEE78OVVM36-rsz76x76.jpg] Jun '12 Goebel v No ! Three reasons that I oppose the death penalty: 1. The loss of innocent life by death penalty is completely inexcusable and likely unavoidable. 2. Thus far, its implementation has been highly racist against people of colour. 3. Killing the murderer does little to no good. The person's crimes are not undone if they are killed. If we accept that killing is wrong, then why should we kill those who will, especially when 1 and 2 apply? B2 • Vote Up r4 Replies e21 Endorsements • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * [7CMB53DT9FL5FE9A-rsz76x76.jpg] Jun '12 Bobolinsky v No ! Three Points: 1) How a society punishes it's criminals says little about the criminals and a lot about the society. 2) In the United States, it is cheaper to incarcerate someone for life without parole than to execute someone. 3) Impact on murder rates is debatable at best. . Put those together with the fact that we still choose to allow execution means that we are willing to pay extra to be able to kill someone that we can lock away and forget about. . I hesitate to conclude that the reason we still have the death penalty is because of a desire for vengeance and/or violence on the part of society when we can get along just fine without it... But I do. B2 • Vote Up r6 Replies e14 Endorsements • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * u Apr '12 Vet v Yes ! In some cases.. B Vote Up e12 Endorsements • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * u Apr '12 blueblue2 v Yes ! ONLY If It Was Premeditated OR Sough Out Haniously. But Not By Accident or due to ignorance. B Vote Up r1 Reply e10 Endorsements • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * [picture?width=76&height=76] Apr '12 Iamjim42 v No ! I do not care if a murderer dies. However, we live in a system where, as it should be, it is better to let one hundred guilty men get away than one innocent man die. Because the economic burden caused by this great system, it is more expensive to kill someone than it is to jail them for life. Therefore, I object to capital punishment on solely economic grounds. B1 • Vote Up r3 Replies e8 Endorsements • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * [picture?width=76&height=76] Jun '12 LeslieAbi v Yes ! As a matter of fact, I believe there should not only be a death penalty, but if you confess or there are witnesses to the murder you are convicted for and sentenced to death row you should be euthanized within the year or as soon as all of your appeals are completed. This would save tax-payer's money and cut down on over-populations in prisons and rid the world of a murderer. Win all the way around as I see it. Also, side thought, this would cut down on confessing to a murder for a plea bargain keeping murderers from getting back out on the street because if you confess then you are automatically revoked all appeals rights and you would be euthanized within the year. B Vote Up r3 Replies e8 Endorsements • Endorse r Reply ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Post * Home * About * Team * Subscribe * Feedback Follow © 2013 Topix LLC [p?c1=2&c2=6035743&c3=&c4=politix%2Etopix%2Ecom&c5=&c6=politics&c15=&cj =1] Quantcast