Rethinking the Death Penalty

[BuffyVmprSlyr]

In the past few years I have had very little time to do any "leisure reading", whether fiction or non-fiction.  Every spare minute I had was spent trying to catch up reading for my graduate courses!

However, my family had the opportunity to go on vacation this past Thanksgiving, and gave the opportunity for "downtime" like no one else can.   

So... I read a book.  It was a non-fiction work by John Grisham entitled The Innocent Man.  I have always liked Grisham books.  I find them to be engaging and full of problem-solving... brain candy and yet still fairly intellectual.

This book tells the story of a case in Oklahoma in which a former hometown hero (who later was unemployed, unstable and suffered mental problems) is accused of murder.  He was not even in the place of the crime scene at the time it happened, and the only initial "evidence" was that another witness (who latered turned out to be the perpetrator of the crime) recalled seeing him at the crime scene.

His reputation and disposition convinced local authorities that he was guilty.  At some point during the investigation, the police decided that the crime was too brutal to have been committed by one man, and that two men must have been involved.  They determined it "must have been" the friend of the accused, and eventually both men find themselves on trial.  The primary accused was sentenced to death row, and the friend got life in prison.

While on death row, the man meets several others who were also convicted on circumstantial evidence. A few rulings are overturned, and others are executed and later exonerated.

Grisham does a masterful job laying out the case... and what struck me is how much room there is for human error -- on so many parts.  I still believe conceptually and philosophically in the death penalty, and agree with it from a religious standpoint.  But I can no longer account for the reliability of human judgment and how justice is determined in the US court system -- that is to say that I now object to it from a procedural angle. 

The mistakes that are made, and the alterior motives and agendas that come into play are astounding, and are very damaging to any faith we want to have in our court system in regard to passing a judgment upon which a man's life depends.

I do recommend the book to others -- but with a cautionary note that it will make you rethink your position on this matter.

-Buffy

[metis]

In a society that has the availability of jails and prisons, I simply feel that capital punishment is hard to justify unless pure revenge is the motive.  There's simply too many chances that an innocent person may be executed, and there is the alternative of imprisoning the person for life without parole, which we have here in Michigan.  And theologically, it seemingly implies that a person cannot change, which I think we all know that people can and do change.  So why kill people who kill people to show them that killing people is wrong?

Shalom,
Vern 

[gracebyfaith]

Do either of you believe the death penalty is acceptable in cases where there is
confession to a murder?

I tend to lean toward the death penalty when someone confesses, with no
remorse or intent to be reformed.  In other words, he/she has no conscience
and would do the same if set free.  In fact, some have done the same when
released from prison.

This is a different topic, but if there were consequences like death, I do think
it could be a deterrent (just my opinion).  I've heard people argue it doesn't work,
but in premeditated cases, I think it "could" and that's good enough for me.

Again, I might leave the death penalty for those who have willingly confessed to
these heinous crimes.


GracebyFaith

[metis]

gracebyfaith:

I don't.  We've seen false confessions before, but on top of that why should we assume that just because a person confesses that they cannot change?  And since we can isolate that person from hurting the general public, why kill him/her?

However, if a society cannot protect its citizens because it has no jail or prison system, then that changes the scenario.  When Israel developed them, executions became very rare and, as a matter of fact, if there was more than one person killed every 7 years, that was considered as being brutal, according to the Talmud. 

Shalom,
Vern

[gluadys]

Do either of you believe the death penalty is acceptable in cases where there is
confession to a murder?

GracebyFaith

I don't.  We have been without the death penalty in Canada for over 30 years formally, and even longer informally. (The last execution was in 1969).  There are many factors that can go into a confession, and a confession is not a 100% certain indicator of guilt. 

Furthermore, even with a 100% certain indicator of guilt, there is no need for the death penalty when we have adequate public protection without it.

Nor is there any indication that the death penalty deters anyone, least of all the person premeditating a murder.  Premeditation not only includes planning the murder but also planning how to evade detection and/or prosecution. 

Unlike sexual offenders or even common thieves, very few murderers ever kill a second time.  Only a very tiny fraction of those convicted of murder are either hired killers or serial killers.  Most murders are prompted by very specific factors that don't repeat.  So except in rare instances, the public is probably safer with a released murderer than with a released drunken driver. 

And, as Vern says, people do change, including murderers.  It is right to give people the opportunity to take responsibility for their actions and seek to atone for them to the extent possible. 

[gluadys]

Whew....!

I am against the death penalty myself, for mostly the same reasons as Buffy but, determining the consequences of murder based on the "probability" that the perp would not murder again is seriously insensitive. Murder is the most egregious crime possible and those who do such a thing deserve nothing less than death. 

Maybe so.  But should we always give people what they deserve? 
Would you want to receive from God what you deserve?

Anyway, I did not say the consequences should be based on probabilities.  I just noted what the probabilities are.   

BTW, what's up with all the Canada references?

That's where I live, so that's my perspective.  Also, I think it is good to consider the examples gleaned from experience. 

[gluadys]

I believe that ultimately I will get what I deserve either way.

Well, I am trusting in God's grace that I will get blessings I don't deserve and not receive judgment that I do deserve. 

[metis]

Anyone catch the news yesterday whereas a woman was released after spending 13 years in prison whereas she was accused of killing her daughter?  The d.n.a. evidence indicates that it could not have been her but points to her former boyfriend instead, who has just been charged with strangling another woman.

[Acumen]

I did not hear the news.  I would like to know what facts were used to sentence her.

[seafsee]

It's a local story around here of which I do not have all the "facts". It has created quite a stir though. They now say the daughter (supposedly killed) died of a cocaine overdose!?!

Try searching http://www.buffalonews.com/ (or your favorite search engine) for Lynn DeJac or Lynn DeJac murder case.

Delano, a 24-year veteran of the department, publicly maintains his belief that DeJac did not kill her 13-year-old daughter, Crystallynn Girard, in 1993 and has been critical of the Erie County district attorney's office for accepting new forensic findings that indicate Crystallynn died of a cocaine overdose and not strangulation.

"Crystallynn Girard needs somebody to stand up and speak for her," said Delano, in a WBEN radio broadcast Friday. "They could fire me or do whatever they want. This little girl was a victim of a homicide. It's not right."

Delano, who could not be reached to comment Friday, is accused of providing a department crime-scene video of Crystallynn's bloodied room, along with footage of Dennis P. Donohue's lie-detector test. Donohue is a former boyfriend of DeJac and is charged in an unrelated strangulation case. His DNA was found at the crime scene in the Girard case.

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=11F28059D0296F98&p_docnum=1

[julrich]

The moral question of the death sentence obscures the real justice issues involved.  The justice issues are whether an absolute sentence (one that can never be altered) could ever be fairly administered consistently even in a system with the highest standards of due process, and, even granting that, the question remains whether we could ever produce a justice system with those highest standards for suspects of the worst types of crimes committed in our political system.  I say no for both answers, but I'm biased because I think that morally the death sentence is state-sponsored murder. 

But I'd be happy if people would begin to discuss the underlying legal justice issues as part of an effort to raise those procedural standards.  But people don't do that because they are so emotionally torn by the fear of "injustice" that could strike their loved ones.  But that fear isn't a basis for an interest in higher due process standards, that fear is the basis for the desire for revenge.  And that's the impulse that every DA and Capital Death Politician appeals to when defendants are offered to juries as a sacrifice to that bloodlust.  So no one has the courage to come out and address these issues, either morally or legally.

Well, almost no one.  Tonight, in an address to the voting public of Americans in favor of change announcing his achivement as the presumptive Democratic candidate, Obama said: "I've sat across the table from law enforcement and civil rights advocates to reform a criminal justice system that sent thirteen innocent people to death row."  Most Democrats don't even know he's had that legislative leadership experience because politicians can't even put their head up and whisper about what's wrong with our justice system (as if the injustice of wrongful sentences only applied to death convicts).  In fact, most won't be able to understand that his position is not against the death sentence, but in favor of criminal procedural reforms.  (but I know there is a "psychiatrist" out there who thinks he knows Obama's closet position listening).

This culture is infatuated with killing.

shalom
big julie

[Acumen]

This culture is infatuated with killing.

What culture isn't?

[julrich]

costa rica, denmark, sweden, norway, new zealand, hungary, jamaica, netherlands, canada
to name a few by nationality

jules