Death Penalty Supporters
Reading about California’s execution of Tookie Williams Monday night, it occurs to me that there are two categories of death penalty supporters:
- People who don’t understand the legal system. If you’ve never sat through a criminal trial (or several), you can’t possibly understand the uncertainties in every case, including those cases that the press paints as “open and shut” (e.g, the O.J. Simpson Trial). Human fallibility permeates the process: the prosecutor, the defense attorney, the witnesses, the jury, and the judge. Sometimes it reduces to a question of whom to believe, and the legal process is not necessarily the most effective way to answer that question if your goal is to get to the truth.
Sometimes “what happened” is actually pretty clear, but it still seems like fitting square pegs in round holes to match the facts of the particular case to the abstract categories set up by the law.
The other thing that should be abundantly clear to anyone who has participated in or witnessed a criminal trial is that degrees of potential punishment have only a minimal impact on an individual considering a crime. For the most part, those individuals just don’t expect to get caught (or they aren’t thinking about it at all). I would be shocked if anyone could prove a crime was deterred because the death penalty was a potential punishment for the act in question, rather than, e.g., life in prison. It should be obvious that people who commit murder are generally not rational beings, weighing their options and the potential consequences. Certainly, there is no statistical correlation between increased application (or availability) of the death penalty and decreased violent crime.
- People who use the death penalty for political advantage. These people, mostly politicians, may or may not appreciate the fundamental problems of the death penalty, but realize that most people do not understand the criminal justice system, and that taking a pro-death penalty position will communicate a message that they are doing their utmost to reduce crime and make people safer (regardless of whether or not that is actually true).
Are there any death penalty supporters who don’t fit into those two categories? Perhaps certain victims and their families, who view the death penalty as necessary to reestablish some sort of karmic balance in the world and “put the whole thing behind them”?
Kevin Wood Jan 28
“It should be obvious that people who commit murder are generally not rational beings, weighing their options and the potential consequences.”
That’s a classic case of backwards thinking (pun intended). You’re completely ignoring the possibility that someone that commits a murderous act was once a rational person.
“Perhaps certain victims and their families, who view the death penalty as necessary to reestablish some sort of karmic balance in the world and “put the whole thing behind themâ€?”
Fortunately, I’m not a relative to any murder victim, but if I was, the least I would expect from the convicted murderer is remorse for their violenent crimes. William Tookie had over twenty years to renounce his violent history of crimes!
It’s also naive of you to think that the death penalty is enough for a family of a murder victim to “put the whole thing behind them”, because I would argue that it’s only the beginning of their retribution!
Al Jan 28
There are *many* possible justifications for the death penalty that you do not mention in your blog. This is forgivable and understandable given the medium – obviously you have not set out to write an inclusive and expansive piece on the death penalty.
One that *is* worth mentioning is the surrendering of our natural abilities to live in society. To have a successful civilization, we require from all members a certian level of behavior. In return, people can expect protection but I also think it is reasonable that people can expect retribution for wrongs visited upon them. The entire system of torts is based on this principle. But what can happen once the crime committed against another is so terrible that the person (or their loved ones as is usually the case) cannot possibly be made whole?
Many ask if the state has the right to put people to death, but I suggest that perhaps this is not the proper question. The proper question might be if the state has the right NOT to put people to death. Does the state have the right to ask me to control my natural inclination towards retribution while offering nothing in return? Does it have the right to tell me not to corral a lynch mob, which I am physically able of doing, and offer only a jail sentence to ease *my* pain? Leaving aside the fact that prison, while far from desireable, becomes just another lifestyle and is eventually adjusted to perfectly fine (there are penal codes in place to ensure this happens)… even if prison were truly wretched would it be enough?
People often speak of the danger of capital punishment to our civilized spirit. And that there is truth in this cannot be denied… a society that does not respect the dignity of human life will not long rmain a functioning society. But I would suggest that another danger exists. I would suggest that a society that does not address the legitimate cries for retribution from those that have been hurt in a fashion that is truly beyond the pale will *also* not long remain a functioning society.
Adam Rosi-Kessel Jan 28
Note that I did not attempt to provide “justifications for the death penalty” — I was trying to understand how people who advocate for the death penalty reach their conclusions. Neither of these comments seems to address the first point, which is the unavoidable failure of the legal system to “get it right” some of the time.
NV Jan 28
Adam, you seem to assume in 1) that the accused/convicted hasn’t admitted guilt or that there was doubt surrounding the conviction. Where there is no doubt, i.e. the act is on video, the person turned themselves in or whatever, what then?
Is the death penalty so bad then?
To Al: the reverse could be argued – that the death penalty aims to ENSURE the dignity of human life, by removing those that do not respect it.
Adam Rosi-Kessel Jan 28
NV: This is precisely my point. I don’t know if you’ve spent time in the criminal justice system, but my understanding, having represented criminal defendants, attended criminal trials, and following some of the academic research, is that it’s extraordinarily difficult to be sure you got it right, even in cases where there is a confession or the very rare case where “the act is on video.” There is quite a lot of literature indicating that false confessions are a widespread systemic problem; among other reasons, the accused often thinks it’s the best way to get out of his situation. See, e.g. False Confessions at the Innocence Project. Even in the case where you have noncircumstantial evidence — say, a video recording — there are always relevant facts that may or may not be on the record in considering innocence or guilt. For example, defendant is videotaped, apparently killing someone is cold blood with a knife. Taken in isolation, it seems like an “open and shut” case. We don’t know that immediately before the videotape, the victim threatened to kill and rape defendant’s children. Now, it may be under these circumstances that the murder was not actually excusable (there is a whole complex body of law on what sort of force is permissible in self-defense), but as a practical matter we probably wouldn’t want to execute someone based on those facts.
This argument tends to devolve to some edge case where there is no doubt whatsoever that the defendant committed the crime, has no excuse or mitigating circumstance, etc.. The problem is that the system is not generally applied to edge cases, and the standard is not “no doubt.” If the death penalty could be fashioned in such a way that it were only applied in these cases of extreme certainty, it would hardly ever be applied. I suppose the difference between that version of the death penalty and no deah penalty is almost negligible, other than a substantial waste of prosecutorial resources in attempting to prove “no doubt” in certain cases.
Jason Jan 28
I would probably add the third group that you consider, the victim or “Personal Retribution” group. Although, I think group 1 and 2 are conceptually bounded by each other. I would also probably just lump the “Personal Retribution” group in with No.1.
Either way, none of the positions: ignorance, personal political gain, and revenge seem particularly well-suited for policy formation.
Adam Rosi-Kessel Jan 28
By the way, Kevin: “You’re completely ignoring the possibility that someone that commits a murderous act was once a rational person.” I am? I don’t understand your argument. What is the significance of a murderer having once been rational?
Al Jan 28
First… the easy part:
To NV: We are in agreement, and in fact that is the point of view I tend to subscribe to. I was not suggesting that having the death penalty required abandoning respect for the dignity of human life (though some do suggest this). I only meant to suggest that *regardless* of whether a society decides to implement capital punishment or not, it must do either in a way that maintains respect for the dignity of human life.
To Adam:
A fair question, and one that I was not intentionally avoiding. It’s hard for me to keep focus without keeping the text in front of me ;-) Which of course, I do not.
I don’t claim to speak for anyone but myself, but it seems as if “no doubt” is NOT a requirement of a morally justified death penalty. It seems to me, in fact, that the probability of successfully determining a perpetrator of a particular crime has little if anything to do with the moral justification of the penalty to be applied.
Going back to my original post, can we not agree that in an uncivilized world where lynch mobs were the prevalent means of obtaining “justice” there is a *much* higher probablity of getting “the wrong man” and punishing him improperly? This is the condition we seek to replace with the rule of law, *not* a situation where life imprisonment is a “sane default” (though death penalty opponents would have one believe this). In this light, if nothing else, the introduction of a process, and in many cases a lengthy and reflective process, to determine if one has the actual criminal at hand, is a vast improvement over what would be the natural state of affairs. Add to this that he is considered innocent of all crimes when he walks in, is able to have real and actual evidence thrown away because of procedural nonsense and bullshit, and even once found guilty and sentenced is also given the opportunity to mitigate his sentence with previous good acts or lack of bad ones… I’d say it adds up to a fair deal that we can all accept for the benefits of a just society.
That said, it still makes me queasy. The idea of extinguishing any human life disgusts me, and I certainly wouldn’t be the man for the job. Worse still, the idea that an innocent man might indeed be executed, and that there is more or less proof that this has happened… yes it makes my skin crawl. But I do not see that the alternative of denying justice to those who have forfieted their ability or obtain it for themselves in the name of a civilized world is morally a better choice at all. And here in America (I don’t know where you are) we routinely give 5-15 year sentences for taking another man’s life. *Taking another man’s life* THIS is where there is something seriously wrong.
Take 8/10 of the laws on the books (esp. the drug laws) and throw them all away and focus on the REAL crimes against humanity. Put the money saved towards refining and improving the trial and appeal process to help lower the odds that an innocent man will be unjustly punished. Then you’ll see a real improvement across the board.
Al Jan 28
First… the easy part:
To NV: We are in agreement, and in fact that is the point of view I tend to subscribe to. I was not suggesting that having the death penalty required abandoning respect for the dignity of human life (though some do suggest this). I only meant to suggest that *regardless* of whether a society decides to implement capital punishment or not, it must do either in a way that maintains respect for the dignity of human life.
To Adam:
A fair question, and one that I was not intentionally avoiding. It’s hard for me to keep focus without keeping the text in front of me ;-) Which of course, I do not.
I don’t claim to speak for anyone but myself, but it seems as if “no doubt” is NOT a requirement of a morally justified death penalty. It seems to me, in fact, that the probability of successfully determining a perpetrator of a particular crime has little if anything to do with the moral justification of the penalty to be applied.
Going back to my original post, can we not agree that in an uncivilized world where lynch mobs were the prevalent means of obtaining “justice” there is a *much* higher probablity of getting “the wrong man” and punishing him improperly? This is the condition we seek to replace with the rule of law, *not* a situation where life imprisonment is a “sane default” (though death penalty opponents would have one believe this). In this light, if nothing else, the introduction of a process, and in many cases a lengthy and reflective process, to determine if one has the actual criminal at hand, is a vast improvement over what would be the natural state of affairs. Add to this that he is considered innocent of all crimes when he walks in, is able to have real and actual evidence thrown away because of procedural nonsense and bullshit, and even once found guilty and sentenced is also given the opportunity to mitigate his sentence with previous good acts or lack of bad ones… I’d say it adds up to a fair deal that we can all accept for the benefits of a just society.
That said, it still makes me queasy. The idea of extinguishing any human life disgusts me, and I certainly wouldn’t be the man for the job. Worse still, the idea that an innocent man might indeed be executed, and that there is more or less proof that this has happened… yes it makes my skin crawl. But I do not see that the alternative of denying justice to those who have forfieted their ability or obtain it for themselves in the name of a civilized world is morally a better choice at all. And here in America (I don’t know where you are) we routinely give 5-15 year sentences for taking another man’s life. *Taking another man’s life* THIS is where there is something seriously wrong.
Take 8/10 of the laws on the books (esp. the drug laws) and throw them all away and focus on the REAL crimes against humanity. Put the money saved towards refining and improving the trial and appeal process to help lower the odds that an innocent man will be unjustly punished. Then you’ll see a real improvement across the board.
Kevin Wood Jan 28
Adam, very significant! Let me take you back to what you said:
“I would be shocked if anyone could prove a crime was deterred because the death penalty was a potential punishment for the act in question, rather than, e.g., life in prison. It should be obvious that people who commit murder are generally not rational beings, weighing their options and the potential consequences.”
If I understand you correctly, you’re stating that the death penalty doesn’t work because the murderer is incapable of making rational decisions (understanding the consequences of their actions).
If a convicted murderer was once a rational person then logically we can conclude that at one point they were capable of making rational decisions (understanding the consequences of their actions). Therefore, we can also logically conclude that a society requires deterrents in order to give the rational person reason not to commit the crime in the first place.
What kind of message are we sending society when the worst punishment for commiting murder is life in prison? We would be advertising a life with shelter, food, and water to those that would contemplate or advocate murder!
P.S. Please make your comment box bigger! :)
Adam Rosi-Kessel Jan 28
Kevin: I’m not sure I follow your reasoning. Empirically, there is no evidence that the death penalty is an effective deterrent over incarceration. I’d be interested if you can point me to any research to the contrary, other than the 1975 Ehrlich study which has been sharply criticized by (as far as I know) every study since then.
Setting aside the empirical data, my personal experience in the criminal justice system has been that defendants who actually did bad acts rarely if ever considered the various degrees of punishment for those acts at the time. There may be some awareness that the acts could lead to punishment, but the people committing the acts (1) don’t expect to get caught, (2) don’t really know the difference that would result from, e.g., committing a robbery without a deadly weapon vs. with a deadly weapon, and (3) even when they might know that difference, they aren’t factoring it in when making their decision to commit the bad act. This is particularly true of murder, which is almost never committed in a clear frame of mind.
Finally, I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks life in prison has positive elements that somehow “send the message” that it’s not so bad to do something that ends up in a life sentence. Have you ever been to a prison?
I do agree that the comment box is too small, and that is now fixed.
Kevin Wood Jan 28
Adam,
I understand that your personal experience has caused you reason to doubt and I appologize for not addressing your main point, but I have to respectfully disagree with you.
“Empirically, there is no evidence that the death penalty is an effective deterrent over incarceration.”
Consider myself as evidence or ask a dozen of people that you don’t normally socialize with. I think you’ll find that given a choice most people would pick incarceration any day. Can’t you see that the same logic could be applied to a potential murderer?
“I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks life in prison has positive elements that somehow “send the message” that it’s not so bad to do something that ends up in a life sentence. Have you ever been to a prison?”
No I haven’t even visited a prison, but I don’t believe it matters, because most people (including criminals) are capable of adapting to a new lifestyle (especially when forced) – remember we’re talking life here. Sure it might not be all that glamorous, but it’s a home they don’t have to pay for with a roof on their head and free food. Call me stubborn, but I’m still not convinced that it’s an effective deterrent.
Let me finish by at least stating that I’m a big believer in second chances and that if a convicted murderer can show remorse for their actions I think incarceration would be the least that their victim(s) could grant them.
Thanks for making the comment box bigger. ;)
Adam Rosi-Kessel Jan 28
Kevin: I think we may be operating under different definitions of the word “empirical.” By empirical I mean derived from experimental data. I do not mean “ask a bunch of people what they think.” You may be conflating the two parts of my position, which are: (1) there are no peer-reviewed studies that support a correlation between the availability of the death penalty and decreased violent crime, and (2) my experience and that of my colleagues in the criminal justice system (I’m an IP lawyer now, I don’t do any criminal work currently) is that, looking at any particular case, it seems virtually impossible that a different result would have obtained had the potential punishment been greater. I have several friends who work as prosecutors as well as defense attorneys, and I think they would generally agree with me. In fact, my own experience is that prosecutors are about as frequently opposed to the death penalty as are defense attorneys, although I admit that is just an anecdotal observation.
It seems to me that you’re arguing not from data, or even from personal observation, but just from how you think things are. I would be quite curious to see if you maintained the same positions after spending a few months directly observing the entire criminal justice process, from arraignment to conviction (or, in 90% of cases, a plea bargain), and then prison conditions.
Kevin Wood Jan 28
Adam, I sure wish you would lighten up. Why couldn’t a survey provide experimental data if it adhered to scientific methods? I’m sure with a little imigination you could’ve accepted my argument. Of course I’m arguing from my personal views, please don’t play them down as “how you think things are”, as if my personal beliefs or experience were without merit or without value. To respond to your 1st position, I would go back to my previous arguments as a possibility to why those studies don’t exist, but if you continue to choose to overlook my main points I can no longer help you.
Adam Rosi-Kessel Jan 28
Kevin: I’m trying to drill down to the right answer here. It’s difficult to lighten up when the subject is state execution. It would be easier to have a lighthearted conversation about the merits of various source code revision control systems, for example.
I didn’t mean to imply that a survey isn’t a valid method of gathering data to answer policy questions. But it sounds like you’re talking about a hypothetical survey, and surmising hypothetical results to that survey, and then drawing your own conclusions from those results. If you can point me to a peer-reviewed article that relied on survey data to reach some conclusion about criminal justice, I would be interested to see it. I think generally that’s just not how social scientists approach this issue, though. There is a fair amount of data already available to analyze–for example, it is known how many violent crimes are reported in different geographic areas at different times, and it is also known when and where the death penalty was applied, available, etc.. These studies indicate no correlation between the death penalty and increased public safety.
I also didn’t mean to imply that your personal beliefs or experience are without merit or value. If you want to convince others that your position is correct, however, you’re going to need to provide either some sort of empirical basis for that position (and not just a hypothesis) or some sort of personal experience that is relevant to the question at hand.
Let me offer a rather ill-fitting analogy, but one I hope you’ll understand as a Debian person. Would you be inclined to adopt the recommendations of someone about what software development model worked best who had neither empirical data to support his suggestion nor personal experience in those development models? In other words, he hasn’t reviewed any studies that attempt to quantify, e.g., the number of bugs per hundreds of thousands of lines of code in proprietary vs. open source software, or the cost to develop a software package of a certain level of complexity under the different models. He also hasn’t ever done any software development himself, nor has he worked with people who do it. All he’s done is thought about it and asked some other people what they thought.
It’s not that this person’s beliefs are “without merit,” but rather that it would be a very bad idea to actually decide how to develop software based on that person’s recommendations.
Kevin Wood Jan 28
Adam, once you admitted you’re a lawyer, I knew I was in too deep. :)
Indulge me in some real world scenarios (yes, without the “cold, hard facts”). What happens when a boy is raised without a father figure? When they have no strong, male role model to revere? Where or how do they learn how to behave? What are the effects to our society? By legalizing abortion are we not cheapening the culture of life? My point is that there’s a lot of psychological and cultural reasons that can potentially result in murderous acts as a consequence to our own negligence.
I hope you will consider my points. Not all answers hold the truth.
Frank N. Stein Jan 28
That’s why the presumption of innocence exists. Lesser punishment is no excuse to disregard it.
That’s, of course, bullshit. Someone incapable of rational thinking at the moment of commiting the crime is, by definition, not guilty by reason of insanity. Someone with their ability of rational thinking greatly reduced is acting under diminished capacity. In this case the determent effect of the penal system is, indeed, severely limited. Many murders are, however, premeditated and commited for rational reasons. Criminals, especially professional ones, often know the penal code and use this knowledge to avoid unneccessary risk.
While the penal system does, indeed, provide an (imperfect) substitute for the personal revenge, it’s primary function is determent. The capital punisment is a useful in this role, and this is a good reason to keep it.
I do understand and respect opposition against the death penalty for humanitarian reasons – it is a cruel punishment, after all. I do, however, fail to see reasoning behind your position.
Adam Rosi-Kessel Jan 28
Mr. “Stein” — I’m not sure where you’re coming from. I don’t know that it would be productive to get in a point-by-point rebuttal here–blog comments are an awkward medium for threaded conversations. It seems to me that you don’t understand how the “presumption of innocence” plays out in the system. You also mischaracterize the legal standard for an insanity defense. You conclude with the bald assertion that capital punishment is an effect deterrent (or “determent”), but cite no data to support your position.
Martin Jan 28
I hope no one minds me pegging this extra question on the end of the debate…
I can see how relatives of someone who has been murdered would want retribution, although I disagree with this and support forgiveness.
What I cannot understand is how Christians feel that killing is correct despite it being so obviously stated in the 10 commandments that it is not?
I don’t want to start a religious debate all I would like to know from someone who follows the bible and supports the death penalty is how they reconcile what I see as a double standard?
Anonymous Jan 28
FTC settlements
Alex Jan 28
This is in response to Martin and those who have posted similar thoughts.
First, you are mistaken regarding the 6th commandment. The Hebrew word here for ‘kill” is the word “murder”, the unlawful taking of a human life. All modern translations correctly reflect this.
More importantly however, you and others have a mistaken view of what is the role of forgiveness, punishment, and justice. Even if we earnestly forgive the criminal (whether or not that person shows remorse), does that mean that such a person is now absolved of any punishment? This is certainly what is implied in many of the comments here. Consider this carefully: if you punish a cold-blooded murderer with 20 to 40 years, or anything less than life imprisonment, you HAVE in fact cheapened human life.
Unquestionably, capital punishment is a just sentence reserved for those who have in their particular circumstances continued to show the extent of their repeated, evil behavior. I have spoken with prison guards here in California who interact with some of the most incorrugible people on death row. There is absolutely no incentive to prevent such people from attacking and killing these guards for the simple reason that they are ALREADY serving a life sentence. What further punishment exists for such people?
Questioning the deterrent effect of capital punishment is also a useless intellectual game. If we are going to use such an argument against its use, could we not continue this line of reasoning and abandon all forms of criminal punishment? Nevertheless, there is this undeniable fact of the deterrrence effect of the death penalty: the murderer will murder no more!
Sure, there are mistakes in our justice system. However, with the advent of DNA profiling and other advances in forensic science, there are less mistakes than ever before. If all the evidence clearly determines the guilt of the individual, then they are plainly guilty! Let’s do away with the nonsense that pervades this society which seeks to mitigate personal responsiblity and blame society, one’s upbring, economic status, or other such nonsense.
Someone once said that you can judge a society by viewing the conditions of its prisons. While studying law enforcement, a had a private tour of the security housing unit at Pelican Bay State Prison (the most high-tech here in CA). Pelican Bay is the “prison within the prison system”. Only the very worst individuals from the entire state “earned” their way there. While examining carefully the facilities and noting the behavior of the inmates, I came to an important conclusion: if people such as these had ever been born in ANY other country, they would have long been dead!
grumpybumpas Sep 22
In the state of Texas the death penelty works,no convicted felon exsecuted by the state of Texas has ever gone on to kill again.