There is NO middle ground on the death penalty

[markpkessinger]

A commonly heard argument by those who acknowledge many of the current problems with the death penalty in this country,but who are unwilling to oppose it, is that while they recognize that there are problems with it that need to be addressed, they nevertheless continue to support it because some crimes -- such as {insert heinous exemplar here} -- are so utterly heinous that the death penalty 'seems' the only fitting punishment. They go on to say that they support it when a case rises to a level of heinousness deemed by . . . whom, exactly? . . . that the death penalty is obviously, as far as they are concerned, 'appropriate,' and where there is absolute certainty of guilt.

There are numerous problems with this stance both as a legal matter and as a matter of ethics.

First, we know that our legal system sometimes wrongly convicts people, and that people have been wrongfully executed. This is not a matter of debate. But, these folks argue, those aren't the cases they are talking about. They are only talking about those cases in which guilt is 100% certain, right? Problem is, as a legal matter, our system does not make any provision whatsoever for varying degrees of certainty concerning guilt. One either meets the standard of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" or one does not. To suggest that Defendant X's guilt, having been convicted, is less certain than that of Defendant Y, convicted of the same crime, is to suggest that there is reasonable doubt as to Defendant X's guilt in the first place, and is an argument for setting aside Defendant X's conviction altogether. That is hardly an argument for imposing an irreversible punishment on Defendant Y. So there is, both as a practical and as a legal matter, simply no way to ensure that the death penalty will be imposed only in these cases of 'absolute certainty,' because that is a legal fiction.

Second, the question of whether a crime, or of which crimes, rise to a level of heinousness is inherently subjective, and thus is inappropriate for use as a standard in a court of law. People have very different ideas about what constitutes a crime so heinous that it merits the death penalty. So who decides?

There is an ethical bottom line here to which death penalty supporters must reconcile their consciences: if you support the death penalty, then, in fact, you support the sacrifice of a certain number of innocents in order to satiate a collective desire for vengeance. That is the uncomfortable fact of the matter that simply cannot be avoided.

[Journeyman]

1. Cue the story of Robert Pierce, killed at San Quentin in 1956. . .

Support for the death penalty includes support for what was done to Pierce, for he was as guilty as they come (he admitted his crime), and was of the most reprehensible character.

Pierce was a contemporary of Caryl Chessman. They shared the Row together, but not a cell, and not even near each other, as Pierce was considered too dangerous to be kept with the other condemned prisoners; they kept him penned in a special section dubbed the "Iron Curtain."

Remember that phrase: "too dangerous to be kept with the other condemned prisoners." He was the worst of the worse, and his death brought out the worst in the system, and those who support the death penalty by default support what was done to Robert Pierce.

I'll let Evan S. Connell explain:

Robert Pierce, awaiting execution at San Quentin prison,
contrived to slash his throat with a shard of glass,
precipitating a frantic quarrel among the authorities:
some insisted that he be executed before he bled to death
while others thought he should be taken to the hospital.
Presently, with gouts of blood bubbling from his neck,
he was carried into the gas chamber. Witnesses screamed,
vomited and several fainted. The decision had been reached,
officials later explained, because at the time of death
the prisoner probably would still be alive and therefore
conscious not only of his crime but of the retributions
justly demanded by the Sovereign State of California.

Evan S. Connell, Points for a Compass Rose, 1973

[markpkessinger]

4. +1

[JaneyVee]

2. Third-The 8th Amendment.

[markpkessinger]

3. Absolutely! n/t

[jeff47]

5. It doesn't even make sense from the punishment angle.

Prison is not a pleasant place to be. If you want more punishment for awful crimes, why cut prison time short with an execution?

[markpkessinger]

6. Agreed . . .

. . . although I also question most theories of "retributive justice."

[aikoaiko]

7. Sure it does. Convicted murders almost unanimously plead for life in prison instead of DP.

They know what's worse.

[morningfog]

9. You have a link to that stat?

[aikoaiko]

11. Nope, but I recall only 1 convicted murderer who asked to be put to death during sentencing.

Do you know many others?

[morningfog]

12. I know of many who went to trial.

You said, "Convicted murders almost unanimously plead for life in prison instead of DP."

To prove that you would need to show that almost everyone convicted of murder pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea deal in exchange for life in prison. But, only in those draconian jurisdictions where DP is still practiced. I doubt that your claim is accurate.

[aikoaiko]

13. Not plea deals but pleading or asking for life instead of DP.

Hope that clarifies my previous post.

[jeff47]

15. No, they know what is thought of as worse.

There's tons of poor Republicans who will violently oppose any attempt to help them.

You're assuming completely rational behavior from irrational people - after all, they murdered someone despite the repercussions of that act.

[aikoaiko]

16. You don't have to be rationale to have a preference

[jeff47]

17. You do if you're going to claim that preference is meaningful and logical. (nt)

[aikoaiko]

20. logical yes, but not necessarily meaningful

You don't have to be particularly logical or rationale to prefer life to death.

[flvegan]

8. Even bringing ethics into a discussion with a death penalty supporter

is devoid of sense. They don't get it. Supporting the death penalty lacks ethics, common sense and anything else that makes one human, short of an emotional response.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

10. OJ is still alive...

In this country, if you have enough money, you can commit a brutal double homicide and walk away from it.

The death penalty is, by and large, reserved for people who cannot afford better legal representation. In 2008, the American Bar Association reported that of 3300 prisoners on death row, 99.5% of them were indigent -- nearly all were having appeals being handled by overworked, underpaid, and (in an alarming number of cases) ethically-challenged defense attorneys arranged for by the court.

[NaturalHigh]

14. I disagree.

Last edited Thu Jul 24, 2014, 10:48 AM - Edit history (1)

As I have grown older, I don't take a stand about the death penalty one way or the other. I would never vote for it personally, which means I will never be on a jury deciding a capital case, but I am not going to put my time and energy into defending someone who kills with premeditation.

That said, I would be perfectly happy if we commuted all death sentences to life without parole, assuming those sentences really are without parole.

[rustydog]

18. Well said! Very well stated point

If we are to continue having a death penalty. We must be CERTAIN that the people we are killing in our name ARE truly guilty of the crime they are accused of.

Until that day arrives, we must stop killing people in our prisons.

[LWolf]

19. There's plenty of middle ground

in a legal sense, but none ethically or morally.

I would be thrilled to see the death penalty become extinct. I'm not holding my breath for this lifetime, though.

I will continue to write my Senators and Rep about getting rid of it in our state, of course.

[whatthehey]

21. One easy, incontrovertible, word

Recidivism.

Nobody executed has ever, in any circumstances, killed again.

The same cannot be said of any other alternative. Not intervention, not jail, not solitary, not life without parole, not supermax. NOTHING.

For every "innocent" person executed, please also count the far more innocent people killed By already convicted perpetrators of capital crimes.