Mercy for Killers
Another regional newspaper reports that lawmakers in N.J. are set ban the death penalty.
Here in Pennsylvania there is no such movement afoot. Perhaps because of stories like this one.
Deserving the death penalty and actually being executed, however, are two very different things. Just ask Maureen Faulkner.
Here in Pennsylvania there is no such movement afoot. Perhaps because of stories like this one.
Deserving the death penalty and actually being executed, however, are two very different things. Just ask Maureen Faulkner.
posted by Spencerblog at
7:58 AM
6 Comments:
Spencer-
There have been numerous cases of wrongful imprisonment and exonerated prisoners in recent years. In some parts of the country, the death penalty is applied disproportionately with regard to race. Just because a death penalty might be a deterrent for you, does not mean that it is an effective deterrent over all of society. Thus the need for a study, rather than pulling "answers" out of an orifice.
The following is take from the report of the New Jersey commission that made the recommendations.
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/committees/dpsc_final.pdf
The commission is charged with studying all aspects of the death penalty as currently administered in the State of New Jersey, including but not limited to the following issues:
(1) whether the death penalty rationally serves a legitimate penological intent such as
deterrence;
(2) whether there is a significant difference between the cost of the death penalty from
indictment to execution and the cost of life in prison without parole;
(3) whether the death penalty is consistent with evolving standards of decency;
(4) whether the selection of defendants in New Jersey for capital trials is arbitrary, unfair,
or discriminatory in any way and there is unfair, arbitrary, or discriminatory variability in the
sentencing phase or at any stage of the process;
(5) whether there is a significant difference in the crimes of those selected for the
punishment of death as opposed to those who receive life in prison;
(6) whether the penological interest in executing some of those guilty of murder is
sufficiently compelling that the risk of an irreversible mistake is acceptable; and
(7) whether alternatives to the death penalty exist that would sufficiently ensure public
safety and address other legitimate social and penological interests, including the interests of
families of victims.
FINDINGS
(1) There is no compelling evidence that the New Jersey death penalty rationally serves a
legitimate penological intent.
(2) The costs of the death penalty are greater than the costs of life in prison without parole,
but it is not possible to measure these costs with any degree of precision.
(3) There is increasing evidence that the death penalty is inconsistent with evolving standards
of decency.
(4) The available data do not support a finding of invidious racial bias in the application of the
death penalty in New Jersey.
(5) Abolition of the death penalty will eliminate the risk of disproportionality in capital
sentencing.
(6) The penological interest in executing a small number of persons guilty of murder is not
sufficiently compelling to justify the risk of making an irreversible mistake.
(7) The alternative of life imprisonment in a maximum security institution without the
possibility of parole would sufficiently ensure public safety and address other legitimate social
and penological interests, including the interests of the families of murder victims.
(8) Sufficient funds should be dedicated to ensure adequate services and advocacy for the
families of murder victims.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Commission recommends that the death penalty in New Jersey be abolished and
replaced with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, to be served in a maximum
security facility. The Commission also recommends that any cost savings resulting from the
abolition of the death penalty be used for benefits and services for survivors of victims of
homicide.
Diano -
Thanks for the (long) but informational post. And the link.
Often, when politicians want to get politically unpopular things done they hand them over to a commission. And then they point to the commission's findings as the reason to pass legislation that isn't particularly popular but pleases a certain constituency.
Fair enough.
I think there are legitimate arguments against the death penalty. Some are incorporated in this commission's findings. I think there are others that are even more compelling.
However, saving money is the lousiest one. And the nakedness of the political concerns of the commission is obvious when it suggests the money saved should be forked over to aid the families of murder victims.
That's just a crude sop.
As in, "Listen, you blood-thirsty jerks, if you quit demanding the blood of the guy who raped and killed your daughter we'll give you a few bucks."
In any case, as long as death-penalty advocates have creeps like the one mentioned in the story I linked to above, most people will remain in favor of it especially in heinous cases like that one.
The death penalty, as it is administered right now, is not a deterrent.
I don't see how a death sentence could cost more than a life without the possibility of parole sentence, since currently a death sentence is basically a life without parole sentence.
It is time to reconsider our standards of decency when it is indecent to punish the most heinous criminals.
The problems with the system should be fixed. The appeals process should be reassessed. Maybe the standard of proof for death penalty cases should be raised from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "there is no doubt".
Either way, the death penalty should not be abolished.
E,
Changing the burden of proof (not the "standard" of proof) as you suggest will not, in my view, change anything.
Study after study show that most jurors who vote for the death penalty decide that way only if they are "certain" that the accused is guilty of the capital offense charged.
Based upon the relatively high number of reversals due to newly-discovered DNA evidence, for example, that "certainty" is sometimes sadly misplaced.
Abolish the Death Penalty?? Nooo… We need to expand the Death Penalty!
How’s about we put it to The People? –You know, the way a democracy might do it. Particularly when 80% of Us want the Death Penalty. But then, as with most things, LibDems don’t hold much respect for democracy and what The People think when it threatens to run counter to what they want to inflict upon Us against Our will.
Kinda like how they have done all they can to prevent Us from deciding the Gay Marriage issue once and for all. The last thing they want is to let The People decide that.
law prof,
Normally would not debate this matter with a "law prof" but, I always understood that the "burden of proof" is is an obligation of the prosecution or the plaintiff to prove the particular point in question, such as guilt.
The "standard of proof" is the level of proof which must be conveyed to the judge, jury or arbitrator that their position is correct such as "a preponderance of the evidence" or "beyond a reasonable doubt" so that the "burden of proof" can be met.
I'm sure you will let me know if I'm wrong.
Either way, what I was getting at was "beyond a reasonable doubt" still allows some doubt to exist. Raising the "standard of proof" beyond that to "there is no doubt" could make DNA evidence, video surveillance of the crime in progress, an audio or video taped confession, eye witness testimony from people who know the defendant personally or some combination of these, could all be made mandatory in death penalty cases to raise the standard of proof. If you don't have one of these examples, then it can't be a death penalty case.
Post a Comment
<< Home