The death penalty is just not supported in a culture that doesn't believe it's necessary to keep the poor and minorities 'at bay'. More mature cultures realise they have no legitimate use for it.

There are only two "reasons" for having a death penalty. One is revenge and the other is deterrence. We know that it does not act as a deterrent. Revenge is unworthy of people who are at all civilized.

Good blog!

;-)
.

Sky thank you. Even if we understand revenge as a human feeling, the state should not act as our personal revenge-agent.

Grrrrrrrr that @$%#*&* rating thigie!!
.

Sky OS may not enjoy tech excellence tho I do thank you for your rating this post. :)

Sanity is creeping in on little cat's feet.

Matt America, yes, rarely goes in for sea-changes, but Justice does come. Thanks!

Joisy --

I think the available information speaks for itself.

You can find all of it at fbi.gov and, if you don't trust the gvt, try the Death Penalty Information Ctr, also online.

I am clear-as-a-bell abt this, tho I have to admit not wholly clear abt all you're saying here (and I am a very good reader) bc your analogies don't make a lot of sense to me. It's probably a flaw in me.

Joisey thanks for this; however, it's a distinctly minority view in the rsrch community.

Agreed--and, as always, tightly and compellingly argued. The "just" in the concluding sentence has moral as well as rhetorical weight. Thanks for this Jonathan.

Jerry thanks so very much.

Frank thanks!!

Jon, there was recently an excellent article written by Rick Reilly. It was about the murder of Chris Paul's grandfather and his reaction. The article can be found here:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=6436820

Thanks for doing this post, Jon.

Catherine thanks for the comment and for the link!!

Good point that the long appeal process prolongs victim families' agony.

Best point, by me, is that capital punishment should be, well, killed. And, having read up on and visited prisons, I can say that life imprisonment is a 'suitably' terrible thing. The 'worst' convicts are in constant danger in the general population or, alternatively, live 23 hours a day in a box and have one hour a day 'exercise', alone, in a cage. (But our whole approach to crime and punishment could do with a lot of new thinking...) Second best, maybe THE best point is that we don't have a good record of imprisoning and executing the right person.

Myriad,

Thanks for these terrific points.

And, too, the fact--and it is a fact, that all juries, REGARDLESS or their racial composition, are far more likely to mete out death when VICTIMS are white, is an extraordinarily compelling reason to ditch the whole thing.

If you're pro life like I am, you're also against the death penalty. Besides that, life in prison is punishment enough. Not only does capital punishment cost more than life in prison, mistakes are made. Innocent people have been put to death. It's time to stop playing God. Punish, but don't kill.

Patricia thank you far too many have swallowed the lie that a life sentence is a cushy deal.

OK, I rated first to be sure it took. Ornery little thing! A weighty subject, Jon. One in which I have very mixed feelings. I am far from being vengeful, however, I still hold to the exception that there are punishable crimes over which the death penalty seems the only logical outcome. Our legal system seems snail slow most of the time, where decisions over open and shut cases linger into the months and years before reaching their logical conclusion. Where heinous crimes are committed against innocent children, as an example, I would be all for the return of beheading, the firing squad or hanging at the nearest tree. The mansy pansy system that is bleeding us dry, both state and national prison systems, making only lawyers and judges rich, irks me to no end. We have death row prisoners sitting around for decades, some writing books, getting 3 squares a day, getting exercise, top notch health care and more...while many law abiding citizens of our broken country, are on food stamps, homeless, without a pot to pee in and worse...much of which, leads to crime. Prison here looks pretty good to those who see no deterrent to committing crimes as a way of life. Prison may not be cushy, but it sure beats the dilemma of poverty facing millions, sadly and ironically. The system is no deterrent, for sure, but a swift and decisive death penalty for specific crimes, in a judicial system with limits on trial lengths for crimes with irrefutable evidence of guilt, would be a whole different ball game. We suck in this area. The guilty are running illegal businesses from inside prison with ease, they are coddled by our lenient judicial system and are sucking dry state budgets to maintain prisons as well as the very law enforcement structures that put them there in the first place. There is so much more to be said and considered here, but when all is said and done, I do lean to the side of death to the monsters that perpetrate horrific crimes against the innocent.
Yes, I do, but not in the manner in which we continue to flounder in the court system and lengthy delays in deciding swift and just punishment to the guilty. But I remain open to other options, as murder, rape and domestic terrorism is on the rise.

Jon, I don't know. I just don't know.

Cathy we agree on a good deal of this and I thank you for your (reasoned, clear) sincere arguments and so well-expressed pull and tug. :)

Walt I appreciate your honest ambivalence, truly.

I am late.. just got up hahaha.. BUT I read this and do not care for the death penalty. Are we still cavemen?
rated with hugs

Linda-- Oh Cone on! Cavemen are why I switched to GEICO! :)

Case closed as far as I'm concerned.

Rated/Buddy

Buddy thank you.

Cathy, I don't know about the USA, but from what I hear (from inmates who have been in both systems) it's worse than in Canada, and here the "three squares" are not the healthiest (prison officials suspect, with some reason, that a lot of the Muslim converts do it for the halal food) and health care is slow & grudging. Prison is not a desirable or pleasant place, and I argue for long or life sentences being worse punishment than death. But as long as the system of catching and judging is imperfect, it's difficult to think that killing inmates is a good idea. "Irrefutable evidence of guilt" is a moving target - used to be an eyewitness or two, or a determined DA or sheriff was "irrefutable", but we are learning better.

The whole cost issue would be much reduced if the death penalty were gone. I've read, and it computes, that it costs more to go thru the long wait and appeals thing than to just imprison indefinitely.

Also, the whole cost matter in U.S. prisons has to do with other matters than death penalty cases. Where was it I saw just last night a chart showing the incredible per capita number of American prisoners compared to any other country on earth. I suspect, with I think good reason, that there's a lot of racism and classism involved in the number of people in U.S. prisons (as per Jonathan's initial comment). Work in the community, fairness, and self-help too would reduce the number of people imprisoned; also cutting out imprisonment for a lot of minor things (pot laws were, probably still are, notorious for imprisoning a lot of essentially non-violent people).

It's certainly hard to argue for 'coddling' killers of children, but we have a serial killer of over a dozen children here in Canada, plus another who killed 'only' two, and, having done prison visitation and seen solitary confinement cells, I have no problem with these guys being warehoused rather than "beheaded" or "hung from the nearest tree". I can dig the visceral appeal, and I was among those those who think assassination of Bin Laden, and even some bit of celebration of same, is not out of line... But in domestic matters, I take a different stand...

Let's also remember the hundreds of people who were wrongfully convicted and have been freed thanks to the Innocence Project. Capital punishment, once applied, can never be reversed upon discovery of a mistake.

Crank yes! TY for this

Myriad I cannot thank you enough--challenging ideas w resect is so important.

Since a majority of murders are not planned how can the threat of death be a deterrent? To deter an action one has to consider the consequences and weigh the need or desire with the possible outcome. The state fears giving up the death penalty since it would imply that they could be responsible in the case of illegal military actions. Not to mention the very iffy nature of convictions in the first place. Too many have been found to be innocent long after conviction to assure that no one would be killed by accident or mistake. No, we don't need a death penalty, we need prisons to keep those people in for ever and make them work for their keep, not in competition with free labor just to keep their own prison running.

I agree with some of the points made in the comments. To put the whole case together in an easy package:

There is only one irrefutable advantage the death penalty provides:
1. The offender cannot offend again.

Other claims:
1. Deterrent value. Unproven.
2. Greatest legal punishment. Given that there is such a thing as mercy killing, lifelong incarceration may actually involve more suffering. The retribution argument is dependent on this argument, which doesn't necessarily stand.
3. Gives closure to loved ones of murder victims. You just refuted that.

Disadvantages of death penalty:
1. Cost. Actual lifelong incarceration is cheaper due to legal costs.
2. Irreversible if we get it wrong
3. Gives us major diplomatic problems, including extradition
4. Practiced with extreme documentable bias

The ethical arguments go both ways. Religion can be used to support either argument. Yes, I would argue that the case is stronger in one direction, but that argument isn't what I'd call airtight.

Without ethical arguments, I'd say the advantages add up pretty clearly in one direction, especially because the introduction of no possibility of parole on a life sentence nearly eliminates the one advantage to the death penalty, the exceptions being escapes (rare in criminals under this kind of security) and inside prison murders, which don't typically happen with death row criminals now.

Without getting emotional about the issue, there it is.

Bobot wholly agree

Kosh well-argued!

Death penalty without organ donation is useless. With it, it's awesome.

Doug even as a kidney transplantee (i have one of my sister's) i like your dark humor

Not only is it time it is long past time. I have to wonder how the most "Christian" among us can condone this non christian act and yet they do, don't they? rated

Rosy whatever else one may think of the Catholic Church, it has been spot on abt this and for st least 100 years.

Jon,
my original comment had nothing to do with ambivalence. What I don't know about anymore is the efficacy of capital punishment. As one of your commenters noted, it does not appear to be a deterrent either for the specific crime for which a person is about to be executed nor "pour les encouragement d'autres" (assuming my rusty 40 year old French is close to accurate).
There are 2 issues with which I wrestle without being able to come to resolution:
1) I have a hard time with the concept of the victims' family having any sort of say in the matter either at the time of sentence imposition or later. To me, the nature of the "social contract" (if there is one) suggests that law enforcement, adjudication and punishment are ceded to the "state" within a social contract and once that occurs the "family of the victims" are essentially out of the equation. The state has taken over on their behalf. And yet, I still wrestle with this aspect of the social contract.
2) The nature of punishment. Again, this is an element of the social contract. There are some whose acts are so heinous as to permanently disqualify them from society--these are "monsters". But what to do with them? A big part of me argues for capital punishment. Another for banishment. Still another part of me asks who should sit in judgement--well, our judicial system is supposed to be equipped to do that.
Anyway that's the basis of me saying "I just don't know". I've been wrestling with this off and on for 40 or so years and I'm no closer to a personal resolution now that I was at age 20. What do you think, Jon?

Walter--

First, thanks for such a clear and honest exposition of the ambivalence the issue raises in so many good people/

Second, I think that bc it IS abt the social contract, legislators who vote on these issues...I've no problem with them garnering the ideas of victims' families in a public policy sense...certainly they ought have no special authority as courts adjudicate specific cases.

Third, I'm not convinced the typical person who murders is a monster; more likely remarkably selfish and /or a person of less self-control than most. Some monsters exist; mostt killers aren't monsters, imo.

Fourth, I see no palpable Good arising from the continuation of capital punishment and clear good, or the probability of it, should be a requirement of any social policy.

Thanks!

I've been mixed on this but am being gradually won over to the anti-death-penalty side for reasons that have nothing to do with morality. There's a practical aspect. Consider a crime in another country for which the penalty is death. Consider that you don't have a way of auditing their trial procedure. If a person (perhaps a traveling US citizen, perhaps a native) can be killed, there can be cases where a trial is held and the person convicted legally and kiled. But if that penalty is off the table, there are always diplomatic means open for addressing things. And if you find someone is killed, you don't have to know the details, you can just know they did something shady. In the US the issue is similar, except that some of us more than others trust the government to be fair. But if you assume that governments can change, it's best to have rules in place that are immune to whim.

Kent YES what you are, in effect, onto here, is that globalisation and its antecedents/offshoots require some readjustments in our thinking of issues we might not immediately see. Thanks!

Some crimes are so horrific that only the death penalty is appropriate. I see it as a matter of justice, and sometimes justice is slow and expensive.

For many career criminals a return to prison is more like a homecoming than a punishment. They know how to work the system, and many enjoy drugs and alcohol during their stays.

It's hard to know if the death penalty is a deterrent. I'm sure that for some it is, and for some it isn't. For repeat offenders we know that prison isn't a deterrent, but no one talks about eliminating prison.

If chemicals for lethal injections are in short supply then firing squads would work just as well.

When a family member is murdered the consequences can extend out for years or decades. Of course the victim's life is cut short. But the families go on. Some families are destroyed. Careers are lost. Educations are interrupted, sometimes permanently. Some families descend into poverty and never recover. Some live with the knowledge that loved one suffered sexual abuse or torture. The damage inflicted by a murderer is so great that it cannot be calculated.

And sometimes life in prison without parole doesn't mean life in prison without parole. As "lifers" age and states have to spend increasing funds on their health care, some states are now considering parole for elderly "lifers." "Life in prison" means life in prison only if the state legislature says that it does, and they can change their minds at any time.

I don't care if other families of victims oppose the death penalty. I may end up being the last one in the country to support the death penalty, and that's fine. The scumbags who blew my grandfather's head off with a shotgun were all hung by the neck until dead, I'm glad they were, and if I had a chance to go back in time and be the person who pulled the trap door lever, I'd do it.

Mish I appreciate your candor despite my not holding w your opinions here.

Remember the old expression "A fate worse than death?" I believe there are such things and life without possibility of parole is one of them. Death puts an end to the convicts suffering (please, let's not get into a discussion of whether there is a "hell" or not) Living in a cell with the walls closing in, being "courted" by other inmates, and waking up every day knowing there is no chance of ever getting beyond the exercise pen is a tough way to start the day. And, execution does absolutely nothing to restore what's lost to the c0-victims.

Lezlie

Lezlie thank you so much for your wisdom.

Its efficacy as a deterrent remains in question which is not true of its efficacy in reducing recidivism.

AKA thanks very much.

Lezlie writes: "Remember the old expression "A fate worse than death?" I believe there are such things and life without possibility of parole is one of them. "

If that's the case, why do the great majority of inmates sentenced to death appeal their sentences?

Jon--you've hit upon the cunundrum. I agree, the typical person who murders may not be a monster. Should that person be executed? Or should we go about defining what a "monster" is? The incorrigible? The multiple violent crime recividist? The sociopath? These are the ones who may be construed to have forfeited the privilege of being in society--and that forfeiture can be incarceration for life, some sort of banishment (except there's no place where that can be done) or, ultimately, execution.
I don't know and I'm not sure whether this is knowable or resolveable. What it becomes is fodder for political discussion which is always in the abstract.
My concern is also for a society and nation which has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world along with one of the highest execution rates both of which appear to have some sort of correlation to race.

Walter uhmhmm and, as long as juries (regardless of the juries' racial composition, btw) are far, far more prone to give out death when the VICTIM is white, regardless of the race of the perp, I could never see, be for, a system of Cap. Pun. ...and that. of course, is just one issue.

We have a tendency to think of the typical murderer as Jeffrey Dawmer. It would be closer to the truth to say the typical murderer is Marvin Gaye's father. (To quote Bill Cosby on his show talking to his on-screen son: "I brought you into this world and I can take you out!") I don't know if it's true any more since gang violence increased but it used to be true that most murder victims knew their assailants.

Mishima, I hope the guys they punished for your grandfather's death were the right ones. Do you thinkt he death penalty is always correctly applied? If not, what action would you suggest for fixing that? What about in other countries?

My grandfather was a prison guard and was shot and killed during a breakout. Another guard was killed, and one was wounded. Four convicts broke into the prison armory through the roof, took weapons, and shot their way out. One convict was shot and killed during the attempt; three successfully escaped but were captured several weeks later. So there wasn't any question as to who did the shooting.

And this leads to another issue: what is the punishment when someone already serving life in prison kills a guard or another inmate? Sentence him to life in prison -- again?

Concerning your other question -- there are many cases in which the murderer is known not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond all doubt. The Petit murders are an example of this. In such cases we're not going to worry about executing the wrong person.

In addition to knowing that the person is guilty to a virtual certainty, there should be aggravating factors that would justify a death sentence. These could include murder of a law enforcement officer, multiple murders, and murder involving torture or sadism.

While a perfect system is never possible, I think we could have a system in which the death penalty is applied with both certainty and reasonable consistency.

Mishima - You ask why, if a life sentence is a fate worse than death, "why do the great majority of inmates sentenced to death appeal their sentences?" I think it's instinct. More people talk suicide than do it. I've known a couple of people, one my father, who declared they would not lie around waiting for some awful disease to kill them - but when push came to shove that's exactly what they did. (I have the same resolve, but I'm not sure I won't hang on until the last painful minute...) There's also the Woody Allen (I think) comment that he's not afraid of death - it's dying he's afraid of.

Also, "homecoming" as in going back to prison: Many if not most of the released inmates I've known have ended back in prison, often deliberately...one declared before he even got out that he'd be back in. And it's not because they enjoy prison life, but because they can't cope with life outside. To the extent that it's caused by having been in prison, it's called "institutionalization". But these people didn't cope well with life outside before they ever got into the system, which is the main reason they got there. They find life under imposed order to be preferable to chaos (preferable does not equal enjoyable). And the drinking and drugging inside - that ain't for fun, that's for a bit of escapism.

However, given what happened to your grandfather, I concede the argument (if any). That's something that supersedes theory or my experience with quiet, resigned convicts.