http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/ncadp/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=239
One of the problems with Texas is that jurors are not given the options most states have. Juries are only given the options of the death penalty or a sentance that guarantees the convicted a life of freedom in a few years. Most states offer juries the option of life w/o parole. The problem may not be so much with Texas people as it is with process.
One of the many, many, many problems with the Texas execution machine. Those guys execute someone about every 2 and 1/2 weeks. There was a fascinating piece on National Public Radio several years ago about the toll that takes on the corrections officers. They have a staggeringly high rate of psych and medical disability, early retirement, resignations, etc.
Read and considered.
The death penalty disgusts me more than I can say - especially when people are so determined to have their victim, even when doubt clearly exists as to guilt.
I only wish I could find a full online version to link to. I can’t type the whole thing in from my book: at the speed/accuracy with which I type, my own life will be too short - even if no one executes me…
Assuming that there is no straightforward answer to the allegations made in that piece, I find this incredibly disturbing. Since I oppose capital punishment anyway, that is hardly surprising. But there is something deeply creepy about a system that delivers this kind of result, presumably in full knowledge of the residents of the state, who apparently do nothing to change it.
There’s something here I simply don’t get. I can understand how the relatives of victims of violent crime might, in the event of a fair trial yielding a guilty verdict beyond reasonable doubt, clamour for the death of the murderer. I can understand how many people, putting themselves in the place of relatives of victims, would want the death penalty should they ever be in that position. I’m even cynical enough to understand how politicians would pander to those attitudes in their constituency. But this goes no way to explaining why the people of a state would demand blood sacrifice for murder, even when there is no good reason to think that the person you are killing committed the crime. Does anyone have any idea why the people of Texas tolerate what looks suspiciously like judicial murder, even from the retributivist perspective of someone who supports capital punishment in principle?
Consider it considered…
I’ve always wondered why so many of the people who advocate the taking of life in the form of capital punishment are the same ones so vehemently opposed to the destruction of a couple of cells (ok, I’m simplifying) in the instance of abortion. A life is a life…
(climbing on the soapbox)
there’s several reasons I’m “for” the death penalty, the main one being that I live in Ohio. Here, a sentence of “life” doesn’t mean that at all. It can mean, in reality: “20 years and parole”. It can also mean that a governor on his last day in office decides to “pardon” the entire group of death row inmates (pardon as in set totally free).
I’ve known two people personnally that were murdered and their murderers were put on death row. In both cases, there was absolutely no doubt as to who committed the murder (Monty lived long enough to identify his murderer to his wife, Dennie’s murder was totally filmed on security tape). Monty’s murderer spent the 20 years he was on death row sending threatening letters to Monty’s family, saying things such as he was going to get guys that were released from prison to rape Monty’s wife and daughter. When his appeals were exhausted, his defense then (20 years and many verbal agreements later) decided to try to say he wasn’t the one that robbed and knifed Monty. Governor Taft didn’t believe him or his defense, and Monty’s family finally got justice last year, for a killing that happened in 1984.
Dennie’s murder happened in 1994, and I recently found out that the defense for his killer was trying to say that the prosecuting attorney made a miss-statement during the trial and to have the ruling overthrown. As I said, this execution was caught on tape. Dennie ran a carryout, and everyone in the area knew he didn’t keep a gun. He had been “forced” by his insurance to install security cameras the week before the murder. The murderer came into the store, demanded money, which Dennie gave him, then had Dennie turn around and shot him point blank in the back of the head. The murderer then walked home, and was apprehended 2 hours later (tracked by dogs) sitting in his livingroom, watching TV and eating Cheetos that he took during the robbery/murder. Besides having it all on tape, the murderer has never denied doing it. NOW, they want to free him because of a legal technicality.
I’m sorry, but if the only way to make sure these monsters are kept off the streets and away from society is to put them to death, then that’s what I am for. If you can assure me that putting them in prison for life is really what they will suffer, then you can do away with the death penalty. I’m not looking for “deterent” from crime, I’m not looking for “rehabilitation”, I just want to make sure these low lifes are never allowed on the street or in society again. Especially when it’s over 100% sure that they committed the murder.
And, as I said, in Ohio, a sentence of life doesn’t mean life.
So - make sure that sentences are carried out and then I’ll go along with getting rid of the death penalty. Until that time, the death penalty must stay in place so that these monsters never have the opportunity to murder again.
(off the soapbox)
Missy
I see your point. But why be ‘for’ the death penalty rather than ‘for’ parole reform? Why, in Ohio or Texas, does it seem so hopeless campaigning for reforms that would close these loopholes make the death penalty unnecessary from this pragmatic point of view? I’m really asking. I don’t understand why closing legal loopholes isn’t the first port of call in cases like this.
An acquaintance once said to me, “I’m a Christian, but I support the death penalty.”
News just in: God has confirmed that there was no first amendment to the 'Thou shalt not kill" rule. It really does mean what it says.
Even your supporting of such silliness gets you a one-way ticket to Mr. Beelzeebubble’s Emporium of Fun 
where you will spend all eternity with his three-pronged friend investigating your wedding furniture.
Mukade
wombat - I am all for closing all legal loopholes. That a sentence of life, or 25 years or whatever, means exactly that. That if a crime carries a specific sentence, that the perpetrator serves that exact sentence.
But, at least in Ohio, that isn’t the case. We still have the “not guilty by reason of insanity” and after one is found sane, they are essentually free. Kentucky, on the other hand, has a “guilty but insane” where one goes to a “facility”, then when they are deemed sane, serve the time for the crime.
Honestly, I would love to have things changed here. And have no need for the death penalty. But we did have a governor (Celeste) that in his last day of office commuted a huge amount of sentences, including a female serial killer. Thank goodness she also had other sentences in other states to serve, so she didn’t get to walk.
I’ve written numerous times to parole boards when some of these “lifers” are coming up for parole. It’s really the only thing I as an individual can do. I also look very closely at those running for prosecutor, etc. to see what they believe should be done in these cases.
Thanks Missy. I really am a bit mystified about how one goes about getting bad laws or practices changed in the States. Your concern really is with saving lives which is fine by me.
The main thing that mystifies me about the case Dale drew our attention to, and this isn’t a comment on your position Missy, is why people who are really for capital punishment aren’t utterly outraged by cases like that. If you are against the taking of innocent life, and isn’t that why people support the death penalty, how can one condone any laxity or casualness in a judicial system that makes it more likely that innocent people will be executed? That just doesn’t make any sense to me. Don’t lax systems like that play into the hands of the opposition by giving credence to the suggestion canvassed by Paul above that support for the death penalty isn’t really about the sanctity of life at all? I’d have expected this thread to be full of posts by supporters of the death penalty expressing outrage at it’s abuse. Why the deafening silence?
But this goes no way to explaining why the people of a state would demand blood sacrifice for murder, even when there is no good reason to think that the person you are killing committed the crime. Does anyone have any idea why the people of Texas tolerate what looks suspiciously like judicial murder, even from the retributivist perspective of someone who supports capital punishment in principle?
…ummm, she’s black and she’s in Texas. You do the math.
It’s a brutal and silly game, isn’t it? Like children pulling wings off flies.
I’M sorry. There are awful, awful people on death row—I have no doubt. In two week, I go to visit my friend who is on death row who is not a monster. He has spent 22 years on death row for a crime he was involved in when he was 19 years old. That kid, all those years ago, was one of a a huge number of kids that lived in a shack in the deep south. His mother shot one of his sisters. Drugs and alcohol flowed freely in and out of the house. He was abused, neglected, and had a horrible childhood. Since the crime, his first serious violent crime, he has behaved very well in prison, educated himself, writes extensively, and has founded an advocacy organization which he operates out of death row.
Now on the same death row is a sexually motivated sadistic serial killer who tormented and murdered a young woman who attended my parish and whose mother was a coworker of my wife. If human beings can be monsters, and I suppose they can, he fits the bill.
My point is that it is simply wrong to categorically pronounce all these people monsters. You can declare that your opinion, but it absolutely flies in the face of the facts. And I haven’t even addressed the fact (nor have you) that an execution system inevitably executes innocent people.
And, as has already been pointed out, to advocate state-sanctioned killing because you conclude it is the only way to keep criminals off the street also runs counter to the evidence.
Dale
Dale - my comment of “monsters” was in reference to the two specific cases I talked about. Not to all that are on death row. I don’t know the specifics of every individual in every state that is on death row. I do know these two particular individuals, what they did, what the did afterwards, etc.
These two are/were completely guilty. Absolutely no doubt. As I stated, there’s even video evidence in one case. I could go into a lot more detail, but there is NO way I would ever want either of these monsters in society again. And yes, these two were/ are monsters.
Missy
That’s my point. Not only are there people on Death Row who are not monsters, there are innocent people there as well. Even if I concede that it’s only a tiny minority, any possible “good” done by the death penalty (and I won’t concede that there is any good done by the death penalty) would certainly be offset by the horror of an innocent person executed, or for that matter, spending years on death row before being exonerated.
The point, to me, Missy, is that you simply cannot justify keeping this horrible capital punishment system based on the idea that it is the “only way” to keep the worst of the worst off the streets. It’s not the only way.
Dale
You know that this subject is very interesting to me and is one that I am strongly opinionated on (if you can believe that). 1) The scriptures state and eye for an eye, and then; 2) vegeance is mine saith the Lord.
One thing that has always bothered me regarding our criminal/judicial system is that if I go and kill a person in front of 100 witnesses and the gun is still smoking and in my hand. There is no doubt that I was the one who created the crime. Why in the heck give me a trial. I sould either get a State provided cell for the rest of my life or Death, but not a trail.
I do believe strongly that with the avg, cost of an inmate per year being $30,000, you are going to see a lot more death penalties being passed down.
I at one time had the idea of having the national guard (who at one time did very little on drill weekends) hold public firing squads on primetime TV. My thinking was if you made an execution real for people that it would curve the crime rate.
Just some thoughts on the subject.
Some observations on both sides of the issue:
\
-
The reason there must be a trial is the 14th amendment due
process clause, which states that no state can deprive any
person of life, liberty or property without Due Process of law. -
By the way, if you shot somebody before a hundred witnesses,
in most states you couldn’t get the DP–because there needs
to be an aggravating circumstance, something that makes
the crime especially heinous, e.g. mulitple murder, torturing
people to death, murder committed during another felony
(e.g. armed robbery). This is a feature of virtually all state DP
statutes, which are in place to satisfy the Supreme Court.
In short, I could shoot just about any single individual I please, except
a police officer, and be safe from the DP. Notice that
the lady scheduled for execution was convicted of
killing three people. -
The DP is considerably more expensive than life without
parole, largely because an automatic appeal is required
of every sentence and conviction (a large number of both
are reversed on appeal, in fact). In addition there is the
expense of maitaining a death row, etc. We could put a lot
more police on the streets by abolishing the DP
and dedicating the money to stopping crime. In
this way, the DP is dangerous to everybody. -
The justificiation for the DP isn’t that the murderer
is a monster. Timothy McVeigh wasn’t a monster, nor
did the jury that sent him to his death think he was.
They actually rather liked him, persoanlly, in fact.
The chief justification for the DP is that some acts are
so heinous that justice requires death, like blowing
up 200 people in a terrorist attack, or dragging
a black man to death behind a truck. Otherwise we
treat the murderer so much more favorably than
he treated his victims that we become accomplices. -
It makes some sense to be skeptical of the argument
given in behalf of this texas lady by the anti-death penalty
organization Dale quoted. There is the real possibility
that there is another side to the story (obviously there
is a real possibility they are spot on, too).
For one thing this woman was probably convicted at least
fifteen years ago, the triple murder happening
in 1987. Why all this activity now? A stay of execution
now so that the evidence can be considered?
What has happened in the last fifteen years?
Given the source, one does want to check deeper
before accepting their version.
P. S. Many states have, as an alternative sentence to the DP
in capitol cases, life without
parole. Louisiana has this, for instance. There’s no mystery
as to how to get it. Legislatures pass such laws when
people insist that legislators do it.
“Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Matthew 5:38-39
Hypocrisy? Here in America? I thought we wiped that out around the time penicillin was invented!
And to find it in the place you least suspect - where religion and morals intersect with government! This is unprecidented!