The Supreme Court is poised to deliver yet another rebuke to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
"The Worst Court in Texas" was the ignominious verdict on the cover of the November issue of Texas Monthly, the state's glossy bible of style and politics. The target: the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Also, Texas executes a man based on scientific evidence known to be inaccurate(registration required.)
While Texas authorities dismissed his protests, a Tribune investigation of his case shows that Willingham was prosecuted and convicted based primarily on arson theories that have since been repudiated by scientific advances. According to four fire experts consulted by the Tribune, the original investigation was flawed and it is even possible the fire was accidental.
No one executes them like us here in Texas.
I love my home state, and in my heart I know Texas has more to offer the country then Bush and DeLay, BBQ and cowboy boots. But sometimes we're so backwards we might as well be in the third world.
The first article discusses the highly questionable practice in a Dallas criminal proceedings of deliberately removing black and hispanic jury candidates from the jury pool in cases involving black or hispanic defendents. While this sort of thing would cause someone to cry foul up north, it's fairly routine down here.
The second article discusses how a man was put to death based on scientific theories of arson proven later to be wrong, and how the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and Governor Perry did nothing to stop it(and how the men who put the convicted man on death row apparantly don't regret it.)
I think the death penalty is wrong. Philosophically I don't think the state should have the power to kill it's own citizens. That's my high-falutin' argument. My more practical one is that the death penalty is unacceptable in a legal system that is so disproportionately unfair to the poor. The poor are inadequately represented, and are at the mercy of a system that does not act in their interests and under which, without the benefit of a high priced lawyer, they can't hope to not be chewed up by. And you can sentence a man to life in prison, realize you were wrong decades later, and allow him to go free. If you sentence a man to death wrongly though, all you can do is say "sorry."
A few cold-hearted people might argue that every now and then an innocent man will be executed, and it's small price to pay for a system that punishes and deters awful crimes. But nothing excuses a system in which a man who years after his conviction can show that he was innocent is put to death anyway. There is no deterrent effect in executing the innocent. It is only a travesty, a mockery of justice, and it should be unacceptable in this country.
It's past time to reconsider the merits of the death penalty, especially among the states like Texas who are most eager to use it. At the very least we should consider another moratorium, which will allow us to weigh the costs and the benefits, and this time come to the right conclusion, which is that the death penalty has no place in our society.
Friday, December 10, 2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Couldn't have written it better myself.
Could you not also say that a society which, when faced with a convicted murderer, fails to eliminate that person from the populace is also inexcusable? You say that the state shouldn't be able to execute its own citizens, but it is a jury who selects such a sentence. Should the society itself not be able to eliminate those who murder and destroy the members of that same society? How could the removal of that penalty deter any crime whatsoever?
Sure, there are bound to be mistakes, though hopefully and obviously rare. No one, not even Texans, want to execute innocent people; but even if it happens, it shouldn't cripple the society's ability to properly punish crime. Why should a fluke occurrence damage the entire population and it's entire legal system instead of one citizen who was sentenced to death by a jury of his peers?
But as for an actual question: when a person is proven guilty of murder, what do you propose should be done to them?
But what do you mean by removal? Do you mean removal of the threat from society, or elimination of the person who embodies the threat? Because if your goal is simply removal of the threat, that can be accomplished by imprisoning murderers who cannot or do not have the right to be rehabilitated because of the awfulness of their crimes.
I don't think the removal of the penalty encourages crime any more so then the penalty itself deters crime. The simple fact of the matter is that the death penalty is not a deterrant. Those who murder either do not care about the consequences, or do not imagine that they will ever be caught and so do not weigh the possible punishments. For it to be a deterrant it would have to be used even more overwhelmingly and methodically, and our society will not tolerate that. That's because the purpose of the death penalty anywhere in the United States is not deterrance, but rather justice, or failing that lofty goal, punishment or revenge.
Frankly, those who support the death penalty cannot look to the practicality or pragmatism of their argument. It is expensive to impose, and is a failure as a deterrant.
Your comment indicates that you're willing to tolerate the execution of the innocent now and again so long as we execute mostly guilty persons. I'm afraid that's an opinion whose time is passing us by, rightfully so; most people in America do not seem to feel that way. Even though a significant portion do still in the South and in "bible belt" states, I think the majority are rightfully apalled at the exectuion of the innocent. People expect our justice sytem to work such that if there is doubt as to their guilt, we should avoid the harshest penalty. Unfortunately that's not how it works, which is why people convicted on the barest of evidence are sentenced to death just as those who are caught in the act, with the blood on their hands.
Also, what you call a "fluke occurrence" is somewhat more than that. Thanks to DNA evidence many convictions, involving the death penalty or not, have been overturned in all jurisdictions in the last five to ten years. Again, when you execute a man he no longer has the option to be given his freedom once his innocence is established.
But your comment also betrays your interest more in the rights of the victim of a crime, as opposed to the rights of the the wrongfully convicted of a crime. And yet are they not both victims of the same crime? If one man is killed by another, and another man is wrongfully executed for that, have not two innocent men died for the crimes of a man who is free? How is it that the rights of one, based simply on his status as the victim of the crime, trump the rights of the man who had even less to do with the crime then the victim? That is neither justice, nor effective punishment for the wrong doer.
Lastly, if I belived that the death penalty in any way acted as a deterrent, or was even being used effectively in it's application, I might give more weight to your last question of the good of the many vs. the good of the few or the one. But I think the system fails at almost all levels at some point, so I do not see it as a zero sum game between citizens who deserve protection from crime, and those who are wrongfully convicted and executed for those crimes. I believe you can accomplish both.
Frankly, I think the base punishment for a murder is life in prison, and we work are way backwards from that based on the circumstances of the crime. For those who cannot be rehabiliated at any point in their lifetime, we lock them up, and throw away the key. I have no problem with that.
To be honest, if we knew for a fact that only the guilty were ever sentenced to die, this would not be an issue for many of us who oppose the death penalty. I would still oppose philosophically the right of the state to execute it's own citizens, but I'd hardly be motivated to donate money to anti-death penalty based on that philosophical belief alone. No, the truth is I think the death penalty is a failure. The poor are disproportionately sentenced to die, and in a a legal system where justice can be purchased, we simply cannot trust the death penalty to be just or effective.
As for the cost of the death penalty, how is life in prison any cheaper on the taxpayer? Our "system" does not favor the rich any more than any other system. Lawyers favor the rich. And, ultimately, everything favors the powerful (or rich); that's just the way it is, always has been, and always will be. And, for Adam's Bible instruction, did you know that Jesus tells us to use our money to gain favor with men? That's right, I know you think the quintessential element of the New Testament is that "it is harder for a camel to pass through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven", but Jesus has no problem with wealth or money in itself; He only has a problem with greed and a love for money.
And as for Adam's comment, why do you bring up religion or the Bible if you don't even know what it says? For example: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment...if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer." This is from Paul's letter to the Romans (13:1-2, 4). I'm not using the Old Testament because we don't live under the Mosaic law, but you should be instructed that the New Testament most certainly supports capital punishment by the governing authority if that is what the governing authority deems just. The New Testament passages about turning the other cheek and loving your neighbor are all very pertinent to daily life and the behavior of every Christian, but they are quite distinct from the role of the government in regard to punishment and justice. Only gross misinterpretation will confuse those two principles. It is the government's place to execute judgment, even capital punishment.
I don't think it is coldhearted at all to put murderers to death, I think it is just. I also think it is objectively right. God is just as justified by punishing evil as he is by rewarding righteousness. I don't support putting the innocent to death but if a person went through a court case and was proven guilty of a crime deserving death and was later exonerated, then that should teach us to be more thorough, it should not cripple our power to punish crime. I don't think it is "acceptable", I think it is unacceptable and should require the system to be more thorough; but like I just said: it should not cripple the entire system in it's ability to punish crime.
And by the way, I never used the word deterrent. I said punish. I think it is just and required of a just government to properly punish crime.
I have to disagree with you on both of your first points. It can cost the states upwards of a million dollars to provide the defense for convicted murderers on death row, and only hundreds of thousands to imprison them for life. But, I have to say my opposition to the death penalty is not based really on cost. Even if it is more expensive to imprison people for life, I would support it.
As for your second point, unfortunately the legal system does favor those who can afford it. Justice is not, as the old adage says, blind...at least not when it comes to the color of money. The legal system is inadequate in that many of those who wind up on death row are the convicts who cannot afford the endless rounds of appeals, the lawyers to file those appeals, or even the lawyers to defend them adequately in the first place. How can we expect there to be justice in an adversary system when the state has vast resources at it's disposal, and the often poor defendant has very few? I've read and heard the stories in which men on trial for very serious crimes were represented by lawyers who fell asleep at the trials, or were hardly present, because they could not afford even adequate legal counsel. That's not the fault of lawyers, and I'm not advocating we overthrow the legal regime to change it. Simply that putting a man to death after a highly inadequate trial is wrong.
As you say, God may be justified in punishing evil...but the state has neither the knowledge nor the perfect intentions and means of God. If the death penalty exists, innocent men will be executed.
I hate to say it, but our legal system simply isn't that efficient. We don't "learn to be more thorough" when we convict innocent men to die, because it's not procedural errors that lead to innocent men being executed. It's the inadequacy of the legal system in providing representation to those on trial for their lives, combined with the inherent falliabiliy of men.
Again, I'm not saying that murderers don't deserve to die. Nor am I saying it's more efficient to let them live. I'm saying that in it's present form, and for as long as we can foresee, the imposition of the death penalty in a legal system that favors those with the resources to defend themselves means that innocent men and women will be put to death, again and again. For that reason I oppose it.
Well I respect your opinion and I understand your point.
And I guess this is just left vs. right. I think the state has a responsibility to enforce justice in the case of murder by putting the murderer to death. Even though it is possible for the state to wronfully execute someone, I think justice demands the death penalty for certain crimes.
I completely agree that the innocent should not be executed and that everything should be done that can be done to prevent that sort of mistake.
The system should be better so that the innocent are not executed, we agree on that point. Our point of divergence comes in that you think the risk is too great and the penalty should be abandoned; I think the penalty is too important for the sake of justice and that the risk is one we have to take.
I'd say that fairly sums it up. I do actually think there is wiggle room to meet in the middle. While I do not have faith the death penalty can ever fairly be carried out, I am not so opposed to it that I would pass over some sort of compromise, such as enhancing protections for the poor under the legal system so that they can obtain fair trials.
Very well said, Alex.
Of course, Daniel, because this person is in the process of killing or trying to kill people. But obviously if someone if on death row, they are already incarcerated and thus people are already protected from this person.
Well, remember, our good Xanthipass doesn't speak for me at all times. Nor, do I, him.
My Catholicism puts me at odds with the morality of the death penalty. But since I don't believe personal religious beliefs, as Seamus does, should dictate social policy I'm inclined to take the position laid out in the post. Ideologically, I don't think the government should have the right to execute its own citizens. I think that creates a dangerous slippery slope. Now obviously we believe such would never be applied outside of criminals who have committed murder, but the idea is there. It's just like how we believe the Patriot Act isn't so bad because we're sure people like Ashcroft won't use it against anyone who's not a terrorist. The truth is it's a bad precendent, and a bad ideal, and we shouldn't support it.
Secondly, and germane to the liberal perspective (the above is more libertarian), is that the death penalty is inefficient as a deterrent and discriminates unfairly against the poor and/or minorities, (and used to) the mentally retarded, and obviously, the innocent.
I have, finally, posted my statement on religion and politics. You can view it at http://swbts.blogspot.com it is a blog that I created for a project at school a while back. Anyone should be able to comment on it, I don't think it's restricted to members of the blog.
Basically, I outline how religion and politics are inseparable, but the church and politics are and should be.
Woops, didn't mean to be anonymous on that last one. It was me.
Adam, I have a question for you: what, exactly, in the Catholic church or its religious documents or its official statements puts you at odds with the death penalty? In other words, when you say that your Catholic faith puts you at odds with the death penalty, how are you accurately speaking for the Catholic faith?
I think Whitey might be right about that, but I know that capitol punishment has always been denounced by the pope, and any bishops, priests, and school teachers I know. But even if it hasn't been specifically denounced, it certainly hasn't been supported, so neither could be a conflicting view anyway. I, however, do believe most Catholics who aren't right-wing evangelicals are against any use of the death penalty. They certainly aren't for it the way protestants are.
As to your earlier post, John, I don't see how that makes for a good argument. Are you saying God approves of governments and their laws, even when they go against his own? Of course, he doesn't!
Whitey, I am a liberal Catholic and I would have to extensively study those encyclicals to tell you what I agree and don't agree with. However, I don't really feel like discussing my personal religious beliefs, and they are irrelevant anyway, since as I said, I do not believe they should reflect in political policy. I certainly believe your religion can influence your political ideology, and it does of course. It does mine. I'm just not going to try and dictate personal religious beliefs to people by constructing social policies based on them. In other words, I don't support prayer in schools, abstinence only sex ed programs, and underhanded attempts to block birth control and RU486. That is what I think is the fundamental difference between the religious right and everyone else. And going back to the topic at hand, I'm not hypocritical because my personal moral opposition to the death penalty is not why I oppose it politically as I explained.
Adam, my quote of Romans 13 speaks for itself. Even though you obviously don't agree with what Paul says, he clearly states that government authority is instituted by God and likewise the justice that it dispenses. This is paired by multiple statements throughout the Bible like "Honor the ruling authority" (1 Peter 2:17), and "the Most High rules the kingdom of men, and gives it to whom he will" (Daniel 4:25). The Bible instructs us that God puts rulers where they are, and this includes governments that are evil which is exactly the case in Daniel 4:25 which I just quoted.
This is getting far off topic so I'll keep this brief. The Bible clearly teaches that rulers are ordained by God, and if they are evil (which obviously some are), then it is God who deals with them like in Daniel 4:25 with Nebuchadnezzar, and as is stated in Hebrews: "[God is speaking] vengeance is mine, I will repay...the Lord will judge his people," (10:30) which harmonizes well with everything I've just said. God administers justice through the rulers that He has put in power. If they are evil, He deals with it...but the authority of the ruling power to administer justice is most certainly ordained by God.
Any argument that the state does not have the right to administer capital punishment will find no basis in the Bible.
I didn't think you were, I just wanted to clarify as you said.
Well guys, while I admire your ability to make such long-ass posts, I do not possess such powers myself, so I'll be brief. I think religion shouldn't be in this discussion unless we're at the point where we're arguing about how religion should be reflected in governmental policies. As far as I'm concerned, (my personal beliefs notwithstanding) the Bible has absolutely no place in a discussion of politics.
Now as for opinions, I'm not entirely against inflicting death on other men because of the cost they inflict upon society, but certainly not because of somebody's idea of morals. There has to be a better reason than that to make it law, given as we have many different sets of morals and even individually they differ greatly. There must be a compelling reason to end someone's life as opposed to simply jailing them forever. As Alex said, and as can be verified many times over, the death penalty is more expensive in pretty much every case than simply jailing men for life, unless we could institute this perfect justice system where no mistakes could possibly be made. So aside from a moral code that prescribes death for certain violations and a simple "cost-benefit" accounting style, what arguments can be made for the death penalty?
Post a Comment