OK, so usually even in my political posts I try to inject a little bit of humor there. After rereading this one, I realize that it is an exception. So, sorry, but this is one that will be all serious.
This is a topic I’ve had a lot of thoughts about over the last year and since I just read an article related to it I thought it would be a good time to bring it up. CNN is currently running a series of articles on DNA exonerations in the Dallas, TX area. To date, 17 people in the Dallas area (and, according to The Innocence Project, 216 nationwide) have been freed due to DNA evidence which has come to light since their incarceration. The latest is a man (James Woodward) who spent 27 years in prison for a murder he didn’t commit. While he will never get those 27 years of his life back, one of my favorite expressions applies here; things can always be worse. He could have been executed.
I suppose one of the reasons this issue has been on my mind is that it’s only been in the last year that I’ve changed my mind about it. Prior to that, I was firmly in the pro death-penalty camp. Largely my rationale was consistent with a conservative, Ayn Rand line of thinking where I was not in favor of using taxpayer money to support the lowest dregs of society. In many ways, I still believe that. However, I heard an argument on Penn and Teller’s Bullshit! that, try as I might I cannot refute.
Essentially, it boils down to an issue called the “paradox of the death penalty.” It means that if you believe that people responsible for murder deserve to be put to death then you are forced to believe that no innocent person has ever been falsely convicted and put to death. Otherwise you, as a member of a society that kills people, are responsible for the death of an innocent and therefore you yourself deserve to be put to death. While that may seem like academic rhetoric, I think it’s a very powerful point. How can you possibly support a policy where it is known that it will result in the death of the innocent?
Well, I guess I always knew that theoretically some people were imprisoned wrongfully. But seeing ironclad proof of it, as has been the situation with these DNA cases, is something else entirely. One of the scariest things about the James Woodard case is that he happened to be “lucky” enough to be convicted in a county that has evidence preservation laws. Had he not been, all the DNA evidence would have been destroyed long ago and he would still be in jail today. How many hundreds of other people does that apply to sitting in prison today? How many does it apply to that have been executed? We’ll never know the answer to either of these, and that’s what is so disturbing. The other thing that is just as frightening in his case is that it appears that during his original trial the police didn’t follow-up on several key leads and the prosecution apparently didn’t share information they were legally obligated to. The fact that this did not appear to even come up or factor in any of his appeals cases is further evidence of the fallibility of our legal system and further strengthens my case.
One of the counter arguments is that these anomalies represent “collateral damage.” The injustice done to a few individuals is minor when compared to the increase in safety to the public from ridding the world of dangerous and deranged criminals. After all, whenever the military engages in struggles there will inevitably be civilian casualties. Doesn’t following my logic indicate that I must believe all military action is immoral as well?
I would counter that military action, when properly used, is supposed to be a last resort. The wielding of death and destruction is meant to be used when there is no other option available. And that is the key: the lack of other options. With the death penalty, there is another option. And that option is locking criminals up and keeping them segregated from the general populace for the rest of their lives. True, it does not eliminate the injustice of imprisoning an innocent, and it is also true that it means that public money must be used to support them. All I can say is that sometimes you do have to choose the least worst option, and I believe that this is it.
I suppose it comes down to a fundamental question: are you willing to financially support 99% of people convicted of the most heinous crimes imaginable in order to avoid killing the 1% that were falsely convicted?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
When it comes to the death penalty I've always been against it. Not for fiscal reasons, but because I could never wrap my head around "eye for an eye" justice.
As a kid I always had the simple opinion that if killing someone is bad, aren't you bad for killing that killer?
Your scholastic explanation presupposes that eventually you are going to kill an innocent man, where I still see it as wrong to kill even a guilty man.
But to stay with your thinking, how, if we consider ourselves civilized, can we mete out the ultimate punishment based upon an imperfect system.
And while it was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2005 (by a vote of 5-4) we used to execute juveniles.
You know which other countries have state sponsored executions of juveniles? Iran and the Congo. that was a great list to be a part of.
(And damn you for posting a new blog after I commented on the old one. Now my comments will surely be ignored. Go check it out. Canada has 8 times the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.)
My bad. It is quite a twist to now be accused of posting too often. I felt that as we had digressed into discussion of the feasibility of rocket-propelled garbage that the discussion on oil had run its course.
I will check out your comments now, though.
In general, I am pro death penalty. But overall I fail to see how it is currently acting as a deterrent to crime, which is what it is supposed to do. And if it is not sufficiently deterring crime, and we are possibly killing innocent people, how effective of an option is it? I would be curious to know if there is any data on the number of people who have been put to death that declared their innocence vs. those that acknowledged their guilt.
Even if they had that statistic, Balld, it couldn't possibly be accurate. I mean think about it...
Red: Everybody's innocent in here.
Andy Dufresne: What about you?
Red: Only guilty man in Shawshank.
From a movie, yes, but probably still true.
Here are some stats pages:
DOJ
Death Penalty Info
Here is an interesting quote:
"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."
John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence
I used to believe in the death penalty, but I'm not so sure anymore..
While it sucks that there are possibly hundreds or thousands of innocent people in prison, there likely to be hundreds or thousands of people who are guilty of a crime but got away with due to technicalities, such as degraded DNA unable to be tested, etc.
Either innocent people in prison, guilty people walking free, we can probably agree that many parts of our justice system need to be overhauled.
I found this picture. It doesn't apply to this blog but it says a lot.
http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/20/1045653.aspx
I also put it in the url by my name since I apparently don't know ohw to post links in here...
I just read an article on this topic on CNN.com earlier this week. It's about one of the men who was exonerated and received $190,000 upon being released to help rebuild his life. Now 5 years later he is homeless and has been arrested again for theft. I have several thoughts on this.
1. Obviously, it sucks that he was wrongfully accused.
2. I'm glad that they award those wrongfully accused some money upon being released (actually not everyone gets this, but I think they should).
3. What did he spend all that money on? At $38,000 a year over 5 years you should be able to stay off the streets. I understand you won't be living a life of luxury but come on! Why has he not been able to rebuild his life with that amount of $?
4. It must be hard to break away from the prison lifestyle, therefore putting you back into a cycle of crime.
5. We clearly are not doing what our country needs. We lock up the criminals, but don't rehabilitate them.
Now onto the topic of the death penalty, I am not saying whether I am pro or against, just some thoughts…. I would have a much easier time opposing the death penalty if our judicial system would actually keep criminals in prison instead of paroling them early for "good" behavior. Of course they have "good" behavior they are in prison! As for the point about people not being deterred by the death penalty, maybe they would be deterred by a life sentence that actually was a life sentence.
Yeah, I used to... not agree so much... but be alright with the death penalty, in theory. Mostly I tried not to think about it, you know? But in the past few years I gotta say I've come out on your side of the issue.
So here's a question, just because human beings are so temptingly graphable...
Exactly how much would Americans be willing to pay out each year to keep murderers alive and our consciences clear? At what point would we begin to accept the deaths of innocents as acceptable collateral damage in a cheaper justice system? If you subscribe to the theory that anything can be bought at the right price....
Were we in a poorer society, I wonder.
Just sayin', for discussion's sake. I totally agree with your post though.
Good point, Christy. It's almost like, we are motivated to sentence people to the death penalty because at least then we can be sure they'll be in jail for the rest of their lives and won't come back to hurt us.
Still no one is persuaded by my argument that killing is wrong? State sponsored or otherwise?
Should we execute attempted murderers on the chance that when they get out of prison in 10 or 20 years, they might kill again?
It sounds like you guys want to put a price on life. Whether it be the life of the convict, or the life of a potential victim once s/he gets out. That makes me a little sick. In a moral but not religious way. God, now I feel even sicker because I have something in common with religious crazies. Damn it john.
(Also, to add to our discussion on oil: it passed $135 today. ~35% in a month. And congress is calling for hearings (but I think NFL's spygate should take precedence.))
"...if you come to Texas and kill somebody, we will kill you back. That’s our policy."
"Other states are trying to abolish the death penalty … my state’s puttin’ in an express lane."
Wisdom from Ron White.
If you check out the per capita rate of murders, the southern states have the highest rate according to
www.deathpenaltyinfo.org
and they choose to use the death penalty most.
This was surprising to me mostly because I always felt that the rate of murder should go UP with higher concentrations of population. But the raw numbers seem to disagree with my line of thinking. It appears as though people may actually behave better in the cities than they do in the rural areas. This is backed up in "Murder: An Analysis of Its Forms, Conditions, and Causes" by Gerhard Falk and Clifford Falk.
Of course, this may be due to increased drug activity that has migrated out of the "inner city" to less populated rural areas. There is a direct correlation between drugs and murder.
Anyway, back to the point... The death penalty does NOT appear to be a reasonable deterrent to murder. Of course, it IS called the death PENALTY, and not the "Murder Deterrent".
Punishment is seldom a good tool for guiding behaviour (right Christy?), so we should just accept the fact that the death penalty is punishment. The legal system in our country is confused about its place in our society. On one hand, there are bars and locks and concertina wire and guys with guns to make sure no one gets out, and on the other hand you have group meetings with nice guys in non-threatening corduroy jackets with suede patches on the elbows and college classes and weight training and yoga. Is it supposed to be hard time, or is it supposed to be feel good group hug time?
I think we should let our criminals do their time as uncomfortably as legally possible, and then I am in favor of a taxpayer funded, non prison halfway house type of situation with a reward based re-introduction into society for non violent criminals. For violent criminals, where there has been sufficient evidence, as in:
a confession (not the kind accompanied by an unfortunate run in with a bar of soap in the shower)
unimpeachable eye witness testimony (even though it's less than 100% reliable)
Video or photographic evidence or
DNA evidence.
For those criminals, execute them. And add to the list anyone who habitually sexually abuses another human of any age.
It does sadden me that any innocent person might be put to death, but it also saddens me that any innocent person might spend their entire existence in a 8x10 cell. I'm not about to advocate opening the prison doors though. And I can see life in prison as a worse punishment than the death penalty. That's why I don't like zoos.
You don't like zoos!?!?! Those animals never had it so good. They get prescribed food that lengthens their lives. They don't have to even worry about being hunted by another animal or by men on a safari. They don't have to worry about the environmental changes that are affecting their ecosystems. They generally get to mate without having to fight another male for the right to stick it in her.
What's next, are you going to tell me you don't like that we domesticated cats?
(Sorry John, I couldn't resist.)
Michael you are right that punishment is not the best way to guide behavior, however we are not talking about children, we are talking about violent criminals. I hardly think redirection and positive reinforcement is going to solve their problems. I too feel like prisons are set up incorrectly. I don’t thing they should have half of what they have. Why does someone in prison get to watch tv? Also why do they have access to weights? Yes, that’s a good idea; help them get more buff. I want my prisoners fat and out of shape so that when they get out they can’t chase me down.
My idea of rehabilitation would be educating them, making them get their GED before they can leave, and then if they want to take college courses they can. I have no statistics, but I would hazard a guess that educated people commit less crimes. Some therapy could be useful, how many criminals have some degree of mental illness? They also could use job training, and then placement in a supervised factory setting as part of their probation. (They have supervised factory work for adults with special needs, why not for ex-cons?) This idea of “hard time” is not working; on the flip side I don’t want prison to be fun either. We need to look at what we want the end result to be and figure out a way to get there.
Christy, your post has demonstrated definitively why it is impossible to argue with a woman. Your two paragraphs contradict each other, so no matter what position I take I am both agreeing and disagreeing with you. So, to recap, they don't get to exercise or watch tv but they do get therapy and education? Isn't exercise a form of therapy? So doesn't that mean they get to do it? My head hurts . . .
In any case, the discussion about punishment vs. rehabilitation is an important one but is really an entirely different discussion. Similarly, to Weir's point, whether or not taking a life is always wrong is another discussion too. And really that one is like trying to argue religion; people are going to feel how they're going to feel and aren't likely to change their mind.
Now, as for capital punishment being a deterrent I heard a pretty compelling argument for why it isn't and never can be (forget exactly where I heard it or I would give credit). Basically, there are 3 reasons why people commit murder:
1. They are mentally ill and it serves a psychological need. Someone who feels they "need" to kill will do it regardless of the consequences.
2. Crimes of passion. By definition you can't deter these because they are not pre-meditated and occur specifically because the person didn't think about it.
3. Professional killing; and professionals don't believe they will get caught.
As for whether or not it's more or less humane to kill someone or lock them up forever, I am definitely in favor of both suicide and assisted suicide. I think that if someone serving a life sentence says "I want to die" we should be willing to provide them with the means to take their own lives in a painless way.
Finally, on zoos. I do think that animals in zoos where they have done a good job in creating a natural habitat (like Tropic World Asia at Brookfield) are lucky, or at least not any worse off than those in the wild. However, when I see a giant cat inside of an 8x10 cage with a painted backdrop on the wall it makes me sad.
John, you're such a man, always needing things to be so concrete. I did not contradict myself. There is a huge difference in wanting to educate prisoners and allowing them to watch Jerry Springer. I do think that exercise can be theraputic, however do they need to lift weights? Why can't they do yoga, you know it can be very calming. Anyway you had it right when you said you can't argue with me, that's because I am right =)
John, I don't agree with this first one:
1. They are mentally ill and it serves a psychological need. Someone who feels they "need" to kill will do it regardless of the consequences.
First there are many many people who commit a crime and are NOT mentally ill. Some people kill out of hate or kill out of opportunity. Needing to kill may be a misperception for some people but it may not even have to do with mental illness.
Take for instance a gang member shoots another gang member standing on the street in front of his school...Did he NEED to kill that person? Maybe he did feel he needed to kill them to support his own gang, create a tougher image for himself amongst his peers, or to prevent himself being killed by the other. These factors might contribute to his feeling of needing to do it, but it probably has nothing to do with mental illness.
Moving on, I'd like to think that prison was supposed to be a form of negative reinforcement...taking away freedom. Maybe it doesn't work as a deterrant because it's possible that many inmates have a better life in prison that they would have on the outside. And yes cable and all that shit should be taken away as well. There is a guy that went to my highschool who was included on our myspace highschool group for reunion purposes. He was in prison for whatever reason, yet he had access to myspace! I didn;t believe it at first until you could tell by his porfile picture. Then when he got out people commented on it welcoming him home!
WTF??
One more thought regarding crime rates in southern states...
At one point we were shown research in one of my psych stats classes that there is a correlation between rage and heat. You get higher temperatures, people get more uncomfortable and tempers get shorter. [Perhaps] It ties into crime. I'm not sure if it still holds true since we discussed it a few years ago...
One more thing about criminals getting out so easily on crap like good behavior...
Anyone ever read up on Charles Manson? He was in and out of jail/detention facilities most of his life. Even once he was caught holding another guy at knifepoint and sodomizing him....and was given probation!!!?
Woohoo legal system. Sharon Tate thanks you.
Mookie, you misunderstood me. I meant that people kill for ONE of those 3 reasons (not all of them). Of course there are people who kill that aren't mentall ill. That categorization was meant to encompass the Ted Bundys and John Wayne Gacys of the world.
I would consider the gang killing to be in the "crime of passion" category. Though I suppose you could make an argument for the "professional" category as well.
Unfortunatly, taking away activities is not the answer. You take away everything except school for three hours a day and instead just leave them locked in their cells for 21 hours/day.
Now instead of musclebound jerkoffs you have insane jerkoffs. And when I mean insane, I mean it in the clinical sense. Some of these people did crime that allows them to be paroled and keeping them in a cage all day every day for 2 years will turn their brains to mush (that is a clinical term.)
That leads nicely into my views about zoos. I was once on a zoo vacation with my family (I think Brookfield) and we stopped to eat lunch across from the Polar Bear 'cages.' Now these arent really cages, but large outdoor rock formations (possibly fake) with a pool-like watering hole. Not exactly the tundra, but not a 8x10 cage either.
Well, as we sat and ate lunch for 30 minutes we watched one polar bear do the same thing over and over. There was a little passage at the back of the enclosure that led to trainers/cages/food etc... and the polar bear would walk out of there for about 10 steps, and then walking backwards, walk back in. over and over. for 30 minutes. walk out...moonwalk back in. over and over. To this day it is one of the most disturbing/sad things I've ever seen.
That being said, I still love going to the zoo.
Sorry John,
Didn't mean to sidetrack the conversation onto zoos. That was just rude of me.
Christy, So are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me or both or neither? I can't tell.
Weir, you're disturbed.
Mookie (Meghan?), I think you might have had a good point about heat, except Alaska has the second highest murder rate in states without the death penalty. Probably just a statistical anomaly though.
Kevin, you're disturbed too.
Weir, you're still disturbed.
A few years ago there was a study on the link between early childhood abuse and a "defective" gene that caused too much creation of an enzyme that caused excess destruction of a neurotransmitter that causes happiness. I think, therefore, that gene therapy would be the only therapy that would work on violent criminals, because 85% of people with an abusive past and this gene defect grew up to be violently criminal adults.
And just a thought about crime, I think we should abolish all drug laws (decriminalizing the trade and generating additional tax revenue), and immediately release from prison any non violent convict who is currently serving time. That should give us plenty of room to keep those that really need to be behind bars where they belong.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1004083,00.html
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/prisdrug.htm
See John, I told you I am not REALLY a republican. I just have to vote that way because I am also not a socialist. :-P Just kidding.
Post a Comment