At what point do we need to re-evaluate the death penalty in Texas?

May as well talk about Texas law, since we execute more prisoners than anyone else, and by a wide margin.

 

I just think you're wrong to say that since the two are separate, we can't fix a problem with one by using the other. I never suggested we would agree.

Except that it does. You're suggesting the trial and punishment are completely separate and unrelated things. But the reality is that they aren't. Both prosecutors and defendants use one to influence the other.

You continue to say we should correct it - but you have yet to name a simple way how. In the meantime, you're saying that the error rate is acceptable - despite the fact that we don't know the error rate. If you can't enact something fairly, why enact it at all?

Hypothetical: if we were to do a study of past case and find out 20% of the people we're killing are actually innocent, do you think maybe it would be worth re-evaluating the system and ending the death penalty until you could fix it? 50%? 80%? 100%? Is it all just the principle of trial vs punishment whether the reality of how it actually works in real life is irrelevant?

 

The death penalty as it currently is though is already supposed to be only for the worst of the worst yet we still see lots of problems with it.

 

You said: What do you mean, 1st degree murder? Murder is always 1st degree.

This is factually incorrect. There may not be 1st and 2nd degree murder statutes in Texas, but that doesn't change the fact there is a pretty universally accepted distinction between the types of murders and, as I said, they are *generally referred to* as 1st and 2nd degree. What you're arguing is like saying there's no murder in France because they have a French word for it instead of calling it "murder".

This is certainly all true, but I'm not sure the relevance here, given that we weren't discussing whether juries were given a choice between life and death. Nor was that what I quoted. You stated:

And the jury is always given the option to sentence the capital murder defendant to life without parole.

In fact, until recently, that was not the case in Texas. In a death penalty case, Texas juries were not given the option to sentence someone to life without parole - which is exactly what I quoted and then posted. I wasn't disagreeing with you. While I was posting, you and RM95 had already clarified that the law had changed recently - I was just pointing out that it wasn't always that way.

 

I suspect that rhad is actually against the death penalty, but never mind that. On the basis of the position he’s taking in this thread I think he’s losing the argument. First, I don’t think he’s made a case for the death penalty being a just punishment for crime. MoonDogg mentioned that the death penalty is vengeance, not justice, and I agree with him. Rhad has said that he thinks the death penalty is a just punishment, but he hasn’t supported that claim. Taking someone life is a very serious matter and I think there has to be a clear justification for it under any circumstances.

Secondly, he’s trying to separate the fallibility of the judicial process, and of humans in general, from the question of whether a given penalty is just for a given crime. This turns his position into a purely theoretical argument. I can agree that if we had God-like infallibility, and God-like ability to determine right from wrong, then we could fairly judge every sinner as being worthy of death, but note that if we were God-like we would also value mercy. In the real world you cannot separate the two, because the consequences stemming from a conviction are inextricably linked to the process that led to the conviction. Strictly speaking, in the real world the consequences do not result from someone having committed a crime. They result from that person being convicted in a court of law of a given offence. There is a very important difference between the two.

Thirdly, I think his suggestion that being imprisoned unjustly for many years is just as bad as being unjustly put to death was very unconvincing indeed. I know David Milgaard certainly wouldn’t agree.

 

Let me start with my heartless b*stard argument. The probability of repeat offense is much MUCH higher than being wrongfully put to death.

Perhaps we ought to tell that victims of repeat offense have less worthy lives just for the sake of keeping violent criminals alive. Like it or not, executing a violent criminal does prevent a re-offense by that particular violent criminal, maybe even prevent couple of potential crimes.

Secondly, as juicystream already mentioned, the laws of the land is much stacked in favour of the defendant. It is "innocent until proven guilty."

Lastly but certainly not least, I love the holier than thou attitudes some people here take in respect to the death penalty. Take away the preventative aspect of it (which we are by stacking the odds and not making executions), what is justice other than vengeance?

Maybe we ought to say "now don't do it again."

 

We seek to remove vengeance from the system. We do this through the government because we want to discourage the actual victims (or families of the victims) from enacting vengeance. If it were merely justice, we'd let them tell us how the convicted are to be punished. We remove that and codify it instead with sentencing guidelines.

Further, innocent until proven guilty is genuis because it assumes the lynch mob mentality...the overwhelming desire to get vengeance even if it's not properly directed. But that doesn't mean that district attorneys get it right all the time...or that juries do either. And that part is really clear, particularly with the stories we hear of men who've been in prison for many years and are suddenly freed by DNA evidence today. The very thought of my taxpayer money going to support the execution of an innocent man makes me sick.

 

That's all fine and all, except that it doesn't really contradict what I say. For starters, you don't find it possible to codify a sentencing guideline which includes the death penalty, even if vengeance is somehow removed? If we were to take a tough stance on particularly heinous crimes and removing all the emotional elements, we found the criminal guilty enough to justify such a punishment, is that not codifiable justice?

Secondly, I get the innocent until proven guilty part and I do support. And yes I do think we should be extra meticulous when it comes to such decisions, but its merits were never part of my argument. My argument is, when you already are in a system in which the odds are stacked in favour of the defendant, then you say let's remove any harsher punishments, it completely defeats any merits of justice as a preventative element. In fact, I would think this achieves just the opposite of what you said in regards to the mob lynching mentality. The reason people go through the system is because they assume they can obtain justice, however you define it, in a court of law. Absent that, there is a far greater chance of mob mentality.

In regards to the innocent man put in death, like I said, the odds were stacked in his favour already. Some cases do slip through the cracks, but it doesn't make me feel any better some guy spent life in prison instead of being put to death. In either case his life is ruined. As a matter of fact, if I was gonna get wrongly convicted and my choice of sentence was death or long prison terms, I'd choose death.

Lastly but certainly not least, how do you propose we eliminate vengeance? The victims' family/friends lost loved one(s), understandably they are a little p1ssed. It's human nature. Even if could, I hardly see any reason to. Like I said, removing the preventative elements, what is justice other than vengeance?

I mean, the Goldmans for example only want to prevent another crime right? No no no, they really aren't vengeful. They just want justice.

 

Sure...I suppose that's possible. But that's not what you said and wasn't what I was responding to. You said, "...what is justice other than vengeance?" So that's what I was responding to.

The odds are in no way stacked in a defendant's favor in a court of law in America. I'm not sure what experience you have that would suggest otherwise....but the conviction rate, for instance, in Harris County is gigantic. The joke is that Harris County juries would convict a paper bag....and a lot of the death penalty cases we're talking about here in Texas come from those convictions.

That's fine. But I'm not interested in making that choice for other people.
And I'd rather our government didn't invest in the mechanisms of death for its own citizens, criminals or not. That admittedly comes from my own theological beliefs which impact my view of life. That's just my perspective.

I'm suggesting that criminal law in this country isn't and is not to be built on vengeance. We know what the Goldmans would have done to OJ...but collectively, the people of California won't allow that. Because we don't turn over our justice system to the raw emotions of victims and victims' families. That's the very point I'm making. I'm not suggesting the Goldmans aren't or shouldn't be pissed at OJ. I'm suggesting we do not and should not structure our criminal justice system on those feelings.

 

Here is what I said in my previous post:

"Take away the preventative aspect of it (which we are by stacking the odds and not making executions), what is justice other than vengeance?"

That in itself doesn't mean anything. The question is whether those convictions were justified, not at what rate they occur.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that aspect then. But here is my perspective. Either we put a man/woman/child in prison or to death, we are deciding a person's fate. If we argue how far we can determine a person's fate, you are on a pretty slippery slope. Who is to say that we have the right to imprison someone instead of only judging crimes that only warrants fines?

The way I see it, other than the preventative element, the justice system is structured vengeance used exactly to prevent out of court "settlements" of such a manner. The whole point of the system is to remove a certain element of emotions (because it is impossible to do so completely) from the case such that vengeance is taken but not above and beyond what the crime deserves.

 

Thanks for the exchange MFW. Safe to say we don't see eye to eye, but it was civil and that's a good thing.

 

Well, a lot of murderers are not high risk to reoffend, but apart from that I didn't say that they have to be let out of jail. For serious offences I assume their sentences would be very lengthy with no chance of parole.

I’m not sure I would call that stacked, but either way this does not ensure that mistakes won’t be made. In fact we know for sure mistakes will be made. There always have been and there always will be, because neither the system nor the people who run it are perfect.

What is justice? That is a very good question. I believe what you are favouring here would be called retributive justice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retributive_justice

I think there are a number of problems with this theory, but a big one for me personally is that I believe that it is not consistent with Christian morality. This is the kind of justice you see in the Old Testament, or perhaps in Saudi Arabia, but this is just not how I think we should treat our fellow man, no matter what he’s done. We could probably dig a little further into the issue of retributive justice and its pros and cons, if you like, but I’ll stop here for now.

 

I submit to you the actual fact that if somebody were to murder Refgal or the kids or my parents...if the perpetrator ever got out of prison, I would enact vengeance...very nasty, ugly vengeance. If you end somebody I care about, I will respond in kind. I am not necessarily proud of it, nor am I vain enough to not recognize it.

This is what we have to attempt to avoid. Either the death penalty or life without parole. Anything else will lead to vigilante acts.

 

Here’s a related link that I think some people might find interesting.

Note: This is a good but very condensed overview of his findings.

 

Sorry if this seems like a pile on but I wanted to make a couple of quick comments here:

I think it is highly questionable of whether there is a preventive aspect to the death penalty. For example Texas with a death penalty has per capita murder rate more than twice of Minnesota without a death penalty. Now obviously many other factors are involved in that but looking at state by statistics it doesn't seem like there is a correlation between having a death penalty and reduction in crime.

I think you are falling into one of the logical traps that Rhadamanthus did. You are saying that all since we are deciding someone's fate anytime we make a punishment that there is really no difference between a speeding ticket and a death penalty. Either have as much a prospect of being the product of a flawed system. The problem with this is that there is a huge difference between the death penalty and any other one in that once the sentence is executed there is no turning back. While yes once someone is put in prison for any amount of time they will never recover that time but there still is the possibilty of ending that sentence by freeing them.

That seems like a contradiction that the idea of a death penalty is to prevent the victims of crime from taking retribution on the perpetrator. In my opinion the primary purpose of having a justice system is for public safety. While vengeance factors in because we are humans I don't think that is or should be a major factor. Since the death penalty has proven to be much of a deterrence I think that we can still have an effective justice system even without a death penalty.

 

I don't think anyone can know what they will do until something like that actually happens and you are in the situation where you can take vengeance.

 

I really am not comfortable getting into the specifics, but somebody very close to me was threatened with death by an ex. I had a lot of time to reflect on how I felt about that. Trust me when I tell you that I learned a lot about myself.

 

Those murderers who are not of high risk to offend are not likely to be put to death. Neither are those who are as a matter of fact. That process is pretty stringent.

Like I said to MadMax, at what point do you draw the line of what is acceptable punishment? I'd rather it be that we do the full extent just so there is no confusion. Do the heinous crime, your head may roll. That would at least give it some preventative element.

Mistakes go both ways. We let far more criminals walk than we execute innocent ones. No I'm not saying that it is a good thing to wrongfully execute a person, but please understand that the system is already in favour of the accused, guilty or innocent.

Let me start by saying that I am not Christian. So it's gonna be very hard for us to see eye to eye in this case. The reason is, I don't get why religion needs to be brought into the issue (I'm not in any way mocking your beliefs).

I do have a rudimentary understanding of why Christians consider it wrong, but to me, justice and law predated Christianity. And indeed, I consider them separate issues.

I would submit to you that Texas and Minnesota are vastly different states. Different population density (and indeed population make-up), prosperity, education level, political beliefs, etc. A correlational study would only achieve proper findings if you could eliminate the so many various external and uncontrollable factors.

Also, like I said, the death penalty AT A MINIMUM, eliminates the already convicted individual of a particularly heinous crime from offending again.

I hardly think that is a logical trap. It's merely a divergence of opinion. I already mentioned to MadMax that I would rather be put to death instead of locked up for who knows how long.

And why wouldn't I? Instead of working, raising a family, building a retirement fund, enjoy life a little and fulfill my life's dreams, I'm spending five, ten, fifteen, etc years in prison. How many fifteen years do I have in my life?

Then when I get out I got no wife, no kids, no job, no money and no retirement. I get a letter saying "oops, sorry we made a mistake." Well I'm sorry but that isn't any more OK than putting me to death. It's worse.

Hardly. Justice in the form of the death penalty serves as a preventative measure in that it eliminates repeat offense. Justice in the form of death penalty work because it leads to structured vengeance.

If justice doesn't mete structured vengeance then it doesn't serve as a preventative measure. As a matter of fact if vengeance isn't provided, it in fact encourages crimes, not only because of the belief that harsher punishments will not be dished out, but also through vigilantism.

 

I suspect that this is a debatable point, but I think we’re straying a little off topic here. I think we both acknowledge that mistakes are made, and innocent people have doubtless been executed.

We can go down that road and dig up some studies if you wish, but I don’t think it is a significant deterrent. For me acceptable punishment stops short of the death penalty. I don’t think the death penalty clears up confusion, and I think it would have prevented confusing circumstances from being cleared up in a number of cases. Here’s another example, the Steven Truscott case.

In 1959 a 14 year old Steven Truscott was convicted of murdering a female classmate, and he was sentenced to death. His death sentence was later commuted to life in prison, a sentence which at the time allowed him to be paroled after 10 years. He always maintained his innocence, but he was a good prisoner and was paroled 10 years later. At that point he seemed to disappear off the map. He changed his name and moved to a new community and was not heard from again for many years. In 2001 he came into the public eye once again when he applied to have his conviction reviewed, and on August 28, 2007, 48 years after being sentenced to death for a crime he did not commit, his conviction was overturned.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/truscott/

In the interim Truscott had married and had a family. Here’s part of a transcript from a CBC documentary on his case:

Clearly great hardships are suffered by people who are wrongfully convicted of such crimes, but I very much doubt that Truscott, or his daughter, or his sons, would rather that he had been put to death.

This case, perhaps better than any kind of logical reasoning, illustrates why we should never put someone to death.

Hopefully I’ve made a case above for compassion and erring on the side of caution that is more clearly universal. I still have things I could say about the more explicitly Christian perspective, but I’ll leave it here for now.

 

You are wrong. The crime is the cause of the punishment.

Kind of - I never said that the trials could be made "perfect", just better. Moreover, I argued that the emphasis should be placed on correcting the issues associated with the trials, as opposed to compensating for them.