[...] Continuing the discussion... Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Supreme Court Overrules Death Penalty for Minors' from Outside The Beltway. OTB on Roper v. SimmonsExcerpt: OTB on Roper v. Simmons James Joyner opines:I'm not a big fan of capital punishment for minors but find it incomprehensible that it could suddenly be unconstitutional. The 8th Amendment was ratified in 1791. The fact that 19 states still allowed ...Weblog: ProfessorBainbridge.comTracked: March 1, 2005 13:41 No More Death Penalties For MinorsExcerpt: No More Death Penalties For Minors I think this was the right decision. WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Constitution forbids the execution of killers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes, ending a practice used in ...Weblog: Say AnythingTracked: March 1, 2005 14:11 What Does This Have To Do With The Constitution?Excerpt: What Does This Have To Do With The Constitution? 5 judges rewrote the Constitution found juvenile executions unconstitutional today Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, noted that most... Weblog: Ipse DixitTracked: March 1, 2005 14:17 Supreme Court Voids Juvenile Death SentencesExcerpt: Supreme Court Voids Juvenile Death Sentences Our sister site GOP Bloggers has the details. UPDATE: Justice Scalia disagreed with the decision, "arguing that there has been no clear trend of declining juvenile executions to justify a growing consensus against the practice." ...Weblog: Blogs for BushTracked: March 1, 2005 14:45 Supremes to Juvenile Thugs: Don't Pay No Mind, If You're Under 18 You Won't Be Doin' Any TimeExcerpt: Supremes to Juvenile Thugs: Don't Pay No Mind, If You're Under 18 You Won't Be Doin' Any Time Iran, Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia execute young children for trivial offenses, most of which would not be considered offenses at all ...Weblog: damnum absque injuriaTracked: March 1, 2005 15:58 A decision based on emotion, and rationalized afterwardsExcerpt: A decision based on emotion, and rationalized afterwards Supreme Court decisions - both those of a 'liberal' and a 'conservative' slant - have long been driven by the emotions of the respective Justices. And the accompanying opinions seem nothing less than ...Weblog: ThoughtsOnlineTracked: March 1, 2005 16:13 Entirely predictableExcerpt: Entirely predictable Kennedy also, again, wrote a majority opinion overturning recent precedent. Lawrence overturned the 1986 decision in Bowers v. Georgia. Roper overturns the court's 1989 decision in Stanford v. Kentucky. In other words, if we're liberalizing U.S. l... Weblog: Vote for JudgesTracked: March 1, 2005 16:27 The Supreme Court and the Death PenaltyExcerpt: The Supreme Court and the Death Penalty Which amedment, dudes? Does the word "indicia" appear anywhere in the Constititution? Does the Constitution state anywhere that a law adopted by the majority of states shall be the law of the ...Weblog: Hennessy’s ViewTracked: March 1, 2005 18:13 PingbackExcerpt: [...] stion of the acceptability of the death penalty,’” he wrote. And James Joyner rightly notes: I’m not a big fan of capital punishment for minors but find it incomprehensib [...] Weblog: PoliBlog: Politics is the Master Science » Roper v. SimmonsTracked: March 1, 2005 18:32 Scalia doctrineExcerpt: Scalia doctrine The U.S. Supreme Court overruled Stanford v. Kentucky in its decision today in Roper v. Simmons, which declared unconstitutional the death penalty for murders committed before the age of 18. Justice Antonin Scalia dissented, and here's the money quote... Weblog: In the AgoraTracked: March 1, 2005 18:48 We dissentExcerpt: We dissent On its face, this may sound like the typical stuff of Supreme Court decisions. It is not. In fact, the Court has, at least as far as the death penalty is concerned, abolished the traditional mechanism for constitutional amendments ...Weblog: New World Man - Matt? Matt’s not hereTracked: March 1, 2005 19:21 Death penaltyExcerpt: Death penalty Seeing the death penalty overturned today was good in a number of ways--the reading of the constitution that says the 8th amendment is malleable is plausible to me--but the 5th amendment is not. Already there are calls to overturn ...Weblog: Signifying NothingTracked: March 1, 2005 20:01 Roper Roundup...Excerpt: Roper Roundup... Today the Supreme Court made one of the most asinine decisions regarding the death penalty. Weblog: Miller’s TimeTracked: March 2, 2005 00:01 The Case For The Juvenile Death PenaltyExcerpt: The Case For The Juvenile Death Penalty People under the legal age of 18 should be executed for their crimes. A lot of people think that kids under 18 should not face the death penalty. I beg to differ. People get ...Weblog: Diggers RealmTracked: March 2, 2005 07:45 Supreme stupidityExcerpt: Supreme stupidity In a 5 to 4 display of incredible stupidity, the Supreme Court yesterday outlawed executions of murders who committed their... Weblog: JackLewis.netTracked: March 2, 2005 11:00 Roper (not the guy who replaced Siskel)Excerpt: Roper (not the guy who replaced Siskel) Unlike my co-blogger, I tend to think that the Supreme Court's decision in Roper v. Simmons was the morally correct one--in general, I am suspicious of the death penalty not for legal or practical ...Weblog: Signifying NothingTracked: March 2, 2005 20:26 A challenge to social conservatives who are upset by the Supreme Court ruling on executing minorsExcerpt: A challenge to social conservatives who are upset by the Supreme Court ruling on executing minors A lot of conservatives seem to be upset by the Supreme Court's ruling that minors cannot be executed, and so it has me wondering about ...Weblog: Blind Mind’s EyeTracked: March 12, 2005 02:04 [...]
Bruce T.
· 4 years ago
How is it more expensive to execute them than to keep them in prison for the rest of their life?
Rob
· 4 years ago
First of all when a prisoner gets put on death row they don't get executed right away. They get put on a waiting list and end sitting in prison a decade or more until its their turn. Obviously, we foot the bill for that.
Then, as their turn nears, an appeal process starts where the prisoner files on appeal after another based on this or that legal reasoning. We have to pay the clerks who file the appeals and the judges who review them and rule on them. Often this requires additional hearings, etc. which costs us money for the prosecutors to prepare for and attend, the judges, court room time, etc. Not to mention transportation of the prisoner, guards, etc.
Then there is the execution itself. Doctors must be paid to attend and there is always the media to deal with. Press conferences, etc. There's a lot that goes into these things.
Of course, this is just one part of my objection to the death penalty, but you can read about it at-length here.
slarrow
· 4 years ago
Sigh. Except this isn't the Supreme Court's damn job to decide this kind of thing, at least not according to the reasoning they're using. It's another Lawrence v. Texas in which they substitute their moral judgement for that of the political branches of the several states.
The folks over at NRO's The Corner are nailing the Court on this angle.
Rob
· 4 years ago
I'd go along with that.
Right decision, wrong justification.
Rob
· 4 years ago
That’s more of a complaint against bureaucratic red tape.
The red tape you speak of is our appeals process. I don't think we should be referring to due process of law as "red tape."
It puts a price tag on murder. Murder is expensive - your life. The death penalty affirms the value of life by putting such an expensive price tag on taking it.
Well, again you're using the deterrent effect to support your position. I'm just not convinced that its all that effective. Really, if it takes decades to kill these people anyway, where's the deterrent?
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
For one thing actually executing someone is more expensive then keeping them in prison for the rest of their lives.
That's more of a complaint against bureaucratic red tape.
For another execution really doesn’t act as much of a deterrent to other potential criminals, which is its intended effect.
Who said that was the intended effect?
And probably the biggest reason I’m against it is the simple fact that we convict far too many innocent people for crimes they didn’t commit.
Rob, I think you should stick solely with this argument.
That all being said, I support the death penalty. It puts a price tag on murder. Murder is expensive - your life. The death penalty affirms the value of life by putting such an expensive price tag on taking it.
Rob
· 4 years ago
I have a hard time taking seriously the arguments of people who oppose the death penalty by doing everything they can to make it as expensive and protracted as possible, only to then argue for its abolition on the grounds it is expensive and protracted.
I hope you aren't suggesting that I am one of these people.
That aside, it seems to me that the capital punishment process is long and protracted for a very good reason.
We hold up our our judicial system as the best way to justly convict and punish the criminals in our midst. Part of that system is the appeal process which ensures that that potential mistakes in convictions can be found and corrected. All citizens of this country are entitled to the due process of law which includes access to the appeal process.
Our system is imperfect, yet I do not believe there is a better one on earth. So keeping that reality in mind I'd rather take the more economically feasible route.
Xrlq
· 4 years ago
I have a hard time taking seriously the arguments of people who oppose the death penalty by doing everything they can to make it as expensive and protracted as possible, only to then argue for its abolition on the grounds it is expensive and protracted. And then there are the plea bargain cases no one wants to talk about. How many capital murderers would plead guilty to their crimes in exchange for life without parole if the worst possible sentence after trial were life without parole (the best, of course, being an O.J. verdict)?
Regardless, both the general issue of the death penalty and the specific issue of executing juveniles are issues that ought to be decided by the legislature, not by the courts. That's the real reason this decision was wrong, regardless of one's views on the underlying issue.
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
Well, again you’re using the deterrent effect to support your position.
No I'm not. I'm just saying that there's a price tag for murder. I realize that it's not much, if any, of a deterrent to other criminals and murderers. To me that's beside the point and essentially irrelevant.
And as such anyways - it is a deterrent of sorts. After all,..dead people can't continue to murder.
damnum absque injuria »
· 4 years ago
[...] e “cruel and unusual” to execute a 17 year old but not an 18 year old. Rob at Say Anything actually likes the decision, though he admits its stated r [...]
Seth Yantiss
· 4 years ago
I have to side with Likwidshoe here, Rob... I think Manson should have found the off switch a long time ago... there are MANY others that were ABSOLUTELY guilty of their crime, and should have been shown the door. There is too much red tape involved and the cost is too high to keep ‘em on Death Row, but we should reform the process and deal with the ones that are unquestionable as quickly as possible.
On a side note: Boortz posed a question to his audience last week... I'll paraphrase:
If there is anyone out there reading this who is on death row in a state with the Electric Chair. Can you please do me a favor??? For your last meal, can you ask for a bottle of popping corn kernels???? I just really want to know... Please???
Rob
· 4 years ago
I have to side with Likwidshoe here, Rob… I think Manson should have found the off switch a long time ago… there are MANY others that were ABSOLUTELY guilty of their crime, and should have been shown the door.
Seth, my father once got a man out of prison in Alaska after being convicted of a double homicide. He was a blackout drunk and actually admitted to killing the people in question. His blood was at the scene as well as some other bodily fluids. All evidenced pointed to him. Everybody was sure he'd done it. Heck, even he himself was convinced because he had blackedout.
But it turned out he didn't do it. When it comes to this sort of thing there really are no absolutes.
Now granted, this situation is the exception and not the rule. But I cannot help but feel that the exceptions make the difference. I'd rather see 1,000 Charles Mansons rot on death row instead of getting fried like they deserve than see one innocent person put to death in a miscarriage of justice.
No I’m not. I’m just saying that there’s a price tag for murder. I realize that it’s not much, if any, of a deterrent to other criminals and murderers. To me that’s beside the point and essentially irrelevant.
Point taken. Its not a bad way of looking at things, but I disagree for the reasons above.
And as such anyways - it is a deterrent of sorts. After all,..dead people can’t continue to murder.
Well, theoretically neither can people in prison. Or, if they do its at least likely to be another scumbag inmate.
Xrlq
· 4 years ago
And as such anyways - it is a deterrent of sorts. After all,..dead people can’t continue to murder.
Well, theoretically neither can people in prison. Or, if they do its at least likely to be another scumbag inmate.
Likely, but far from certain. It could be a prison guard, or an inmate whose offense was nowhere near serious enough to warrant murder. Or the guy could break out of prison and kill just about anybody. Or the law could change, and voila, suddenly that "life without parole" sentence, isn't.
I find it odd that you are so fixed on the evil of ONE guy getting accidentally killed by the state, yet totally unconcerned about the risk of several innocent inmates (and many more relatively innocent ones) being murdered by the very killers most of us think should have been executed years ago. I say, an innocent life lost is an innocent life lost. In any event, you'd do well to ditch the "it's too costly" argument yesterday. "It's too costly" is an argument for a streamlined process with fewer appeals. It's not a serious argument against the death penalty.
JG
· 4 years ago
Xlrq clearly isn't a deep thinker. He blithely rejects the argument of death penalty appeals being expensive and protracted without examining why they are expensive and why they are protracted.
Let us see if he can answer these questions.
Xrlq
· 4 years ago
Those aren't questions, they're statements. And incredibly ill-informed ones, at that.
JG
· 4 years ago
I guess the questions as to why were beyond Xrlq's ken.
Rob
· 4 years ago
Likely, but far from certain. It could be a prison guard, or an inmate whose offense was nowhere near serious enough to warrant murder.
I'm really not as worried about prison guards or other prisoners. Prison guards are prepared for attacks and rarely get murdered, though it does happen and it is a tragedy when it does. As for other prisoners...they shouldn't be murdered either but I'm really not as concerned about them as I am about people on the outside.
Or the guy could break out of prison and kill just about anybody.
They could also escape during the ten years they're on death row as well.
Or the law could change, and voila, suddenly that ""life without parole" sentence, isn’t.
Of course, we've seen death sentences go away when the law changes as well. And as for paroles, that seems like an argument for some legislative changes to our corrections/sentencing system than an argument for the death penalty.
I find it odd that you are so fixed on the evil of ONE guy getting accidentally killed by the state, yet totally unconcerned about the risk of several innocent inmates (and many more relatively innocent ones) being murdered by the very killers most of us think should have been executed years ago.
These are simply prison security issues. I still don't see where they add up for support of the death penalty. Violent criminals are already placed into prison. Heck, even death row inmates spend decades in prison. What makes you think that killing them puts their fellow inmates at any more risk?
I say, an innocent life lost is an innocent life lost.
This is where you and I differ. Our system is imperfect. I don't believe we can, in good faith, call for an absolute punishment when the conclusions reached by our courts are not always absolute.
In any event, you’d do well to ditch the ""it’s too costly" argument yesterday. ""It’s too costly" is an argument for a streamlined process with fewer appeals. It’s not a serious argument against the death penalty.
So we should deny prisoners access to the appeal process because its too costly?
I think that is a poor argument.
Gary Gunnels
· 4 years ago
Well, when Loving v. Virginia came down in 1967 I believe fifteen states still outlawed inter-racial marriage. So long ago the Supreme Court stated that because a minority of states continue a practice doesn't mean that the practice is justified under the Constitution.
Of course the problem ultimately is with the text of the Eighth Amendment, which can be construed to mean anything (and note that legislators at the time of its passage in the Congress made the same thing about is contents).
slarrow,
Actually, this is exactly their role:
...the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature in order, among ohter things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. - Federalist No. 78 (Hamilton)
People always assume that courts are mere ciphers, when that is not what they were designed for at all, at least according to Hamilton or the man who most directly inspired the way Article III was written - the French philosophe the Baron de Montesquieu.
Jadegold
· 4 years ago
The reason Xrlq is full o' crap is because the protracted and expensive appeals process doesn't occur in a vacuum.
We, as a society, rightly view the state-sanctioned killing of a citizen very seriously. OTOH, the people who wind up on Death Row are overwhelmingly the poorest and least-educated in our society.
The dirty little secret is that most folks charged with capital crimes are ill-served and poorly-represented in their initial trial. For the most part, they are represented by over-worked and very often under-qualified public defenders. Their defense is marked by little or no financial resources. Going against experienced prosecutors who have the full resources and nearly unlimited financial resources of the state---public defenders rarely have a chance.
Xrlq
· 4 years ago
We should deny the near-infinite appeals, most of which have nothing to do with guilt vs. innocence. One appeal is plenty. My point is that if cost were really the issue, there are ways to make the death penalty cheaper. That you are even less interested in a cheap death penalty than an expensive one suggests that it is not.
Violent criminals are already placed into prison. Heck, even death row inmates spend decades in prison. What makes you think that killing them puts their fellow inmates at any more risk?
Death row inmates shouldn't spend decades in prison, but that's another issue. In any event, I never said killing the most violent inmates puts their fellow inmates at more risk. By removing the most dangerous elements, it puts everyone else at less risk.
I still fail to see why you care so much about the hypothetical one guy who is executed despite factual innocence, and so little about the many more inmates, some of whom committed lesser offenses, and others of whom are inevitably innocent of all charges. After all, non-capital offenders don't get the same multi-layered appeals process death row inmates get, so all other things being equal, a much higher percentage of them are factually innocent.
Rob
· 4 years ago
On one hand you say that, if cost is a problem, we should shorten the appeal process to one appeal. But what if new evidence emerges after the initial appeal. Can they prisoner get a new appeal or are you going to limit that?
I'm really interested in how you suggest we shorten the process. I don't see how we can, in good faith, shorten the process while upholding the prisoners right to due process of law.
You also state that I don't care as much about all of the innocent prisoners who are not capital offenders. I do care, which is also why I'm against the death penalty. As long as they're not dead these innocents always have a chance to have a break in their case and get out of prison. Dead prisoners don't have that option.
Robin S.
· 4 years ago
From the linked article:
A closely divided Supreme Court outlawed the death penalty for juvenile criminals on Tuesday, declaring there was a national consensus such executions were unconstitutionally cruel and ending a practice that had brought international condemnation.
What does the existence (or non-existence) of a national consensus have to do with anything? Either it's unconstitutional or it's not. The reasoning used here is questionable at best. (I don't think it's quite as horrible as Neal Boortz seems to, though I understand his point.)
Also, what does the age of the person have to do with anything? If someone's 17 years, 364 days old, and commits a brutal, pre-meditated murder at the same time that another person who is 24 hours older, how is the death penalty "cruel and unusual" for the first person and not the second?
If capital punishment was intended for anyone, it was this kid, who bragged a few days before that he could commit murder and avoid execution based solely on his age. I'm not really decided on whether I support capital punishment, but the position that it's okay for some people but not others based on an arbitrary age limit is annoying.
Patterico
· 4 years ago
The dirty little secret is that most folks charged with capital crimes are ill-served and poorly-represented in their initial trial. For the most part, they are represented by over-worked and very often under-qualified public defenders. Their defense is marked by little or no financial resources. Going against experienced prosecutors who have the full resources and nearly unlimited financial resources of the stateâ€"public defenders rarely have a chance.
Nonsense. While some capital defendants have had poor representation, it is a grossly inaccurate generalization to say that capital defendants are "for the most part" represented by "over-worked and very often under-qualified public defenders."
Overworked, maybe. It's hard to find a lawyer who doesn't feel overworked. I sure do.
But as a general rule, public defenders must reach a high level of experience before they are allowed to handle a death penalty case. And your implication that public defenders are inferior to private lawyers is way off-base. I am a prosecutor, and some of the toughest lawyers I go up against are public defenders.
And I don't know what D.A.'s office you're talking about that has "nearly unlimited financial resources." It sure isn't my office.
May I ask what factual basis you have for these statements? Because it all sounds like a bunch of Conventional Wisdom without any basis in reality.
Calissa
· 4 years ago
I was utterly astounded when i heard the news that the supreme court ruled out giving minors the death penalty. Those rapping, murdering, "children" that everyone is trying to protect deserve to die for there heinously vicious crimes. You just don't magically understand the seriousness of murder, arson and rape the day that you turn 18. These 15,16 and 17 year olds know that what they did is wrong and they don't deserve to live and get another chance to do it again. I am 17 years old and if any teenager I know kills somebody, I'll want to see them get what they deserve and what they deserve is a lethal injection of death.
All Comments
Then, as their turn nears, an appeal process starts where the prisoner files on appeal after another based on this or that legal reasoning. We have to pay the clerks who file the appeals and the judges who review them and rule on them. Often this requires additional hearings, etc. which costs us money for the prosecutors to prepare for and attend, the judges, court room time, etc. Not to mention transportation of the prisoner, guards, etc.
Then there is the execution itself. Doctors must be paid to attend and there is always the media to deal with. Press conferences, etc. There's a lot that goes into these things.
Of course, this is just one part of my objection to the death penalty, but you can read about it at-length here.
The folks over at NRO's The Corner are nailing the Court on this angle.
Right decision, wrong justification.
The red tape you speak of is our appeals process. I don't think we should be referring to due process of law as "red tape."
Who said that was the intended effect?
The deterrent effect is often cited as a benefit by many pro-death penalty people.
It puts a price tag on murder. Murder is expensive - your life. The death penalty affirms the value of life by putting such an expensive price tag on taking it.
Well, again you're using the deterrent effect to support your position. I'm just not convinced that its all that effective. Really, if it takes decades to kill these people anyway, where's the deterrent?
That's more of a complaint against bureaucratic red tape.
For another execution really doesn’t act as much of a deterrent to other potential criminals, which is its intended effect.
Who said that was the intended effect?
And probably the biggest reason I’m against it is the simple fact that we convict far too many innocent people for crimes they didn’t commit.
Rob, I think you should stick solely with this argument.
That all being said, I support the death penalty. It puts a price tag on murder. Murder is expensive - your life. The death penalty affirms the value of life by putting such an expensive price tag on taking it.
I hope you aren't suggesting that I am one of these people.
That aside, it seems to me that the capital punishment process is long and protracted for a very good reason.
We hold up our our judicial system as the best way to justly convict and punish the criminals in our midst. Part of that system is the appeal process which ensures that that potential mistakes in convictions can be found and corrected. All citizens of this country are entitled to the due process of law which includes access to the appeal process.
Our system is imperfect, yet I do not believe there is a better one on earth. So keeping that reality in mind I'd rather take the more economically feasible route.
Regardless, both the general issue of the death penalty and the specific issue of executing juveniles are issues that ought to be decided by the legislature, not by the courts. That's the real reason this decision was wrong, regardless of one's views on the underlying issue.
No I'm not. I'm just saying that there's a price tag for murder. I realize that it's not much, if any, of a deterrent to other criminals and murderers. To me that's beside the point and essentially irrelevant.
And as such anyways - it is a deterrent of sorts. After all,..dead people can't continue to murder.
On a side note: Boortz posed a question to his audience last week... I'll paraphrase:
If there is anyone out there reading this who is on death row in a state with the Electric Chair. Can you please do me a favor??? For your last meal, can you ask for a bottle of popping corn kernels???? I just really want to know... Please???
Seth, my father once got a man out of prison in Alaska after being convicted of a double homicide. He was a blackout drunk and actually admitted to killing the people in question. His blood was at the scene as well as some other bodily fluids. All evidenced pointed to him. Everybody was sure he'd done it. Heck, even he himself was convinced because he had blackedout.
But it turned out he didn't do it. When it comes to this sort of thing there really are no absolutes.
Now granted, this situation is the exception and not the rule. But I cannot help but feel that the exceptions make the difference. I'd rather see 1,000 Charles Mansons rot on death row instead of getting fried like they deserve than see one innocent person put to death in a miscarriage of justice.
No I’m not. I’m just saying that there’s a price tag for murder. I realize that it’s not much, if any, of a deterrent to other criminals and murderers. To me that’s beside the point and essentially irrelevant.
Point taken. Its not a bad way of looking at things, but I disagree for the reasons above.
And as such anyways - it is a deterrent of sorts. After all,..dead people can’t continue to murder.
Well, theoretically neither can people in prison. Or, if they do its at least likely to be another scumbag inmate.
Likely, but far from certain. It could be a prison guard, or an inmate whose offense was nowhere near serious enough to warrant murder. Or the guy could break out of prison and kill just about anybody. Or the law could change, and voila, suddenly that "life without parole" sentence, isn't.
I find it odd that you are so fixed on the evil of ONE guy getting accidentally killed by the state, yet totally unconcerned about the risk of several innocent inmates (and many more relatively innocent ones) being murdered by the very killers most of us think should have been executed years ago. I say, an innocent life lost is an innocent life lost. In any event, you'd do well to ditch the "it's too costly" argument yesterday. "It's too costly" is an argument for a streamlined process with fewer appeals. It's not a serious argument against the death penalty.
Let us see if he can answer these questions.
I'm really not as worried about prison guards or other prisoners. Prison guards are prepared for attacks and rarely get murdered, though it does happen and it is a tragedy when it does. As for other prisoners...they shouldn't be murdered either but I'm really not as concerned about them as I am about people on the outside.
Or the guy could break out of prison and kill just about anybody.
They could also escape during the ten years they're on death row as well.
Or the law could change, and voila, suddenly that ""life without parole" sentence, isn’t.
Of course, we've seen death sentences go away when the law changes as well. And as for paroles, that seems like an argument for some legislative changes to our corrections/sentencing system than an argument for the death penalty.
I find it odd that you are so fixed on the evil of ONE guy getting accidentally killed by the state, yet totally unconcerned about the risk of several innocent inmates (and many more relatively innocent ones) being murdered by the very killers most of us think should have been executed years ago.
These are simply prison security issues. I still don't see where they add up for support of the death penalty. Violent criminals are already placed into prison. Heck, even death row inmates spend decades in prison. What makes you think that killing them puts their fellow inmates at any more risk?
I say, an innocent life lost is an innocent life lost.
This is where you and I differ. Our system is imperfect. I don't believe we can, in good faith, call for an absolute punishment when the conclusions reached by our courts are not always absolute.
In any event, you’d do well to ditch the ""it’s too costly" argument yesterday. ""It’s too costly" is an argument for a streamlined process with fewer appeals. It’s not a serious argument against the death penalty.
So we should deny prisoners access to the appeal process because its too costly?
I think that is a poor argument.
Of course the problem ultimately is with the text of the Eighth Amendment, which can be construed to mean anything (and note that legislators at the time of its passage in the Congress made the same thing about is contents).
slarrow,
Actually, this is exactly their role:
...the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature in order, among ohter things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. - Federalist No. 78 (Hamilton)
People always assume that courts are mere ciphers, when that is not what they were designed for at all, at least according to Hamilton or the man who most directly inspired the way Article III was written - the French philosophe the Baron de Montesquieu.
We, as a society, rightly view the state-sanctioned killing of a citizen very seriously. OTOH, the people who wind up on Death Row are overwhelmingly the poorest and least-educated in our society.
The dirty little secret is that most folks charged with capital crimes are ill-served and poorly-represented in their initial trial. For the most part, they are represented by over-worked and very often under-qualified public defenders. Their defense is marked by little or no financial resources. Going against experienced prosecutors who have the full resources and nearly unlimited financial resources of the state---public defenders rarely have a chance.
Death row inmates shouldn't spend decades in prison, but that's another issue. In any event, I never said killing the most violent inmates puts their fellow inmates at more risk. By removing the most dangerous elements, it puts everyone else at less risk.
I still fail to see why you care so much about the hypothetical one guy who is executed despite factual innocence, and so little about the many more inmates, some of whom committed lesser offenses, and others of whom are inevitably innocent of all charges. After all, non-capital offenders don't get the same multi-layered appeals process death row inmates get, so all other things being equal, a much higher percentage of them are factually innocent.
I'm really interested in how you suggest we shorten the process. I don't see how we can, in good faith, shorten the process while upholding the prisoners right to due process of law.
You also state that I don't care as much about all of the innocent prisoners who are not capital offenders. I do care, which is also why I'm against the death penalty. As long as they're not dead these innocents always have a chance to have a break in their case and get out of prison. Dead prisoners don't have that option.
A closely divided Supreme Court outlawed the death penalty for juvenile criminals on Tuesday, declaring there was a national consensus such executions were unconstitutionally cruel and ending a practice that had brought international condemnation.
What does the existence (or non-existence) of a national consensus have to do with anything? Either it's unconstitutional or it's not. The reasoning used here is questionable at best. (I don't think it's quite as horrible as Neal Boortz seems to, though I understand his point.)
Also, what does the age of the person have to do with anything? If someone's 17 years, 364 days old, and commits a brutal, pre-meditated murder at the same time that another person who is 24 hours older, how is the death penalty "cruel and unusual" for the first person and not the second?
If capital punishment was intended for anyone, it was this kid, who bragged a few days before that he could commit murder and avoid execution based solely on his age. I'm not really decided on whether I support capital punishment, but the position that it's okay for some people but not others based on an arbitrary age limit is annoying.
Nonsense. While some capital defendants have had poor representation, it is a grossly inaccurate generalization to say that capital defendants are "for the most part" represented by "over-worked and very often under-qualified public defenders."
Overworked, maybe. It's hard to find a lawyer who doesn't feel overworked. I sure do.
But as a general rule, public defenders must reach a high level of experience before they are allowed to handle a death penalty case. And your implication that public defenders are inferior to private lawyers is way off-base. I am a prosecutor, and some of the toughest lawyers I go up against are public defenders.
And I don't know what D.A.'s office you're talking about that has "nearly unlimited financial resources." It sure isn't my office.
May I ask what factual basis you have for these statements? Because it all sounds like a bunch of Conventional Wisdom without any basis in reality.