...by the Supreme Court, I ask ye who read this blog, "Do you support the death penalty?"
I support a death penalty as the ultimate punitive measure taken by a civilized society in response to heinous criminal behavior that alienates man from his fellow men. If liberty is the most sacred possession of man, and life is the most basic form of liberty, and deprivation of liberty is an appropriate sanction for criminal behavior, then execution represents the ultimate deprivation of liberty by a society. And, I support the right of society to express and demonstrate its disapproval of heinous criminal behavior by implementing this ultimate sanction.
However, from a practical perspective, I would hold any state to the following requirements:
1. Death must be restricted to sanctioning what society considers the most awful and heinous crimes -- say, multiple murders, multiple rapes, etc.
2. The implementation of the death penalty must be predicated on a process of investigation, trial, and appeals, that includes the following:
A. A comprehensive investigation process that thoroughly and competently investigates crimes and yields...
B. Evidence that leaves no reasonable doubt of guilt
C. A competent jury following the judge's instructions, focused on the evidence, and untainted by bias(es) that might result in improper verdicts
D. A prosecution that operates above reproach and rigorously follows criminal law procedures and rules of evidence
E. An effective defense
F. A judge interested solely in the administration of justice
G. An appeals process that thoroughly and effectively investigates and adjudicates all possible faults in the investigatory and trials phase of the process
In our country, we've had significant problems meeting the criteria above. In fact, the American Bar Association is so deeply concerned about the administration of the death penalty that in 2001, it launched the "Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project." The ABA has stated that, "Over the course of the past thirty years, the American Bar Association (ABA) has become increasingly concerned that capital jurisdictions too often provide neither fairness nor accuracy in the administration of the death penalty."
Beginning in 2003, it undertook to investigate death penalty implementation, starting with 8 sample states -- Ohio, Alabama, Arizona, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Tennessee, and Florida. The goal is to assess the extent to which state capital crime adjudication processes "achieve fairness and provide due process".
After studying state performance using local legal experts examining compliance with 93 ABA protocols in 12 different categories, the ABA found that "the process" of implementing the death penalty in those states is "deeply flawed". 5 of the 8 local legal teams representing the ABA were so disturbed by their findings that they recommended immediate moratoria on the use of the death penalty. Those teams were from Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Ohio and Tennessee. The press release describing the study's findings can be found here.
The ABA's conclusions comport with other studies and build a powerful case for the conclusion that in our country, we do a poor job of administering the death penalty. This means that we try, convict, and possibly execute innocent people -- and this is unacceptable.
So, though I support the death penalty philosophically, I do not support it as administered in this country.
3 comments:
Ah, who would expect Brian's opinion to be anything but both PRO and CON? Classic.
Furthermore...is your complaint with how death sentences are being issued, or the way justice as a whole is administered in the country? If you read your criteria, they apply to basically any criminal case. In addition to not imposing death sentences, do you also want a moratorium placed on sentencing anyone to prison?
Lastly,
Yes, in this case, my complaint resides with the problems that the ABA, the Innocence Project, and others have documented with the adjudication of capital cases.
Certainly, the kinds of problems that bedevil capital cases also bedevil the justice system writ large. So, yes, I have problems with the general administration of justice in this country as currently implemented.
And, no, I would not support a moratorium on sentencing anyone to prison. Such an act would have obvious, large-scale negative consequences for society. I refer to a) the potential for having large numbers of criminals roaming at large while awaiting some sort of broad reform of the "justice system"; and b) the unmanageable task of successfully addressing every problem affecting the US justice system in a timely manner (if ever).
There are three variables pointing in favor of a moratorium on the death penalty as opposed to a moratorium on "all prison time".
First is the difference between sentencing a person to death and sentencing a person to prison -- the finality of the death penalty.
If a man is wrongfully sentenced to prison, he can be released. He can be compensated for wrongful imprisonment -- though I would be the first to say that $$ cannot replace years lost to the hellhole that is prison. He can enjoy liberty again as a free man.
If a man is sentenced to death, and is wrongfully executed, there's no reversing that error. And the result is that you've killed a man who has not committed the crime with which he was charged. He can never again enjoy any form of liberty, especially life itself.
Second, the # of capital cases as a percentage of the overall prison system is small, so you'd be talking about a manageable situation in terms dealing with the scope of the problem.
Third, there is a good alternative for handling prisoners sentenced to death while a moratorium is in place -- just keep them in prison.
Post a Comment