Slate article on Capital Punishment

BigPete

New member
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
5,010
Liked Posts:
0
Location:
Belleville, IL
I know we have talked about this topic before but I thought the article was fresh. So here goes, sorry if the thread doesn't go far, I just wanted to share the article really.



http://www.slate.com/id/2302900/



While most of Europe and much of the rest of the world have abandoned the death penalty, support for capital punishment in the United States has endured with remarkable consistency, even in the face of wrongful convictions. Here's a look at the death penalty in America through the eyes of those closest to it: the legislators, the judges, the juries, the lawyers, and, of course, the condemned.



The Texas Clemency Memos

Alan Berlow • The Atlantic Monthly • July 2003

As Texas governor and attorney general, respectively, George W. Bush and Alberto Gonzales should have given each capital case careful consideration. The evidence suggests they did not:

"Gonzales declined to be interviewed for this story, but during the 2000 presidential campaign I asked him if Bush ever read the clemency petitions of death-row inmates, and he equivocated. 'I wouldn't say that was done in every case,' he told me. 'But if we felt there was something he should look at specifically—yes, he did look from time to time at what had been filed.' I have found no evidence that Gonzales ever sent Bush a clemency petition—or any document—that summarized in a concise and coherent fashion a condemned defendant's best argument against execution in a case involving serious questions of innocence or due process. Bush relied on Gonzales's summaries, which never made such arguments."



The Chessman Affair

Time • March 1960

The last days of Caryl Chessman, best-selling author and murderer:

"Standing at the barred door of his cell after he got the expected news that the judiciary committee had blocked Brown's proposal, Chessman managed to summon a wry smile. 'I have had nine execution dates, and have been spared eight times,' he said. 'I do not want to be credited with more lives than a cat.' "



Trial By Fire

David Grann • The New Yorker • September 2009

Cameron Todd Willingham was convicted and sentenced to die for killing his two children, a crime he almost certainly did not commit:

"Another crucial piece of evidence implicating Willingham was the 'crazed glass' that Vasquez had attributed to the rapid heating from a fire fuelled with liquid accelerant. Yet, in November of 1991, a team of fire investigators had inspected fifty houses in the hills of Oakland, California, which had been ravaged by brush fires. In a dozen houses, the investigators discovered crazed glass, even though a liquid accelerant had not been used. Most of these houses were on the outskirts of the blaze, where firefighters had shot streams of water; as the investigators later wrote in a published study, they theorized that the fracturing had been induced by rapid cooling, rather than by sudden heating—thermal shock had caused the glass to contract so quickly that it settled disjointedly. The investigators then tested this hypothesis in a laboratory. When they heated glass, nothing happened. But each time they applied water to the heated glass the intricate patterns appeared. Hurst had seen the same phenomenon when he had blowtorched and cooled glass during his research at Cambridge. In his report, Hurst wrote that Vasquez and Fogg's notion of crazed glass was no more than an 'old wives' tale.' "



In the Face of Death

Alex Kotlowitz • New York Times Magazine • July 2003

What it's like to serve on a jury in a capital case:

"The jurors were escorted to the jury room, a small, unadorned space, where Garrison, the foreman, let everyone collect themselves. The 12 jurors mulled silently for half an hour, helping themselves to cans of pop and orange juice from one of two small refrigerators. They then convened around an oval-shaped, laminated wood table. Since it could accommodate only eight chairs, four of the jurors had to sit against the wall. One juror could be heard mumbling, 'I don't want to be doing this.' It's how many of them felt. On a blackboard, Carrie Tuterow wrote down the options: death, life without parole, and a determinate sentence. Garrison suggested they first take a vote, and so everyone, anonymously, wrote on a piece of paper where he or she stood."



On the Row

Tina Rosenberg • Rolling Stone • October 1995

On an convict too young to vote but old enough to be strapped to a chair:

"In the last 15 years, only Iraq and possibly Iran have executed more minors, and only six other countries have executed even one. Some of the very qualities that make juvenile criminals most terrifying—their impulsiveness, a tendency to fall under the sway of others and a need to prove their toughness to the group—raise questions about their suitability for a punishment that the law reserves for a small group of the most morally culpable killers. Minors are thought too immature to sit on a jury, vote, buy beer or watch an X-rated movie, yet they are considered responsible enough to pay for their crimes with their lives.

The case of Joseph Hudgins illustrates all these issues. His rashness, lack of judgment and susceptibility to the domination of others might have brought him to kill 21-year-old police officer Christopher Taylor."

On the Death Sentence

John Paul Stevens • The New York Review of Books • December 2010

John Paul Stevens, the former Supreme Court Justice, reviews David Garland's Peculiar Institution: America's Death Penalty in an Age of Abolition and explains why he did a 180 on the death penalty:

"If Garland's comprehensive analysis is accurate—that the primary public benefits of the death penalty are 'political exchange and cultural consumption'—and as long as the remedy of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is available, those partisan and cultural considerations provide woefully inadequate justifications for putting anyone to death."



Have a favorite piece that we missed? Leave the link in the comments or tweet it to @longformorg. For more great writing, check out Longform.org's complete archive.
 

roshinaya

fnord
Donator
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
3,533
Liked Posts:
440
Don't worry, the death penalty is also still in use in such bastions of freedom as China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Somalia and Belarus. You are in good company
<
 

JOVE23

New member
Joined:
Jun 15, 2010
Posts:
2,458
Liked Posts:
0
We love killing people. It's sad that you don't share our bloodlust.
 

winos5

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Oct 19, 2013
Posts:
7,956
Liked Posts:
829
Location:
Wish You Were Here
I'm confused I thought Peter supported the death penalty
 

BigPete

New member
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
5,010
Liked Posts:
0
Location:
Belleville, IL
A. Don't call me Peter.

B. What makes you think I don't support it?
 

winos5

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Oct 19, 2013
Posts:
7,956
Liked Posts:
829
Location:
Wish You Were Here
If you supported the death penalty why would you begin a thread obviously slanted against it?



I used to support the death penalty, but no longer do. After living in Texas for 10 years and seeing the number of death penalty cases that have been overturned in the Dallas/Fortworth and Houston area over that time, based on improved DNA evidence or prosecutorial misconduct, I don't have confidence in the judicial system to deliver a fair trial and arrive at that sentance.



Retrospectively, based on the last words of the condemned in Texas over the last 30-40 years, the number of people claiming innocence is few and far between those asking forgiveness for their crimes. Still, even 1-20 or 30 condemned criminals being innocent is unacceptable IMO.
 

BigPete

New member
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
5,010
Liked Posts:
0
Location:
Belleville, IL
I'm generating talking points, not just tooting my own horn because I like to be heard.



As for your comment on Texas using the death penalty, you said this and I think it speaks volumes, "...based on improved DNA evidence or prosecutorial misconduct, I don't have confidence in the judicial system to deliver a fair trial and arrive at that sentance."



I have always said that in an ideal world real evidence would speak for itself and aid in the decision of whether or not to use capitcal punishment. It is not so difficult to rewrite the rules and demand that x amount or x type of evidence is necessary to convict. Right now, the ONLY criteria once the trial has begun is that the jury must be convinced by the prosecution that there is no other reasonable explanation other than the accused 'did it'. (that is a play on words, but still the same point)



What I have a major beef with is all the thousands of incarcerated convicts who have been punished with a life sentence and no parole. What is the point of keeping them alive if they will never again taste freedom or be a productive member of society? Could some of those inmates not be just as innocent as some of the wrongfully convicted people punished with a death sentence? If yes, then why are we not clamoring about how wrong it is that they have lost their life (or freedom if you choose - same thing to me)?



In your premise the legal system is not broken, it is just filled with corrupt people. Find a way to deal with that rather than cut off your nose to spite your face.



In my premise I don't differentiate between keeping someone locked in a fucking closet for their entire remaining life and snuffing out their life after they have comited and been convicted of the crime. Either way, they are 'gone'.
 

winos5

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Oct 19, 2013
Posts:
7,956
Liked Posts:
829
Location:
Wish You Were Here
I agree that there is definately room for improvement in the judicial process. There is no shortage of misconduct.



And for the record I was just surprised by the pro-life slant of the article (s), given that you've been pretty supportive of the death penalty in other threads..
 

bubbleheadchief

New member
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
1,517
Liked Posts:
1
Location:
Middle of nowhere AL
I'm generating talking points, not just tooting my own horn because I like to be heard.



As for your comment on Texas using the death penalty, you said this and I think it speaks volumes, "...based on improved DNA evidence or prosecutorial misconduct, I don't have confidence in the judicial system to deliver a fair trial and arrive at that sentance."



I have always said that in an ideal world real evidence would speak for itself and aid in the decision of whether or not to use capitcal punishment. It is not so difficult to rewrite the rules and demand that x amount or x type of evidence is necessary to convict. Right now, the ONLY criteria once the trial has begun is that the jury must be convinced by the prosecution that there is no other reasonable explanation other than the accused 'did it'. (that is a play on words, but still the same point)



What I have a major beef with is all the thousands of incarcerated convicts who have been punished with a life sentence and no parole. What is the point of keeping them alive if they will never again taste freedom or be a productive member of society? Could some of those inmates not be just as innocent as some of the wrongfully convicted people punished with a death sentence? If yes, then why are we not clamoring about how wrong it is that they have lost their life (or freedom if you choose - same thing to me)?



In your premise the legal system is not broken, it is just filled with corrupt people. Find a way to deal with that rather than cut off your nose to spite your face.



In my premise I don't differentiate between keeping someone locked in a fucking closet for their entire remaining life and snuffing out their life after they have comited and been convicted of the crime. Either way, they are 'gone'.

Can someone of the anti-death penalty ilk answer that one please, what is the difference betwee life without possibilty of parole or death by lethal injection???? Other then it is another body clogging up a jail space and money.
 

BigPete

New member
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
5,010
Liked Posts:
0
Location:
Belleville, IL
@Wino:

Well, again, there are some interesting thoughts in the linked articles. You can't see the links (formatting issue) above, but it you go to the Slate site you will see the hyperlinks to source articles that say more than the synopsises(sp?).



Either way, I just think it is silly to say, "it is so wrong that innocent people may have been put to death" when innocent people may be sitting on death row or in a cell forever, all the while their care is paid for by the very society that cast them aside. That, to me, is a huge drain on society.



I firmly believe as well that a more frequently used death penalty would be a good deterant to comiting murder. You can't prove it, there's not enough data in ANY country in history. But I personally believe it would work.
 

BigPete

New member
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
5,010
Liked Posts:
0
Location:
Belleville, IL
Can someone of the anti-death penalty ilk answer that one please, what is the difference betwee life without possibilty of parole or death by lethal injection???? Other then it is another body clogging up a jail space and money.



Good idea Chief!
 

LordKOTL

Scratched for Vorobiev
Joined:
Dec 8, 2014
Posts:
8,681
Liked Posts:
3,049
Location:
PacNW
My favorite teams
  1. Portland Timbers
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
I've read that it actually cost the taxpayers MORE to execute someone that it does for life without parole. I'm still not sure why.



That being said, I think capital punishment should always be an option--especially for rapists/murderers that have been unequivocably proven to have ommitted their crimes and are unrehabilitable. But that being said one person incarcerated or killed for a crime they did not commit is one too many.
 

mikita's helmet

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Dec 10, 2014
Posts:
7,876
Liked Posts:
1,107
Location:
Anacortes, WA via Glenview, IL
Can someone of the anti-death penalty ilk answer that one please, what is the difference betwee life without possibilty of parole or death by lethal injection???? Other then it is another body clogging up a jail space and money.



In one instance your doing what the convicted did,killing someone.* In the other you're not.







* I guess we have the death penaly in the rare instance for treason/espionage
 

mikita's helmet

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Dec 10, 2014
Posts:
7,876
Liked Posts:
1,107
Location:
Anacortes, WA via Glenview, IL
I've read that it actually cost the taxpayers MORE to execute someone that it does for life without parole. I'm still not sure why.



The cost of manditory and (non)manditory appeals.
 

LordKOTL

Scratched for Vorobiev
Joined:
Dec 8, 2014
Posts:
8,681
Liked Posts:
3,049
Location:
PacNW
My favorite teams
  1. Portland Timbers
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
The cost of manditory and (non)manditory appeals.

And that's where I think it should be cleaned up. If you are convicted of murder but there is just a causitive link and not 100% irrefutable fact, the death penalty should never apply. If there is irrefutable fact, like you going on a killing spree caught on live TV, then no need for appeal. You're poisoned courtesy of the state.
 

supraman

New member
Joined:
May 16, 2010
Posts:
8,024
Liked Posts:
196
Location:
St.Pete, FL
I'm against it. It is nothing more than state sponsored murder.



Our penal system needs to be reworked to more of an attempt to reform criminals instead of just sticking them somewhere for the rest of their natural lives. Sure some won't be reformable but a better attempt needs to be made.



Also legalize pot and that will clear out the jails significantly.
 

BigPete

New member
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
5,010
Liked Posts:
0
Location:
Belleville, IL
And that's where I think it should be cleaned up. If you are convicted of murder but there is just a causitive link and not 100% irrefutable fact, the death penalty should never apply. If there is irrefutable fact, like you going on a killing spree caught on live TV, then no need for appeal. You're poisoned courtesy of the state.

Exactly, and these days it is hard to get a conviction even with a shitload of indisputable proof, dare I say OJ or Casey Anthony...
 

mikita's helmet

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Dec 10, 2014
Posts:
7,876
Liked Posts:
1,107
Location:
Anacortes, WA via Glenview, IL
Exactly, and these days it is hard to get a conviction even with a shitload of indisputable proof, dare I say OJ or Casey Anthony...

A wealthy defendant, OJ for example, can hire a good defense attorney who can poke holes in even very strong evidence and create "reasonable doubt."



In the Anthony case, I've heard that some of the evidence the prosecution used was "cutting edge" and heard one commentator refer to it as not reliable. Regardless, the prosecutor, who retired right after trying the Anthony case, did not endear himself to the jury by openly laughing and derisively smirking at the defense attorney during the D's closing arguments.
 

BigPete

New member
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
5,010
Liked Posts:
0
Location:
Belleville, IL
I'm against it. It is nothing more than state sponsored murder.



Our penal system needs to be reworked to more of an attempt to reform criminals instead of just sticking them somewhere for the rest of their natural lives. Sure some won't be reformable but a better attempt needs to be made.



Also legalize pot and that will clear out the jails significantly.



Not all prisons are the same, but many of them now have nicer computer labs and more free education than the government!



As for state sponsored murder, who cares. These convicted murderers don't value life the same way as the rest of us and are likely to do it again. So why have that kind of immoral and dangerous person roaming the streets? You can't deprogram that.
 

supraman

New member
Joined:
May 16, 2010
Posts:
8,024
Liked Posts:
196
Location:
St.Pete, FL
Not all prisons are the same, but many of them now have nicer computer labs and more free education than the government!



As for state sponsored murder, who cares. These convicted murderers don't value life the same way as the rest of us and are likely to do it again. So why have that kind of immoral and dangerous person roaming the streets? You can't deprogram that.



So two wrongs make a right?
 

Top