My issue with the death penalty(rant)

[coffeecrazy1]

(rant)
I support the death penalty as a tool of the criminal justice system. I do not believe it necessarily has a deterrent effect on crime. I support it because I think that, in the vast majority of cases, the punishment fits or falls short of the crime. I believe it should be reserved for only the worst offenders in our system.

However, I do not support the current method or administration of the death penalty. The appeals process allows inmates like Tookie Williams to rot for 20+ years in some cases before the sentence is completed. Similarly, our methods of execution are questionable as well. Even lethal injection, regarded as the most humane of our recent methods, yields a rather painful end to life, especially in light of the fact that more effective and painless chemicals are available(such as barbiturates).

NOW...what bothers me about the above is the hypocrisy of the entire system. I would have very little problem if someone came right out and said, "Sure...it's a harsh and painful process, both leading up to the execution and the actual execution...but that's part of the punishment." If the officials were upfront about it being the most unpleasant experience possible(or one of them), then I might find it extreme, but at least I could respect it(see also Singapore, who never hides its harshness). But, the politcalspeak about "supporting the law" and "respecting the jury" rings so hollow to me.

So...in conclusion...either find a truly painless way to kill, and kill them soon after the conviction, or fry'em, but be honest that you're frying them.(/rant)

I agree it's not optimal to wait 20 years to execute someone. The alternatives are either to eliminate the death penalty, or to deny people their legal appeals. Given the number of death row inmates who have been exonerated by DNA evidence, it seems like denying appeals is pretty reckless.

[ QUOTE ]
The alternatives are either to eliminate the death penalty, or to deny people their legal appeals.

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="red">WARNING: FALSE DICHOTOMY!</font>

My solution is as follows.

STEP 1: Remove the discretion to seek capital punishment from local prosecutors. Vest this discretion with the state AG.

Benefit: greater consistency in death penalty cases; reservation of capital charges for only the most "heinous" crimes; elimination of local biases inflamed by local media considerations.

STEP 2: Create a federal law requiring states proceeding with capital crime charges to adhere to a "minimum competence" standard. This would include things like defense counsel experienced in defending capital crimes, reasonable public financing for experts, investigators, DNA testing, etc.

Benefit: Reduced error rate at trial. Combined with the more standardized prosecutions that would occur from step #1, it is likely that only the strongest capital cases would be brought. The public would have increased confidence that the innocent are not being wrongfully convicted.

STEP 3: Expedited appeal. Following a trial, an expedited appeal process occurs. Intermediate state appellate courts review jury factual findings with deference, and principally focus on whether an adequate defense was afforded. Federal habeas process, which can raise certain news issues, is also limited. From conviction to execution should take no more than 2 years.

STEP 4: Public executions. Rather than executions done in the middle of the night, executions should be conducted on weekends in the middle of the day. They should be open to a limited amount of media and public, but they should not be a spectacle. As far as method of execution goes, it should not be deliberately cruel, but I have no problem if the condemed man feels discomfort, even pain. My general preference would be for firing squad--multiple head shots from a .308 rifle is as close to instantaneous as I can imagine. The only thing I dont like about firing squad is that it is a pain to clean up afterwards (ditto for the chair and gas chamber, when the condemned man often loses bowel control or he gets cooked). Lethal injection seems popular these days, and Im fine with that. Since we do this to our dogs and horses, I reckon its just fine for scumbag criminals.

[Exsubmariner]

The victims of Tookie:


Warning: Graphic

[slickpoppa]

I dont understand why they just dont use a method like Kevorkian's. It seems pretty simple.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
The victims of Tookie:


Warning: Graphic

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there absolutely any reason to post that other than to try and stir up some kind of emotional bloodlust?

Or are you just trying to make some kind of ad hominem argument against death penalty opponents, trying to paint them as unsympathetic to the victims?

[ QUOTE ]
The victims of Tookie:


Warning: Graphic

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. I didn't realize murder was a bad thing until now. Fry 'em all.

[Exsubmariner]

I am making no argument. I cannot control the emotional reactions of anyone who looks at those pictures. The link contains a warning and no one is forced to look. I am simply presenting factual information in the form of photographic evidence that is relevent to the discussion. If the OP had not referenced Tookie, I would not have posted it.

If you feel it is too over the top for your message board, you are the moderator, and you are free to take it down. I will not be offended if you do.

But, I honestly feel the pictures speak for themselves.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]

But, I honestly feel the pictures speak for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well maybe you should expand. I see that a gross crime was committed. I don't see how that could either support or opposed the death penalty.

Unless of course you don't have any argument other than trying to stir up emotions.

[Exsubmariner]

I already said that I was only presenting facts.

It is up to the viewer to decide whether or not those facts make an arguement for or against the issue at hand. That's what I meant when I said they speak for themselves. A jury of 12 men and women saw those same pictures 25 years ago and decided they did.

I would welcome any discourse based on the evidence I present here that the jury was wrong.