In Austin 4 men who were convicted of murder and spent 30 years in prison and at least one on death row, were declared, “actually innocent” after new DNA and ballistic evidence revealed the actual killer was a now deceased serial killer.
It’s bad enough that they spent 30 years incarceration for something they did not do; what if the death sentence was actually carried out? I have always been in favor of the death sentence, but this makes me rethink.
That is indeed the thing that makes capital punishment problematic.
That said…
Would have no qualms about executing OBL (which happened extrajudicially), or Timothy McVeigh (which happened judicially).
Will never completely rule it out.
There do indeed appear to be cases such as those where the death penalty is completely appropriate and meets the best interests of justice.
Below are a few links on Anthony Graves, who was exonerated after spending 18 years on death row. He was convicted by a prosecutor who withheld exculpatory evidence in order to appear “tough on crime” for his re-election campaign. The guy who actually committed the crimes was executed in 2000 for other crimes. He had previously admitted to the crimes for which Graves was convicted, and he repeated Graves’ innocence in his last statement (also linked below). Graves sat on death row for another 6 years after that before being exonerated. I had the privilege to meet him at an event years ago, and he’s an unbelievable guy. He doesn’t hold any anger or resentment, and he’s now an outspoken advocate for criminal justice reform.
The Exoneration of Anthony Graves Still Resonates
Former Texas District Attorney who Sent Anthony Graves to Death Row is Disbarred
I believe there is also a fiscal argument against the death penalty, though I’m not well versed in it.
Let me tell you where the fiscal argument comes from.
It’s not that it doesn’t cost more to incarcerate people for natural life than just until time of execution in terms of room, board, medical care, etc. Of course that costs more.
It’s that death penalty cases always involve a LONG…APPELLATE process, as well as automatic appointment of state funded defense attorneys who are death penalty experts both at trial and each stage of appeal.
The cost of all those legal fees to the taxpayer ultimately makes death penalty cases more expensive on average.
Yeah, it’s usually multiple times more expensive to execute someone than keep them imprisoned for the rest of their lives. As Law notes, it’s due to the extensive appellate process. Some argue to shorten or do away with that process, but it serves an extremely important purpose. The faster you move to execution, the more innocent people you’re going to execute. And for me, even one innocent person is too many to justify the punishment.
I tend to agree with you that executing one innocent person is one too many.
Also ineffective when it comes to deterrence relative to life imprisonment. Costs more, doesn’t deter crime more and the probability of executing someone that’s innocent is higher than absolute zero. Capitol punishment should not be utilized by the State at all.
Kenneth McDuff
Coral Eugene Watts
Two reasons why death penalty makes sense
Who knows if Ted Bundy couldn’t get loose on a technicality if he got life?
Based on technology, it is much harder to railroad a guy unless the DA is crooked, which is possible
How would he get free on a technicality by having a life sentence that wouldn’t also be possible from getting the death penalty?
If death came before the technicality the technicality would be moot.
It depends on whether are talking about “specific” deterrence or “general” deterrence. There are actually two types of deterrence; people who haven’t been to law school generally don’t realize that.
There’s no evidence, as you said, that the death penalty is any more effective than any other form of punishment as a “general” deterrent to crime. That is to say, there’s no proof that having the death penalty makes capital crimes less prevalent in a given jurisdiction than not having it.
That said, as a SPECIFIC deterrent, that is to say, as a deterrent to THAT DEFENDANT ever killing again, there is no better deterrent than the death penalty.
Why?
Well, simple. Because once that defendant is executed, you can say with 100% certainty that THAT DEFENDNT will never kill again.
There is some value in that.
After all, suppose you sentence to someone with life without parole, and then the guy ends up escaping and killing again. There are real-life cases of that happening in US history.
That’s one of the strongest arguments in favor of the death penalty: it’s the only form of punishment which, once carried out, guarantees that an individual that is a danger to society will never kill again. It ensures that THAT SPECIFIC danger to society is eliminated with 100% certainty.
In that regard, it serves as a sort of societal “self-defense.” A person can take someone else’s life in self-defense if that person with present ability present a real threat to that person’s life.
Same for society, through the death penalty.
Imagine if we had given McVeigh life imprisonment without parole, and he escaped and killed again.
Fortunately, we don’t have to worry about that, because he’s now dead, thanks to the death penalty.
Likewise, a person given life imprisonment could still commit murder or other crimes while in prison; only the death penalty guarantees that he/she/they won’t, once it is carried out. Again…SPECIFIC deterrence.
There are four “goals” of criminal punishment:
a) general deterrence (no proof the death penalty does much in this regard)
b) specific deterrence (no punishment is better than death in that regard)
c) retribution against and punishment of the defendant by society (no punishment is better than death in that regard)
d) rehabilitation (obviously the death penalty is a failure here, but then again, so is life imprisonment without parole, given that that guy will never (unless he escapes) live out amongst society again)
Imma tell you right now… I’m not reading any of that. Thx!
Then you won’t learn anything.
Your loss.
Ahh your presumption that I need to learn something is where you failed. Enjoy your day!
Apparently you do.
And how do I know?
Because you said the death penalty isn’t an effective deterrent.
It isn’t an effective GENERAL deterrent, but it’s the best SPECIFIC deterrent to that person ever killing again that exists, once carried out.
Seeing that you didn’t know that told me straight away that you did have a lot to learn about the concept of deterrence and criminal justice, particularly the difference between general and specific deterrence, which you were apparently unaware of.
My post was designed to provide you with a proper education on that so that you can learn…from a person with several years of experience in criminal law.
Refuse to read it and learn if you wish. Your loss. Can’t say it was due ot lack of effort on my part.
I’m very clearly talking about general deterrence in my post. Just because I didn’t specify doesn’t mean I’m unaware and need my own opinion on the death penalty Law-splained to me. Especially when I did not ask a question. Thx!
It wasn’t clear.
You said “deterrence.” You didn’t specify general or specific.
[quote=“uhlaw97, post:12, topic:67460”] It
depends on whether are talking about “specific” deterrence or “general” deterrence. There are actually two types of deterrence; people who haven’t been to law school generally don’t realize
[/quote]
It doesn’t take a law degree to know the difference in specific or general deterrence. A simple bachelor of science in CJ, like mine, teaches you that in Intro to CJ 1301. Law School, LMAO
Oh yeah, I got it.
It simply wasn’t clear that olutrain knew that much.
Otherwise, he wouldn’t have made a blanket statement such as the one he did.
Had he said, the death penalty isn’t a good general deterrent, he would have been fine.
That’s not really what he said, and it wasn’t all that clear that that is what he meant.
© 1999-2025 CoogFans.com