I don’t know a whole lot about Troy Davis’s execution by the State of Georgia, but I do know that it has a lot of people thinking about the death penalty today so I thought I’d briefly mention my thoughts on the subject. I’m not in the “all killing is murder” camp. There are actions that are reprehensible enough that, if someone does them, I am comfortable with the notion that death is an appropriate consequence.
My problem is that I don’t believe we have a system to determine whether the accused committed the acts in question that is reliable enough to use in conjunction with a punishment that is ultimate and irreversible.
Finally, I can’t help but notice that there seems to be a lot of overlap between the “government can’t do anything right” crowd and the “government can reliably identify and execute the guilty” crowd.
That last line is gold. Very true.
Well said, Doug.
Love the last line. Like you, my problem with the death penalty isn’t a moral position per se–it’s a recognition that capital punishment by its very nature is arbitrary and capricious. There’s research showing, for example, that prosecutors are far less likely to seek the death penalty against defendants who can afford private counsel. Since DNA testing, there is ample evidence of mistaken identities. I agree wholeheartedly that when you are imposing the ultimate penalty, you need a much more reliable system.
I’ve been interested in the details of the reported recantations of seven of nine (not to be confused with the Star Trek Voyager character played by Jeri Ryan) jurors in the Davis case. While I’m in full agreement with the thought that the system is flawed, particularly when it comes to reliance on eyewitness testimony, I do wonder why the recantations came apparently many years after the trial. Perhaps the reason is different with each juror. My guess is that in some instances, eyewitnesses, faced with the impending consequences of their testimony, want to separate themselves from those consequences.
Doug: your last sentence is misstating the conservative position. The conservative position is not “government can’t do anything right.” The conservative position is “government can’t do anything cheap” (and that still might still be overstating the conservative mantra).
BTW, you will note that death penalty trials alone cost $450,000 per case. This seems to back up the conservative position (and would be a good reason why Indiana county prosecutors should think twice before requesting the death penalty).
I’ll solve your riddle, Doug. Conservatives think *state* governments can do all kinds of things well. It’s when you go one step further up in the governmental food chain that incompetence magically appears.
I am one of those who believes DP is morally wrong per se. If killing is wrong, it is wrong. Beyond that, however, the economics are important. To try and make sure the person actually should be executed, we have multiple checks. That is because, as the Court has hel, death is different. There must be two trial attorneys, both death-penalty qualified under Rule 24. They must have adequate resources available. Since a great number of capital-accused defendants have histories of mental illness or mental retardation, that means psychiatrists and psychologists. Of course, an adequate defense requires investigators—plural—for both guilt and penalty phases of the trial. After all, the State has entire police forces for its case. People charged in capital offenses nearly always are indigent. In other words, we fry the poor. Odds of a person w/private counsel being charged w/the DP are extremely low. Automatic appeal is required. That means appeal through the State appellate process and up to the U.S. Supremes. Then come post-conviction proceedings. Add all that up and still only five percent of the people charged and convicted are executed. And how many of those people are innocent? LWOP—life without possibility of parole—is far less expensive. Really, it is cheaper to house and feed that person for however many years s/he will live, than it is to kill him/her. Oh, and the deterrent value of DP? There is none. 12 of 13 states w/o DP have lower homicide rates than the national average.
I’ve always looked at the death penalty as not only wrong but also a big waste. I think I am partly influenced by reading about the defense of Leopold and Loeb by Clarence Darrow. I think one of the defendants ended up volunteering to be a Guinea Pig and being injected with some sort of virus.
Anyway, humans beings are just too valuable and shouldn’t be eliminated simply for being “bad”. I’m more in line with the “make little rocks our of big rocks” crowd. Or place them in a chipmunk wheel with a generator attached to produce electricity or some other valuable enterprise.
It would be better to utilize a mad dog as a garden scare crow that a corpse. Capital punishment is stupid.
Paul C – What I really want conservatives to serve up is a list of things they think government SHOULD do. If we have to have a government, then there must be some tasks it can/ should/ must do.
I also want to know why there is the notion that government is something separate and devoid of the people. This nation controls its own destiny (as much as corporations will allow it, now with the “Citizens” decision).. and the people should exercise their rights and get more involved if they want to keep the democracy passed along to us.
Normally (not always) the way I see these debates play out is a conservative making some generalized statement about the negative aspects of government; a liberal or moderate pointing out any number of good and necessary things government does; and the conservative protesting that he’s not advocating for anarchy, just some unspecified kind or amount of “less government.”
Doug, since governmental overreach and over-expenditure can literally be quantified in the Trillions of dollars, it makes specifying amounts of “less government” a truly daunting task for conservatives, especially considering the typically low intellectual caliber of the 20-second soundbytes the modern media considers comprehensible to the unwashed masses.
HoosierOne: That is a loaded question, and an unfair one. For example, most conservatives believe that federal government should provide for national defense, but that doesn’t mean that the amount we spend on national defense is correct. Some conservatives want to spend more on defense, others less. Some wish to spend more, but don’t like our current national defense priorities, and might vote to scale back current expenditures.