When Should We Kill? The Inconsistent Penalty of Death

By TChris, Section Death Penalty
Posted on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:39:41 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

A columnist for the Wichita Eagle compares recent homicide prosecutions and reasonably concludes that the haphazard application of the death penalty makes it unfair in any particular case, no matter how ugly the facts.

With all of the variants, including where and how a murder occurs, who gets killed and the makeup of the jury, the death penalty forces society into the ridiculous practice of comparing tragedies and assigning a sliding scale of value to victims' lives.
Is killing a child as heinous as killing a law officer, or more so? Should we kill rapists? Does the victim's race or the killer's race matter? All of these factors, which we like to pretend don't matter, give the death penalty a capriciousness that ought to make us sick. ...

Our state hasn't executed anyone since 1965, and we simply can't execute anyone anymore without inviting a million moral and ethical questions about the system's fairness.

< Now We Can Talk About The Flawed Nominating System | Newly Released Crack Cocaine Defendants: How Are They Faring? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

When Should We Kill? The Inconsistent Penalty of Death | 11 comments (11 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Thanks for the link (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Daryl24 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:45:57 PM EST

What a fascinating story. On more than one occasion I've heard AA soldiers from that era say the racism in the European theater was nothing compared to what was going on in the Pacific.

nothing to discuss (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by pluege on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:45:34 PM EST

why is there even a discussion of the death penalty? It is barbaric - end of story. Supporters should panned as sick violent pariahs.

Its the same as discussing torture - torture is barbaric. there are no half measures, exceptions, or extenuating circumstances. You engage in torture and you commit a crime against humanity and deserve penalties separating you from civilized humanity.

no decent human being should (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by pluege on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:49:04 PM EST

ever want to kill another human being.

the question is not how to best administer the barbarism of state sponsored murder. The question of concern to society is what to do about the depraved among us advocating that we as a society commit murder.

Sorry wrong thread. (none / 0) (#2)
by Daryl24 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:48:25 PM EST

White collar criminals whose actions (none / 0) (#3)
by MarkL on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:49:33 PM EST

recent in mass death.
Life in prison for Ken Lay types, the scope and magnitude of whose callous crimes surely result in suffering and death.
Simple questions, simple answers.

The Key Word (none / 0) (#4)
by The Maven on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:05:31 PM EST

to me, at least, is "capriciousness". With the seemingly notable exception of Texas, application of the death penalty almost appears to be a random affair, relying upon external factors more than anything else. As such, it has effectively no connection whatsoever to the general concept of justice, equally applied.

And given the ever-growing numbers of death-row inmates who have been found to have been wrongfully convicted, it is entirely legitimate to ask, as McCormick does here, "You really have to wonder how many of the more than 400 people put to death in Texas since 1974 died for crimes they didn't commit."

Even one would be too many, indeed.

I'm against the death penalty but (none / 0) (#5)
by Valhalla on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:31:03 PM EST

I don't agree with this line of argument against particularly.

If we find a way to apply the death penalty that is not capricious, then what? Unless the argument is also that it's impossible to find a way to guarantee non-capriciousness.

: I once had the same concern about arguments (none / 0) (#12)
by fuzzyone on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:43:33 AM EST

that focused on wrongful convictions, but in retrospect I was wrong. The revelation of significant numbers of wrongful convictions has, I think, made juries less prone to convict and impose death sentences and has focused attention on the death penalty and eroded support for it. States are not inclined to even consider spending the kind of resources that would be required for an adequate defense, much less one that would guarantee no wrongful convictions, an outcome which I think is close to impossible.
The same problem exists with these issues. Unless you are going to put severe limits on both prosecutors and juries and draft very narrow statutes, all of which would result in far fewer death sentences, the capriciousness is going to remain.

There is no argument for the death penalty (none / 0) (#6)
by Saul on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:47:38 PM EST

It's just that simple. Never should we kill. You can spin it or rationalize it any way you like but all you do is become one of them and you are no better than the murderer. Time has shown that the death penalty has not deterred the most vicious of crimes. Of course the victims family or friends want revenge but vengeance belongs to a higher authority.

Never. (none / 0) (#11)
by chrisblask on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:06:30 PM EST

The idea that certain people need to die for their actions is not something I have a problem with, the idea that the government can be trusted with figuring out after the fact who those people are I have a huge problem with.

Some has killed a child and is about to kill another, you are there and can end that persons life? You are completely right to stop their heart permanently.

A person in court is found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" of such an act? Lock the door, lose the key.

Courts are not perfect. There is nothing to be gained by allowing the gov't to kill its people.

Death Penalty: Least arbitrary sanction (none / 0) (#13)
by dudleysharp on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:52:33 AM EST

About 10% of all murders within the US might qualify for a death penalty eligible trial. That would be about 64,000 murders since 1973. We have sentenced 8000 murderers to death since then, or 13% of those eligible. I doubt that there is any other crime which receives a higher percentage of maximum sentences, when mandatory sentences are not available. Based upon that, as well as pre trial, trial, appellate and clemency/commutation realities, the US death penalty is likely the least arbitrary and capricious criminal sanctions in the US.