On Dec. 2, Kenneth Boyd was executed by the state of North Carolina, becoming the 1,000th person to be executed since the 1976 Supreme Court ruling Gregg v. Georgia reinstated capital punishment in the United States.
As of Dec. 2, 57 people had been executed in the United States this year. Stanley Tookie Williams was executed on Dec. 13, 2005 after his request for clemency was denied. There are currently five executions scheduled before the close of the year, four of these executions were recently stayed.
Executions have not been consistently supported by the Supreme Court and ceased for a short time after the Furman v. Georgia ruling in 1972, in which the “imposition and carrying out of death penalty ... [was] held to constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of Eighth and 14th Amendments.” The same ruling also cited a presidential commission that noted: ” ...there is evidence that the imposition of the death sentence and the exercise of dispensing power by the courts and the executive follow discriminatory patterns. The death sentence is disproportionately imposed and carried out on the poor, the Negro, and the members of unpopular groups.” This ruling put an end to capital punishment in the U.S until 1976, when the Supreme Court issued a decision in Gregg v. Georgia that essentially reinstated the death penalty.
DEATH PENALTY FACTS
As of Dec. 2, 57 people had been executed in 2005 in the United States.
At least six more executions are scheduled before the end of 2005.
Between 1976 and January 2005, 22 juvenile offenders were executed in the U.S.
In March 2005 the Supreme Court decided in Roper v. Simons to end the practice of putting to death people who committed crimes as juveniles.
In June 2002 the Supreme Court ruled in Atkins v. Virginia that it is a violation of the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment to execute death row inmates who are mentally retarded.
Mental illness is not grounds for exclusion from punishment by death.
“During 2004, more than 3,797 people were executed in 25 countries and at least 7,395 were sentenced to death in 64 countries.
“A few countries accounted for the majority of executions carried out during 2004. China executed at least 3,400 people, but sources inside the country have estimated the number to be near 10,000.
“Iran executed at least 159, and Vietnam at least 64. There were 59 executions in the United States, down from 65 in 2003.”
MAJOR SUPREME COURT DECISIONS PERTAINING TO THE DEATH PENALTY
Reported on NPR site available along with audio by Nina Totenberg:
1968, Witherspoon v. Illinois
Holds that opposition to the death penalty is insufficient cause for exclusion from the jury: “A man who opposes the death penalty, no less than one who favors it, can make the discretionary choice of punishment entrusted to him by the State and can thus obey the oath he takes as a juror; but in a nation where so many have come to oppose capital punishment, a jury from which all such people have been excluded cannot perform the task demanded of it— that of expressing the conscience of the community on the ultimate question of life or death. P. 519.”
1971, McGautha v. California
Decision regarding whether defendants’ rights are “infringed by permitting the death penalty without standards to govern its imposition.” The decision holds: “In light of history, experience, and the limitations of human knowledge in establishing definitive standards, it is impossible to say that leaving to the untrammeled discretion of the jury the power to pronounce life or death in capital cases violates any provision of the Constitution. Pp. 196-208.”
1976, Gregg v. Georgia
A Georgia death penalty statute is held constitutional, a ruling that sets the stage for resumption of executions.
1987, McCleskey v. Georgia
Justices rule state death penalty laws are constitutional even when statistics indicate they have been applied in racially biased ways.
1988, Thompson v. Oklahoma
The court decides that people younger than 16 when they committed a capital crime may not be executed.
2002, Atkins v. Virginia
Justices rule that executing mentally retarded criminals violates the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens cites a “national consensus” against executing a killer who may lack the intelligence to fully understand his crime.
2005, Roper v. Simmons
The court rules the Constitution forbids the execution of killers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes, ending a practice used in 20 states. Justice Anthony Kennedy cites a “national consensus” against the practice.
“As defined by the UN Charter, the United Nations was created after the Second World War to prevent unnecessary death, while the Universal Declaration further clarifies that goal, stating in its article 3 that ‘everyone has the right to life’. Since the Declaration’s ratification in December 1948, 118 Member States have abolished the death penalty, either in law or in practice, and many States are encouraging others to abolish it as well.
“Thus, in 1966, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) was adopted, entering into force ten years later; it now has 152 ratifications. The Covenant strongly encourages all UN Member States to abolish the death penalty, but allows that the ‘sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes’ (Article 6, Section 2). It also created a monitoring body, the Human Rights Committee, as a mechanism to monitor the implementation of the Covenant.
“China, Pakistan, Yemen and Zimbabwe have recently raised the minimum age to 18 years for the application of the death penalty, and Iran is in the process of doing the same. However, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and the United States still have not outlawed the execution of child offenders. Since 1990, over half of such known executions of child offenders (19 of the 36) have taken place in the United States. On 19 July 2004, former Presidents Jimmy Carter of the United States and Mikhail Gorbachev of the Russian Federation, along with several other Nobel Peace Prize laureates, lobbied outside the United States Supreme Court in Washington D.C. in an effort to end the execution of child offenders.”
The European Union’s Human Rights & Democratization Policy
Info | Abolition of the death penalty is a requirement for countries seeking EU membership. “All candidate countries (see regular reports on the accession countries) have acceded to Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the abolition of the death penalty. In addition, EU member states are all signatories to Protocol 13 to the convention, concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances, which was adopted in Vilnius, Lithuania, in May 2002. This treaty explicitly bans the death penalty in all circumstances, including in wartime.” more
This American Life: Backed Into A Corner
April 5, 2005 | “Host Ira Glass interviews Joe Amrine, who was falsely accused of murder. But rather than avoid the death penalty Amrine said everything he could think of on the witness stand to get the jury to give him a death sentence. He figured that would be better than life in prison. Since he would need media attention and free legal help to appeal his case, he calculated the only way he could get it was to sit on death row, because nobody pays attention to lifers. He nearly was executed, and lived on death row for seventeen years before being released…. Joe’s story is a part of the McSweeney’s Voice of Witness Project—Oral Histories of Victims of Contemporary Human Rights Abuses and Social Injustices. The volume on the wrongfully convicted and exonerated is out in October 2005, published by McSweeney’s Books.” more
This American Life: Perfect Evidence
April 4, 2002 | “After a decade in which DNA evidence has freed over 100 people nationwide, it’s become clear that DNA evidence isn’t just proving wrongdoing by criminals, it’s proving wrongdoing by police and prosecutors. In this show, we look at what DNA has revealed to us: how police get innocent people to confess to crimes they didn’t commit, how they get witnesses to pin crimes on innocent people. There have always been suspicions that these kinds of things take place. With DNA there’s finally irrefutable proof.” more
After Innocence
Film | Directed, written and produced by Jessica Sanders and Marc Simon, “After Innocence” tells the dramatic and compelling story of the exonerated—innocent men wrongfully imprisoned for decades and then released after DNA evidence proved their innocence. The film focuses on the gripping stories of seven men and their emotional journeys back into society and efforts to rebuild their lives. Included are a police officer, an Army sergeant and a young father sent to prison and even death row for decades for crimes they did not commit. more
Created on Dec. 13, 2005, last updated on Jun. 23, 2008
If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.
By mariah davis, May 30, 2007 at 10:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
if someone kills another human, and makes them suffer through all of the pain of death, then why shouldn’t they suffer like they made the other person? they should get that pain, and then some.
By Chantz, August 1, 2006 at 8:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I do not consider it murder everytime a life is taken. The end result is the same, but sometimes killing is self-defense, societal preservation, and justice. Hopefully not to bore you with examples, if I were to kill someone that was attempting to murder my family or me, that not murder. That’s self-defense and, in many eyes, justice. If I were to kill someone in war to defend my country and the citizens of my country, that is killing; not murder. The end result is the same, but many civilized people still believe that one who murders needs to be removed from society. Not murdered, but killed.
By Andrew, July 30, 2006 at 8:13 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
An article on the front page of the St. Louis Post Dispatch today deals with the doctor who serves as the executioner for prisoners sentenced to death in Missouri. It is interesting to note that he is paid less than $2000 for each execution. He recieves his check several weeks after the execution is completed. I can’t imagine killing someone for $2000 even if they are guilty of a crime.
By M M Smith, July 3, 2006 at 10:06 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
To R A Earl and the others defending murderers.
“taking a life ANY LIFE is MURDER. It doesnt become less murder just because an executioner does it with the States permission.”
Actually I agree with you on that and since I’m sure that you are a caring AND consistent person I’m sure that you agree with me that an unborn baby is “ANY LIFE” and that It doesnt become less murder just because an abortionist does it with the States permission.”
To me this is even more important since the unborn baby has committed no crime and doesn’t even have one of those fancy liberal death penalty attorneys to represent him.
Of course being the left wing moonbat that you appear to be I’m sure that you actually think baby murder is just fine, even to be encouraged.
And despite it’s many faults the US still remains the MOST civilized nation on Earth. Perhaps you would be happier in some place like Cuba the utopia of the loony-left, oh wait Fidel used to line them up by the hundreds day after day in a soccer stadium and shoot them, well maybe since he’s one of you you’ll excuse him.
Please cite for us just a couple of your “MANY examples” of executed people actually being innocent, being against the death penalty myself I’m always interested. Since the death penalty was re-introduced in the US in 1977 I don’t know of any confirmed cases. The one case that I was practically positive was an innocent man being wrongfully killed, that of Roger Coleman in Virginia, turned out to be guilty.
By R. A. Earl, February 23, 2006 at 10:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Chantz in #4086 asks: “If a person takes anothers life (murder), why should they be allowed to continue to breathe and live, when they did not grant that option to their victim(s)?”
Because, Chantz, taking a life… ANY LIFE… is MURDER. It doesn’t become “less murder” just because an executioner does it with the State’s permission.
If you accept the notion that murder is wrong… then I submit that two wrongs don’t make a right.
Finally, there is nothing to be gained by murdering the murder. Just lock ‘em up, humanely, and throw away the key. That way, if it’s later determined the guy actually didn’t commit the crime, at least we can pay him off and set him free. There are MANY examples where it’s been proven the executed person was actually innocent. Civilized societies have no need of capital punishment.
But then, the USA is not yet a civilized country, is it?
By Chantz, February 21, 2006 at 11:42 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
In most “civilized” governments, a person who commits a crime is brought before a group of people that will hear/see/touch the evidence of the alleged crime and then pass judgement on that evidence. This system is not a flawless system but it is a much better system than those of uncivilized governments. The real question to me is: If a person takes anothers life (murder), why should they be allowed to continue to breathe and live, when they did not grant that option to their victim(s)? It certainly would be much better if no one ever carried out a crime against another, but then we don’t exactly live in an utopian world.
By Jonas South, January 10, 2006 at 12:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
‘Death has always been the duty of the Ancient Executioner. But when Man takes on that job, it is like the novice who aspires to be the master carpenter: his finger will suffer for that inexpertise.’
Laotse, circa 5th century BCE. (My translation from the Ma Silk text.)
By Ben Abbott, December 30, 2005 at 4:34 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Tony N wrote: “Whether or not capital punishment is a deterrent factor, Singapore does have a low crimes rate.”
While Singapore certainly has a low crime rate and is quick to apply the death penalty, several questions remain. Among them,
(1) Which came first? ... crime rate is also a function of culture. The success of punishment as a deterrent is also a function of culture. Even *if* Singapore’s crime rate is low due to the threat of capital punishment, it would be erroneous to conclude it will work well in under cultural and economic conditions. In many ways Singapore is the ‘land of opportunity’ that the US has never, and will never be. Gainful employment correlates much better to crime rates than anything else I’ve seen. For example, http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/crimwage.htm
(2) Is executing innocents acceptable to deter crime? ... if so, what percentage of innocent executions is acceptable?
By R. A. Earl, December 24, 2005 at 10:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
It’s my personal belief that dying, especially in the painless, hygienic manner that it’s inflicted these days, is not much of a penalty or punishment. Anyone who’s had an anesthetic for an operation can tell you it’s no big deal to be “out of it” and once “out of it” you’ll never be aware you’re not coming back.
It’s the WAITING to die that is the horror show. The months that drag into years and decades of not knowing your fate has got to generate an agony few of us can even imagine. THAT’s the cruel and unusual punishment that our justice system must somehow find a way to avoid in future. But for heaven’s sake, if there’s no doubt of the guilt and you’re going to kill them anyway, have the guts to do it the same day! Justice delayed is justice denied.
While the “death penalty” seems an appropriate sentence for some whose guilt is BEYOND DOUBT, it is clearly a barbarous act to kill juveniles and/or mentally handicapped/ill individuals and no country that murders these people can claim to be CIVILIZED, in my opinion.
And while I’m on my soapbox, when are we going start work on the real solution - PREVENTION of murder and mayhem in the first place? Am I the only one who is totally frustrated by a system which ALWAYS waits until the crime has been committed before taking action (e.g. throwing almost unlimited resources into the pot AFTER the fact, and cheapskate to the extreme BEFORE?)
Or is it just my cynicism that has me thinking that the reason there’s so little motivation to PREVENT crime in the justice system is because fighting it is such a BIG and LUCRATIVE BUSINESS? When last I looked it was around ONE THIRD of the entire national budget that is somehow absorbed by those working in the justice system (police, lawyers, politicians, judges, court workers, prison guards, parole officers, social workers, psychiatrists, etc., etc., etc.). Always follow the dollar to find the reason!
It makes much more sense to me to invest in PREVENTION than in RESOLUTION… but then, no one ever asks for my opinion on anything.
By magix, December 19, 2005 at 7:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Any action or power as irreversible as capital punishment must never be placed into the reckless hands of the government. The same flawed ‘intel’ that lead us to a pre-emptive war also permeates the lower levels of government.
Also, by striking down the death penalty we would remove the act of clemency from the less than divine hands of people like Gov Bush and Gov Schwarzenegger and place it rightly back into a state of grace, where it belongs.
By michael siegel, December 14, 2005 at 9:11 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
a less roughneck position on the same question:
The December 12, 2005 decision of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to deny clemency to convicted murderer Stanley Williams illustrates a tragic trend to allow capital punishment despite historical and moral arguments that indicate its fallibility.
Capital punishment is disproportionately applied to racial minorities and has led to state-sanctioned killing of innocent citizens. A 2004 Congress Judiciary Committee report found that 89% of defendants selected for capital prosecution were African-American or Mexican-American. Some defendants are wrongly convicted: CNN reported in 2004 that in 1993 the state of Texas executed Ruben Cantu based on evidence from a single witness who later recanted his testimony. Ongoing discriminatory and erroneous executions led former Illinois governor George Ryan to declare, Because the Illinois death penalty system is arbitrary and capricious, and therefore immoral, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death.
The facts of Williams case, reported in his Petition for Executive Clemency, indicate possibilities for jury bias (black jurors were removed) and false evidence (witnesses against him received sentencing leniency or outright freedom). Moreover, Williams record since imprisonment is uniquely positive: he wrote anti-violence childrens books and developed a Peace Protocol for gang violence prevention.
Schwarzenegger ignored Williams personal redemption and the possibilities of wrongful conviction. Despite Chief Justice Rehnquists comments that, the heart of executive clemency is to grant clemency as a matter of grace allowing the executive to consider a wide range of factors not comprehended by earlier judicial proceedings and sentencing determinations, the governor continued a failed system of vengeance.
By michael siegel, December 14, 2005 at 9:09 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
“the critical issue is the burden of proof”
what if the proof is provided by false witness?
what if the evidence is conjured by racist representatives of the state?
what if the law is applied differently based on your net worth, racial background, or political beliefs?
the criminal justice system is the end game of systematic injustice, from unequal distribution of land to inequitable opportunity to disparate civil rights. if we prosecute drop-out corner dealers but ignore university narcotic adventurists, the system is unfair. if we trump up charges on revolutionary africans but neglect to file complaints against captains of industry responsible for widespread death and destruction, there will never be true justice.
william’s comments are in tune with the klu klux klan - catch a whiff of the word rape and we string up another “other” guilty of resistance.
By William Stenwick, December 8, 2005 at 8:44 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
In my judgement the critical issue is the burden of proof. In America, we have only “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” There is always some doubt, i.e. perhaps it was’nt O.J., it might have been martians, and some unreasonable person will always think it is reasonable.
We need a second burden of proof; “guilty to a logical, statistical or scientific certainty, beyond any doubt.” If convicted under this criteria, I don’t care much what happens to the accused. Any conviction for heinous crimes to the present criteria should be automatic life in prison to save the cost of appeals. Punishment for conviction beyond any doubt should be carried out within 30 days.
How the IRS’ Nonprofit Division Got So Dysfunctional
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
By mariah davis, May 30, 2007 at 10:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
if someone kills another human, and makes them suffer through all of the pain of death, then why shouldn’t they suffer like they made the other person? they should get that pain, and then some.
Report thisBy Chantz, August 1, 2006 at 8:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I do not consider it murder everytime a life is taken. The end result is the same, but sometimes killing is self-defense, societal preservation, and justice. Hopefully not to bore you with examples, if I were to kill someone that was attempting to murder my family or me, that not murder. That’s self-defense and, in many eyes, justice. If I were to kill someone in war to defend my country and the citizens of my country, that is killing; not murder. The end result is the same, but many civilized people still believe that one who murders needs to be removed from society. Not murdered, but killed.
Report thisBy Andrew, July 30, 2006 at 8:13 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
An article on the front page of the St. Louis Post Dispatch today deals with the doctor who serves as the executioner for prisoners sentenced to death in Missouri. It is interesting to note that he is paid less than $2000 for each execution. He recieves his check several weeks after the execution is completed. I can’t imagine killing someone for $2000 even if they are guilty of a crime.
Report thisBy M M Smith, July 3, 2006 at 10:06 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
To R A Earl and the others defending murderers.
“taking a life ANY LIFE is MURDER. It doesnt become less murder just because an executioner does it with the States permission.”
Actually I agree with you on that and since I’m sure that you are a caring AND consistent person I’m sure that you agree with me that an unborn baby is “ANY LIFE” and that It doesnt become less murder just because an abortionist does it with the States permission.”
To me this is even more important since the unborn baby has committed no crime and doesn’t even have one of those fancy liberal death penalty attorneys to represent him.
Of course being the left wing moonbat that you appear to be I’m sure that you actually think baby murder is just fine, even to be encouraged.
And despite it’s many faults the US still remains the MOST civilized nation on Earth. Perhaps you would be happier in some place like Cuba the utopia of the loony-left, oh wait Fidel used to line them up by the hundreds day after day in a soccer stadium and shoot them, well maybe since he’s one of you you’ll excuse him.
Please cite for us just a couple of your “MANY examples” of executed people actually being innocent, being against the death penalty myself I’m always interested. Since the death penalty was re-introduced in the US in 1977 I don’t know of any confirmed cases. The one case that I was practically positive was an innocent man being wrongfully killed, that of Roger Coleman in Virginia, turned out to be guilty.
Report thisBy R. A. Earl, February 23, 2006 at 10:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Chantz in #4086 asks: “If a person takes anothers life (murder), why should they be allowed to continue to breathe and live, when they did not grant that option to their victim(s)?”
Because, Chantz, taking a life… ANY LIFE… is MURDER. It doesn’t become “less murder” just because an executioner does it with the State’s permission.
If you accept the notion that murder is wrong… then I submit that two wrongs don’t make a right.
Finally, there is nothing to be gained by murdering the murder. Just lock ‘em up, humanely, and throw away the key. That way, if it’s later determined the guy actually didn’t commit the crime, at least we can pay him off and set him free. There are MANY examples where it’s been proven the executed person was actually innocent. Civilized societies have no need of capital punishment.
But then, the USA is not yet a civilized country, is it?
Report thisBy Chantz, February 21, 2006 at 11:42 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
In most “civilized” governments, a person who commits a crime is brought before a group of people that will hear/see/touch the evidence of the alleged crime and then pass judgement on that evidence. This system is not a flawless system but it is a much better system than those of uncivilized governments. The real question to me is: If a person takes anothers life (murder), why should they be allowed to continue to breathe and live, when they did not grant that option to their victim(s)? It certainly would be much better if no one ever carried out a crime against another, but then we don’t exactly live in an utopian world.
Report thisBy Jonas South, January 10, 2006 at 12:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
‘Death has always been the duty of the Ancient Executioner. But when Man takes on that job, it is like the novice who aspires to be the master carpenter: his finger will suffer for that inexpertise.’
Laotse, circa 5th century BCE. (My translation from the Ma Silk text.)
Report thisBy Ben Abbott, December 30, 2005 at 4:34 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Tony N wrote: “Whether or not capital punishment is a deterrent factor, Singapore does have a low crimes rate.”
While Singapore certainly has a low crime rate and is quick to apply the death penalty, several questions remain. Among them,
(1) Which came first? ... crime rate is also a function of culture. The success of punishment as a deterrent is also a function of culture. Even *if* Singapore’s crime rate is low due to the threat of capital punishment, it would be erroneous to conclude it will work well in under cultural and economic conditions. In many ways Singapore is the ‘land of opportunity’ that the US has never, and will never be. Gainful employment correlates much better to crime rates than anything else I’ve seen. For example, http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/crimwage.htm
(2) Is executing innocents acceptable to deter crime? ... if so, what percentage of innocent executions is acceptable?
Report thisBy Tony N, December 27, 2005 at 11:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
For a perspective from another part of the world, this is the Singapore Government’s Response To Amnesty International’s Report “Singapore - The Death Penalty: A Hidden Toll Of Executions”
http://www2.mha.gov.sg/mha/detailed.jsp?artid=990&type=4&root=0&parent=0&cat=0
Whether or not capital punishment is a deterrent factor, Singapore does have a low crimes rate.
Report thisBy R. A. Earl, December 24, 2005 at 10:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
It’s my personal belief that dying, especially in the painless, hygienic manner that it’s inflicted these days, is not much of a penalty or punishment. Anyone who’s had an anesthetic for an operation can tell you it’s no big deal to be “out of it” and once “out of it” you’ll never be aware you’re not coming back.
It’s the WAITING to die that is the horror show. The months that drag into years and decades of not knowing your fate has got to generate an agony few of us can even imagine. THAT’s the cruel and unusual punishment that our justice system must somehow find a way to avoid in future. But for heaven’s sake, if there’s no doubt of the guilt and you’re going to kill them anyway, have the guts to do it the same day! Justice delayed is justice denied.
While the “death penalty” seems an appropriate sentence for some whose guilt is BEYOND DOUBT, it is clearly a barbarous act to kill juveniles and/or mentally handicapped/ill individuals and no country that murders these people can claim to be CIVILIZED, in my opinion.
And while I’m on my soapbox, when are we going start work on the real solution - PREVENTION of murder and mayhem in the first place? Am I the only one who is totally frustrated by a system which ALWAYS waits until the crime has been committed before taking action (e.g. throwing almost unlimited resources into the pot AFTER the fact, and cheapskate to the extreme BEFORE?)
Or is it just my cynicism that has me thinking that the reason there’s so little motivation to PREVENT crime in the justice system is because fighting it is such a BIG and LUCRATIVE BUSINESS? When last I looked it was around ONE THIRD of the entire national budget that is somehow absorbed by those working in the justice system (police, lawyers, politicians, judges, court workers, prison guards, parole officers, social workers, psychiatrists, etc., etc., etc.). Always follow the dollar to find the reason!
It makes much more sense to me to invest in PREVENTION than in RESOLUTION… but then, no one ever asks for my opinion on anything.
Report thisBy magix, December 19, 2005 at 7:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Any action or power as irreversible as capital punishment must never be placed into the reckless hands of the government. The same flawed ‘intel’ that lead us to a pre-emptive war also permeates the lower levels of government.
Also, by striking down the death penalty we would remove the act of clemency from the less than divine hands of people like Gov Bush and Gov Schwarzenegger and place it rightly back into a state of grace, where it belongs.
Report thisBy michael siegel, December 14, 2005 at 9:11 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
a less roughneck position on the same question:
The December 12, 2005 decision of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to deny clemency to convicted murderer Stanley Williams illustrates a tragic trend to allow capital punishment despite historical and moral arguments that indicate its fallibility.
Report thisCapital punishment is disproportionately applied to racial minorities and has led to state-sanctioned killing of innocent citizens. A 2004 Congress Judiciary Committee report found that 89% of defendants selected for capital prosecution were African-American or Mexican-American. Some defendants are wrongly convicted: CNN reported in 2004 that in 1993 the state of Texas executed Ruben Cantu based on evidence from a single witness who later recanted his testimony. Ongoing discriminatory and erroneous executions led former Illinois governor George Ryan to declare, Because the Illinois death penalty system is arbitrary and capricious, and therefore immoral, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death.
The facts of Williams case, reported in his Petition for Executive Clemency, indicate possibilities for jury bias (black jurors were removed) and false evidence (witnesses against him received sentencing leniency or outright freedom). Moreover, Williams record since imprisonment is uniquely positive: he wrote anti-violence childrens books and developed a Peace Protocol for gang violence prevention.
Schwarzenegger ignored Williams personal redemption and the possibilities of wrongful conviction. Despite Chief Justice Rehnquists comments that, the heart of executive clemency is to grant clemency as a matter of grace allowing the executive to consider a wide range of factors not comprehended by earlier judicial proceedings and sentencing determinations, the governor continued a failed system of vengeance.
By michael siegel, December 14, 2005 at 9:09 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
“the critical issue is the burden of proof”
what if the proof is provided by false witness?
what if the evidence is conjured by racist representatives of the state?
what if the law is applied differently based on your net worth, racial background, or political beliefs?
the criminal justice system is the end game of systematic injustice, from unequal distribution of land to inequitable opportunity to disparate civil rights. if we prosecute drop-out corner dealers but ignore university narcotic adventurists, the system is unfair. if we trump up charges on revolutionary africans but neglect to file complaints against captains of industry responsible for widespread death and destruction, there will never be true justice.
william’s comments are in tune with the klu klux klan - catch a whiff of the word rape and we string up another “other” guilty of resistance.
Report thisBy William Stenwick, December 8, 2005 at 8:44 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
In my judgement the critical issue is the burden of proof. In America, we have only “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” There is always some doubt, i.e. perhaps it was’nt O.J., it might have been martians, and some unreasonable person will always think it is reasonable.
We need a second burden of proof; “guilty to a logical, statistical or scientific certainty, beyond any doubt.” If convicted under this criteria, I don’t care much what happens to the accused. Any conviction for heinous crimes to the present criteria should be automatic life in prison to save the cost of appeals. Punishment for conviction beyond any doubt should be carried out within 30 days.
Report this