The death penalty is getting more popular?

[Mia]

So said Justice Scalia.



...All of which brings us back to today's argument, which begins directly after Roberts finishes reading Baze. Patrick Kennedy was convicted for the rape of his 8-year-old stepdaughter, and the state of Louisiana wants him executed for it. Fisher, Kennedy's lawyer, gamely opens with the observation that Louisiana's effort to "reintroduce" the death penalty for rapists violates the "long-standing national consensus against it." It also offends a line of cases that require states to very narrowly define the class of offenders eligible for the death penalty. Justice Antonin Scalia interrupts him to ask how one might further narrow a class of "child rapists" and whether any rape of a child under 12 could fairly be described as not "particularly heinous."

Fisher lays claim to a 1977 case, Coker v. Georgia (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=433&invol=584), in which the high court prohibited capital punishment for the rape of an "adult" (the victim was 16). Coker has been interpreted as barring capital punishment for all rape. But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stops Fisher to say she doesn't read the opinion in Coker to mean that "in any and all circumstances, rape that leaves the victim alive cannot be punished by the death penalty." Fisher says if you count the two justices in Coker who opposed the death penalty under every circumstance, there were, in fact, seven votes for that proposition.

"That's a strange way of making a majority, isn't it?" asks Scalia, doubtless practicing for the upcoming Passover Seder and its exercise in ritual strange counting. Scalia says you can't count the two justices who oppose all capital punishment as opposing capital punishment for rapists. Fisher replies, "I'm not aware of any wrinkle in this court's jurisprudence that says that if a justice is too far out of the mainstream, then their vote is discounted."

Scalia shoots back that he's just not counting those two justices in that majority and that, "if that wrinkle isn't there, we should iron it in pretty quickly." Oh, good. In a case about counting broad, unquantifiable national trends in public opinion regarding the death penalty, we can't even manage to count the votes of nine justices from 1977.

Fisher says that if you look at the pair of recent cases that banned capital punishment for mentally retarded offenders (in 2002) and juvenile offenders (in 2005), it's clear the social consensus is trending away from the death penalty. Then, Roberts jumps in to argue that the "evolving standards of decency" test should not be a one-way ratchet. Does this trend "only work one way?" he asks. "How are you ever supposed to get consensus moving in the opposite direction? … Do 20 states have to get together and do it at the same time?"

Scalia says this high bar against reversing the prevailing trend would put the court in the position of "prohibiting the people from changing their mind." And Roberts says the clear trend that matters is not the one Fisher points to but rather that "more and more states are passing statutes imposing the death penalty in situations that do not result in death." Scalia almost chortles.


"Did you ever hear the expression 'hoist by your own petard?' The trend here is clearly in the direction of permitting more and more … capital punishment for this crime!"

http://www.slate.com/id/2189284/

[Buck Laser]

I fear that it is. When I was in my 20s, most of the people I knew were against the death penalty. I think this enthusiasm for the death penalty got a big kick from the Nixon administration. While none of the previous administrations within my memory campaigned for an end to it, the republicans discovered with Nixon that "soft on crime" was a political winner, and they've been promoting it ever since.

I'm told that something like 70% of the population favor the death penalty. I do not, and haven't since I first began thinking about it back in my teens. If nothing else, the emergence of so many false convictions all over the country should be a powerful argument against it. I oppose it on moral grounds: I recognize that I would seek revenge if someone I love were murdered, but I expect the justice system to be able to rise above my own base instincts.

[suralos]

I fear that it is. When I was in my 20s, most of the people I knew were against the death penalty.

If you're 60 plus years old, BL, that's just plain false, and you know it.

I think this enthusiasm for the death penalty got a big kick from the Nixon administration. While none of the previous administrations within my memory campaigned for an end to it, the republicans discovered with Nixon that "soft on crime" was a political winner, and they've been promoting it ever since.

I'm sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense.

I'm told that something like 70% of the population favor the death penalty. I do not, and haven't since I first began thinking about it back in my teens. If nothing else, the emergence of so many false convictions all over the country should be a powerful argument against it. I oppose it on moral grounds: I recognize that I would seek revenge if someone I love were murdered, but I expect the justice system to be able to rise above my own base instincts.

Let me see if I can help you with this, BL. Seriously.

I recommend the PBS drama "Pierrepoint, the Last Executioner."

Death penalty is straight out of the Old Testament. Accordingly, a person guilty of a crime punishable by death that isn't executed is condemned to hell, which also defines the problem, I suppose, for the executioner in not killing them. Their execution is their Salvation. If you don't execute them, what is your burden? Conversely, killing wrongly accused people certainly condemns the executioner and all who support the death penalty.

It's an interesting dilemma. Let me light my pipe and contemplate it over a good smoke.

Okay.

Far more interesting to me is that Islam has no reservations about dealing out executions. No trial, no lawyers, no defense, no appeal, no recourse. They just cut your head off in the street.

Bzzzzt. Is that what you mean by Bzzzzt? That's nasty, BL.

Perhaps you might provide some of your superior liberal insight into resolving this spiritual dilemma -- at least I see it as a spiritual dilemma if you don't.

And sorry, I won't help you.

[Elrathin]

While I can understand why some are against the death penalty, some people just need to die for the crimes they committed.

[Mia]

The 'national trend', imo, is not in favor of the death penalty for defendants who didn't kill anyone themselves.

Specifically at issue here is child rape.

We can say all day long if anyone deserves the death penalty it's child rapists.

But among the many, many reasons not to do this, one of the most striking to me is the fact that this will not help children, it will hurt them.

If the penalty for raping a child is death, and the penalty for raping and killing the child is death, there is no reason not to kill the child.

In fact, there is incentive to - less chance of getting ANY penalty if there is no witness,,,,,,,,,,,

Lousiana is the only state to have the death penalty for one instance of child rape, and this is the first person they've applied it to.

Several states are waiting for this decision to change their laws and start executing child rapists.

The term 'child' and rape' will get stretched, and pretty soon 'Bobby who was convicted of statutory rape for sex with his high school girlfriend who was a year younger' will be on freaking death row!

And if he's in Texas or LA, he'll actually get executed.

[Buck Laser]

While I can understand why some are against the death penalty, some people just need to die for the crimes they committed.
I can understand that viewpoint. Certainly there are some who've been executed whose death I wouldn't mourn--John Wayne Gacy and Timothy McVeigh come to mind. But it bothers the hell out of me that practically every other developed nation in the world has done away with the death penalty and has a smaller percentage of its citizens in prison than the US. Are Americans just worse than people in the rest of the world?

Justice must operate at a higher level than individual human beings who only want revenge.

[Mia]

I can understand that viewpoint. Certainly there are some who've been executed whose death I wouldn't mourn--John Wayne Gacy and Timothy McVeigh come to mind. But it bothers the hell out of me that practically every other developed nation in the world has done away with the death penalty and has a smaller percentage of its citizens in prison than the US. Are Americans just worse than people in the rest of the world?



Justice must operate at a higher level than individual human beings who only want revenge.

Yes, it must! :help:

[suralos]

Justice must operate at a higher level than individual human beings who only want revenge.

Uh, nope.

[Mia]

Uh, nope.

What does that mean?

A meaningless one-liner is not debate.

[G.B.]

I used to be rabidly pro DP. That is, until the advent of DNA testing. Since that time there have been way too many on death row exonerated by DNA. If not for DNA these people would have been executed. The DP is too final, there is no room for mistakes and us being human can make mistakes. Life without the possibility of parole removes the possibility of executing an innocent person.

As to the reference to Old Testament Law, it also calls for a son who is a sluggard and a drunk to be stoned outside the city gates until dead. Also adulterers are to be stoned to death. Is that how we want to live here in the U.S.? I would wager most would not, whether or not they agree with the "sins".

BTW, suralos, your avatar ROCKS!

[Mia]

And women found not to be virgins on their wedding night! I'm not down with Old Testament Law being brought back.

[Buck Laser]

I used to be rabidly pro DP. That is, until the advent of DNA testing. Since that time there have been way too many on death row exonerated by DNA. If not for DNA these people would have been executed. The DP is too final, there is no room for mistakes and us being human can make mistakes. Life without the possibility of parole removes the possibility of executing an innocent person.

As to the reference to Old Testament Law, it also calls for a son who is a sluggard and a drunk to be stoned outside the city gates until dead. Also adulterers are to be stoned to death. Is that how we want to live here in the U.S.? I would wager most would not, whether or not they agree with the "sins".

BTW, suralos, your avatar ROCKS!
First, G.B., welcome to Democracy Forums! Your reasons for opposing the death penalty are certainly sound as you express them. For me, however, the death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Despite the fact that it has been almost universally used during most of human history, most societies have managed to move away from it. As you note, the OT prescribed death for a number of things that we'd consider totally foolish. But as late as the 19th century, children could be hung in England for stealing food to eat.

If we don't find a way to move beyond this cruel justice, then we're failing as humans, at least as I see it.

For what it's worth, it was a Texas prison chaplain in Huntsville, TX who led me to the philosophical underpinnings of the movement to abolish capital punishment, back in 1961. He was a charter member of the Texas Society to Abolish Capital Punishment. John Silber, then a professor of philosophy at the University of Texas, wrote a great essay on capital punishment, and I've been trying ever since the advent of Google to find a copy of it. I'd love to read it again, and I'd like to urge others to read it it as well.

[suralos]

What does that mean?

A meaningless one-liner is not debate.

Oh, I didn't see you there. Sorry.

Well, let me say this about that:

1. It is not meaningless, which is typical for me. Your snipe IS meaningless, however.

Originally Posted by Buck Laser:
Justice must operate at a higher level than individual human beings who only want revenge.

2. "Uh, nope" means "Uh, nope," AND THAT MEANS: Justice operates only the the level of human beings for revenge.

If that's not true, do enlighten me. Seemed pretty straight forward and to the point to me.

3. That makes two meaningless posts, and neither of them were by me.

Hope that helps.

[apdst]

That is, until the advent of DNA testing. Since that time there have been way too many on death row exonerated by DNA.

If that's the case, then DNA testing can also prove guilt, without question, making the death penalty a more important option.

[Mia]

If that's the case, then DNA testing can also prove guilt, without question, making the death penalty a more important option.

Yes, that is the difficulty with the 'DNA exoneration' argument.

I wouldn't say 'without question', but DNA certainly gives us more to go on in therms of feeling sure about guilt.

My thing is, there is no such thing as 100% proof positive in most cases. Really scary are the circumstantial cases.

For instance, Scott Peterson. *I* think he's guilty, but under the law, I don't think I could have voted that the state met the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard.

[G.B.]

If that's the case, then DNA testing can also prove guilt, without question, making the death penalty a more important option.That is true, logically. If we can be sure that there aren't labs that "doctor" the evidence as happened in DFW in the not too distant past. One would have to agree with the DP for it to be an agreeable option.

Personally I no longer feel the DP is justice, but revenge/retribution. JMO. IMO justice is not denied by LWOP. With LWOP the prisoner is still alive in case a mistake is made.

Since becoming a person of faith, I've come to take Romans 12:19 seriously. For me, that removes the DP as an option.

In a case where the perpetrator brutally raped an 8 year old, LWOP is probably a fate worse than death anyway.

[Mia]

Some argue that LWOP is cruel and unusual. I'd certainly consider death as a better option than that.....

[Muser]

For instance, Scott Peterson. *I* think he's guilty, but under the law, I don't think I could have voted that the state met the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard.

Whew! I was beginning to think I was the only one who disagreed with the death penalty sentence for that man (though I do approve of it for other cases, i.e. BTK, etc.)

[G.B.]

Whew! I was beginning to think I was the only one who disagreed with the death penalty sentence for that man (though I do approve of it for other cases, i.e. BTK, etc.)

Agreed. I think there has to be a much higher standard than "circumstancial evidence" to sentence a person to death if we "must" have a death penalty. IMO the Peterson case didn't rise to that standard. He was sentenced to death on circumstancial evidence alone, nothing direct.

[Mia]

Whew! I was beginning to think I was the only one who disagreed with the death penalty sentence for that man (though I do approve of it for other cases, i.e. BTK, etc.)

Well, actually I do think he's a sociopath, an ongoing threat to society (wife #2 at least!), and not amenable to rahab,,,,,,,,,IF he did what we are led to believe he did.

I just don't see where it was proven. So I can't get behind the verdict.

1/2 of me is pro-death penalty in theory. Meaning the crimes some have done, IF it's known for a fact, they need to simply be erased. There is just no use for them on our planet.

Especially the ones that will keep killing, even after incarcerated. You can tie them up like Hannibal Lector, keep them in super-max, and still they find ways to have hits carried out - that kind has got to go, imo.

We are animals, and when you have a rabid one, it's got to be put down. I saw a guy on lockup that killed a guard because he WANTED the death penalty, and that was the only way to get it.

That's crazy. The guy had already killed his mother; if he wanted to die for it he should have been given the option instead of having to take someone's husband, father, etc. to get there.

[suedanim]

I oppose the death penalty on moral grounds.

1) The United States has a corrupt justice system biased against blacks, browns and the poorest. If you are unable to pay well for legal representation prepare yourself for taking it up the ass in court. And while I know that some states or cities have excellant public defender offices, most struggle.

2) Execution is still murder. Just because it is sanctioned by the state does not transform it. Which makes us all guilty of murder.

3) Execution is done for the sake of revenge alone. It brings no one back and it does NOT give "closure" for those who grieve.

4) Even with chilling, truely horrific monsters like BTK, killing them, imo, is too kind and they hardly feel any more remorse. Isn't a tight security prison cell for their lifetimes just as effective? imo, it is.

5) No matter the method... executions are often botched. Many examples are available that show some pretty bloody, awful messes made even of lethal injection.

6) All that said... when its proven beyond a shadow of dooubt, confession too... as in BTK... I can see the argument for removing them from breathing the same air we do, taking up space, costing taxpayer money. I understand those justifications and combined with the need for revenge, it becomes seductive reasoning.

But, I can't get around the fact that it is still murder and that even a monster like BTK can produce some good for society by helping us understand what went wrong or can go wrong. Forensic psychiatrists and other researchers need to be able to study these people so we can identify others, potentials, perhaps even have impact on early interventions in a childs life and parenting skills. Something creates a BTK and we need to know what.