American Bar Association: Freeze executions nationwide

[Alonzo]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Serious problems in state death penalty systems compromise fairness and accuracy in capital punishment cases and justify a nationwide freeze on executions, the American Bar Association says.

Problems cited in a report released Sunday by the lawyers' organization include:

# Spotty collection and preservation of DNA evidence, which has been used to exonerate more than 200 inmates;

# Misidentification by eyewitnesses;

# False confessions from defendants; and

# Persistent racial disparities that make death sentences more likely when victims are white.

The report is a compilation of separate reviews done over the past three years of how the death penalty operates in eight states: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Florida, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.

Teams that studied the systems in Arizona, Florida and Pennsylvania did not call for a halt to executions in those states. But the ABA said every state with the death penalty should review its execution procedures before putting anyone else to death.

"After carefully studying the way states across the spectrum handle executions, it has become crystal clear that the process is deeply flawed," said Stephen F. Hanlon, chairman of the ABA Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project. "The death penalty system is rife with irregularity."

The ABA, which takes no position on capital punishment, did not study lethal injection procedures that are under challenge across the nation. The procedures will be reviewed by the Supreme Court early next year in a case from Kentucky.

State and federal courts have effectively stopped most executions pending a high court decision.

Prosecutors and death penalty supporters have said the eight state studies were flawed because the ABA teams were made up mainly of death penalty opponents.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/29/death.penalty.ap/index.html

[ViolaLee]

I agree wholeheartedly.

Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?

[JohnnyAwake]

Imagine what the millions of dollars saved might do if capital punishment was ruled unconstitutional, as well as a violation of international law (Geneva conventions). Replaced with life imprisonment the excess surplus could be allocated to social programs that improve the environments from which many of these criminals are a product of; programs that emphasize education, drug and alcohol treatment, public safety, as well as child abuse prevention.

Not to mention we'd no longer be one of the top countries for capital punishment...next to "evil" Iran, and "Communist" China..

"What says the law? You will not kill. How does it say it? By killing!"
-Victor Hugo, author of Les Miserables

[throowrocks]

We kill people so they can't kill again. The death penalty is punishment.

[Scorpion]

We kill people so they can't kill again. The death penalty is punishment.


True, but all too often the system fails and the wrong person is put to death. The finality of the death penalty goes beyond punishment and there is no proof that it deters crime. Someone who is wrongfully convicted and sentenced to life at least has the chance of a review and acquittal of that wrongful conviction.

The death penalty is outmoded and should be abolished. Even Russia stopped capital punishment in 1996.

[JohnnyAwake]

We kill people so they can't kill again. The death penalty is punishment.


No it's retributive. It doesn't assert rule of law; or for that matter alter the course of human nature. It simply demonstrates a concealed emotive paradigm, that lacks sense of principle.

Furthermore look at statistics..Capital Punishment hasn't changed anything. As the population has exponentially grown so has the murder rate.. In fact in some states it's actually increased (proportionally) since the advent of Capital Punishment.

[Elrathin]

I'm sorry, but I if you kill someone, you forfeit your life. If people want to argue against the death penalty because someone may die that's innocent, fine I'll accept that as a reason, but I will not accept the reason that it is wrong to kill someone that has killed someone else.[hr]
Furthermore look at statistics..Capital Punishment hasn't changed anything. As the population has exponentially grown so has the murder rate.. In fact in some states it's actually increased (proportionally) since the advent of Capital Punishment.


The death penalty is not a deterrent, but a punishment.

[Alonzo]

Personally I'd rather die than spend my life in jail. If that's my choice, the faster you kill me the less you'd punish me.

Besides, I don't want to pay money to punish someone when they're already removed from the general population. Waste of money as far as I'm concerned.

[Deadshot]

What's the reason you punish someone? There are two reasons.

First to actually stop the action of the person being punished. I.E. if you kill a killer, obviously he can not kill again.

Second, you punish someone to show others what will happen if they do the same deed, a deterant, in other words.

So has the death penalty stop people from killing? Have you read the statement of those on death row where they talk about how the thought of the death penalty deterred them?

We can punish a person with life imprisonment. 23 hours a day in solitary would be a special kind of hell. So we can fulfill the role of the first reason for the death penalty, without the death penalty. Punishment would be done, without killing.

And since the death penalty is not a deterant, the second point is moot, and the Death penalty needs to be done away with.

One last thing, go to this site, After Innocence movie (http://www.afterinnocence.com/main_innocent.html) click on the second white guy and read his bio about being on Death Row for 23 years, and then being found INNOCENT through DNA testing!!!

So to recap, the death penalty as a punishment can be carried out by other means; the death penalty as a deterant - simply isn't - and has failed on this count; and we have a certain percentage, maybe only 5%, but those few INNOCENT lives are too much to risk in trying to hold up a punishment that serves no purpose.

[Saigio]

Death is not a good punishment. Death is a release. It is often too good for those that receive it as a "penalty". It is very much permanent, so that mistakes cannot be undone. I say, lock the person up for a long time and use medical science to keep the person alive and aware as long as feasible. That way they live with what they did.

[JohnnyAwake]

The death penalty is not a deterrent, but a punishment.


Your right. It's also arbitrarily administered; and as statisics nation-wide have shown it is preferential to "black on white" murder. Propotionally the number of these crimes doesn't justify the excessive use of it in those cases in relationship to the numbers of "white on white" murders. It is far more burdening on the taxpayer; and it doesn't fix anything. My suggestion is to punish people, but actually PUNISH them; and for the less the cost and better results. Shouldn't we be looking at the root cause of homocides in the US and address that. Such as poor socio-economic conditions, lack of public institutions, lack of social programs (ie:/ drug rehab, abuse counseling, after-school programs, community building groups).If you cut a weed you don't stop the weed from growing back; If you pull it from the roots you do. What's more important to us preventing murder or getting to tell someone after the matter "I told you so..hahaha"

But it does punish people; that's correct. When we pay taxs we expect results. "War on Drugs"? We fund this not to punish those after the matter; but to help curb the amount of illegal drugs in America and prevent it. Is it not startling to think that we're one of the top (and VERY few) nations that still uses capital punishment; and we have worse crime!? We're the United States and we should be setting the example as an innovative nation. So far, as with our poor health care and low HDI score (and that's compared to second-world nations!), we're not only primative, but also worse off socially. But hey if you want to argue that "we're still better than third-world countries" I won't disagree. But that's no better than saying "at least your not dead".

Besides spending an entire life behind steel bars sounds a lot more discouraging and worse than escaping from the responsibilities through a needle; quite the utopian exit strategy.

[AlanC]

This discussion usually falls along these same lines. But what I never see discussed is this. When you execute a killer, he or she cannot kill again. Period. THAT is deterrence.

Let’s say we become as enlightened as the rest of the world and we eliminated any and all executions. What happens then? Does that mean we are now more humane?

I have seen and dealt with all too many people in this world who would just as soon kill someone else as not. In fact, there are those who enjoy killing. What do we do with them? You see once they are sent to prison for "life" what more can we do to that type of person? If they kill other prisoners, what do you do with them? What’s to keep them from killing others in prison?

If you sentence a forger for example to the same prison that is inhabited with such killers and the forger is then killed over something....his cigarettes, his looks, his race, whatever....how do you then punish your killer? What do you then say to the forger who you in essence gave a death sentence to?

I could support the abolition of the death penalty only if these elements became used instead.

1. When someone commits and is convicted of what is now called a capital crime, they are automatically sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, ever, and with no exceptions. It should be guaranteed to society that these individuals will never see another free day, never take a free breath, as long as they live.

2. Anyone convicted of such a crime will spend the rest of their days doing work. I don't care what the work is, I don't care how hard or boring the job is. I don't care as long as they have to get up off their butts and put in time in some labor that benefits society and ensures they don't have 3 meals a day, T.V. time, recreation time, conjugal visit time, and unlimited time to pursue at our expense, their education, pleasure or comfort. Prison should be unpleasant.

3. And lastly, they should never be exposed to the general prison population. If necessary, create one prison to hold all of the capital case killers and only the killers. They should never again be in a position to take the life and rights of another human being aside from their own kind. Because once you have convicted a person and sentenced them to life without hope of parole, you have given them free license to do what they will with whomever they can. You have taken away your own ability to punish them further for the rest of their lives.

Do that, and I would support wholeheartedly the abolition of the death penalty. Anything short of that, and no, I would not. IF we say we value life above all other things, we have to have a way of removing from society forever those that would deliberately and with malice take the life of another human being.

Now before you get all outraged, I am only speaking of those crimes to which the death penalty now applies. I am not speaking of those who commit crimes of passion nor others of whom it is reasonable to believe they would not commit such a crime again.

[Deadshot]

Well, AlanC, you and I may disagree on just what a deterance is, I see it as more to deter OTHERs, you see it more to deter the person themselves. But either way I'd be willing to go along with your three rules and even add a few addendums.

1. Said work that should be FORCED onto the inmate should be as profitable as possible, so that ALL proceeds can go to the victim(s) families.

2. No romantic relationships for the convict. No chances to father a child, get married, etc. The convicts life ended the day he killed a person!

3. Their day should look something like this...
0600 - Wake up and breakfast - both alone
0630-0700 - Solitary shower and toilet time
0700-1530 - work with one half hour for a solitary lunch.
1500-0559 - EVERYTHING else in Solitary confinement...dinner, toilet, etc. No T.V. or radio those would be once a week privledges - maybe on Sunday.

Make it a Hell on earth. I don't have a problem with that at all.

[Labrocca]

We kill people so they can't kill again. The death penalty is punishment.


Exactly.

However I agree that if the death penalty is having problems with accuracy and fairness then it should be looked into. I have no problem with a freeze as long as the intention is to work on the problems and then unfreeze the death penalty.

[AlanC]

Deadshot,

Yes, that is what I had in mind. But, that is not the current state of our "enlightened" prison system.

[Deadshot]

Deadshot,

Yes, that is what I had in mind. But, that is not the current state of our "enlightened" prison system.



Not the working part, but Solitary confinement is a bitch. 23 hours alone in a room (10 X 4), no T.V., but you can have a radio and reading material. Jeez if that's not a little bit of hell, I don't know what is...

[AlanC]

Not the working part, but Solitary confinement is a bitch. 23 hours alone in a room (10 X 4), no T.V., but you can have a radio and reading material. Jeez if that's not a little bit of hell, I don't know what is...

Agreed. But then so is spending 8 hours a day making big rocks into little rocks right along side 5 other crazed animals that would just as soon cave in your skull as blow their noses.

Texas also has a great idea. They make prisoners farm their own food. No work, no eat. Cuts the cost of incarceration to a fraction of what many other systems cost. How would you like to hoe your carrots 8 hours a day along side two manic serial killers who also have hoes?

[Deadshot]

No, but I realize the challenges that the Prison system faces. We don't want to kill them, but we can hardly put them into productive situations.

Again, IF we could get something where the convict could work, I'm all for it. But I'm also for 23 hours a day of Solitary confinement where the convict while's away the hours in the hell that is loneliness and solitude.

[JohnnyAwake]

This discussion usually falls along these same lines. But what I never see discussed is this. When you execute a killer, he or she cannot kill again. Period. THAT is deterrence.

Let’s say we become as enlightened as the rest of the world and we eliminated any and all executions. What happens then? Does that mean we are now more humane?

I have seen and dealt with all too many people in this world who would just as soon kill someone else as not. In fact, there are those who enjoy killing. What do we do with them? You see once they are sent to prison for "life" what more can we do to that type of person? If they kill other prisoners, what do you do with them? What’s to keep them from killing others in prison?

If you sentence a forger for example to the same prison that is inhabited with such killers and the forger is then killed over something....his cigarettes, his looks, his race, whatever....how do you then punish your killer? What do you then say to the forger who you in essence gave a death sentence to?

I could support the abolition of the death penalty only if these elements became used instead.

1. When someone commits and is convicted of what is now called a capital crime, they are automatically sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, ever, and with no exceptions. It should be guaranteed to society that these individuals will never see another free day, never take a free breath, as long as they live.

2. Anyone convicted of such a crime will spend the rest of their days doing work. I don't care what the work is, I don't care how hard or boring the job is. I don't care as long as they have to get up off their butts and put in time in some labor that benefits society and ensures they don't have 3 meals a day, T.V. time, recreation time, conjugal visit time, and unlimited time to pursue at our expense, their education, pleasure or comfort. Prison should be unpleasant.

3. And lastly, they should never be exposed to the general prison population. If necessary, create one prison to hold all of the capital case killers and only the killers. They should never again be in a position to take the life and rights of another human being aside from their own kind. Because once you have convicted a person and sentenced them to life without hope of parole, you have given them free license to do what they will with whomever they can. You have taken away your own ability to punish them further for the rest of their lives.

Do that, and I would support wholeheartedly the abolition of the death penalty. Anything short of that, and no, I would not. IF we say we value life above all other things, we have to have a way of removing from society forever those that would deliberately and with malice take the life of another human being.

Now before you get all outraged, I am only speaking of those crimes to which the death penalty now applies. I am not speaking of those who commit crimes of passion nor others of whom it is reasonable to believe they would not commit such a crime again.


I support the abolition of the death penalty wholeheartedly. But my conscience (more than anything else) is really what inclines me to do so.
I do support the application of your desired elements. However, I think the bigger picture is; Capital punishment does not deter criminals. After they've already become criminals, capital punishment simply incapacitates them. But it doesn't prevent them from becoming criminals in the first place. There haven't been any statistical demonstrations that support your thesis that the death penalty is a better deterrent; in fact quite the contrary.

And what of "retributive justice" and it's unscrupulous consideration of human dignity and the sanctity of life. ? Under the principle of lex talionis every free living person or moral agent must consider other moral agents and not do unto those that which he/she would not have done to themselves. “An eye for an eye” or “let the punishment fit the crime” best explains this. Essentially by taking the life of another, stripping them of their moral agent status, you have forfeited your own status as a moral agent. The problem with this principle is it fails to explain why we don’t rape rapists, molest molesters, or steal from thieves. It seems to ignore every other circumstance that doesn’t relate to murder. There is also the simple fact that when one is murdered, in most instances it comes unannounced or without any warning. This brings no additional distress or discomfort to the victim, in the time before their eventual demise. Whereas with one who waits for execution there is a period of distress, knowing their end is near. Perhaps what makes this matter even worse is the length of time before the inevitable execution, which as expressed before could take up to a decade! The concept of lex talionis does attempt to express a common interest. Namely that it is wrong to take the life of another.
Gandhi might have captured the absurdity of capital punishment better than anybody else;
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".

I like the Texan model of working to live. It definitely cuts government overhead, and puts their life into perspective. I also think we need to put more effort into preventative measures. Such as they work to live and as a civil servant to the government.. they donate their labor (human capital) into projects that fund public services; that focus on preventative measures. This way they really are paying a debt to society (instead of taxpayers). They're indirectly helping other people live better lives and not end up in their same position.

The miscarriages of justice are nothing more than a fraction of the compelling reasons for abolishing the death penalty. It seems self-evident that any violent form of punishment really only reinforces or (for that matter) legitimizes violence in society.

And if your the nurse or doctor administering the penalty; you've got the unethical baggage of violating your Hippocratic oath