home

The Death Penalty Is About Right and Wrong

Brigid Harrison, a professor of political science and law at Montclair State University, explains why New Jersey should pass a pending bill to repeal the state's death penalty. A cost/benefit analysis favors life imprisonment, given the absence of convincing evidence that death is a more effective crime deterrent.

But decisions made about the death penalty are not chiefly about numbers. They are about right and wrong. And while some victims’ families do long to see their loved one’s killer executed, when the bipartisan New Jersey Death Penalty Study Commission heard testimony from victims’ families, a majority spoke in favor of repealing the death penalty.

Amid trauma and grief over the horrific death of a family member, these victims acknowledged the possibility that an innocent person could be executed by the state. After having survived the ordeal of a loved one’s murder, they questioned the morality of taking another life.

< How America Lost the Drug War | Fatal High Speed Chase Didn't Violate Flawed Policy >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Cost benefit? (1.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:05:09 PM EST

    How much benefit did they give for the lives saved by stopping killers from repeating?

    Some need to stay alive (none / 0) (#3)
    by manys on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 08:08:45 PM EST
    They need to keep some notorious criminals alive so that people will know that parole is never granted.

    Not so sure... (none / 0) (#4)
    by AshleyA on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 09:43:47 PM EST
    I'm not so sure. On one hand what good is going to come from by taking another's life. But if Hitler, Stalin, or Saddam, or any other mass killer were still alive what would we do to them. Locking them away in the harshest environment won't nearly cover all the pain and murders they have created and committed. So, when is the death penalty applicable?

    morality (none / 0) (#5)
    by diogenes on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 10:03:57 PM EST
    If there is a complete moral code which can be imposed on society regardless of the wishes of a majority of its members, then refer me to it and I might sign on.
    Many murderers are not notorious and have a way of wearing down parole boards or getting pardoned as victims and families don't pursue matters year after year.  In any case, murderers do commit crimes while in "life without parole" while in prison.
     

    Many (none / 0) (#6)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 10:05:46 PM EST
    There are many murders committed by those sentenced to life.  Here are just a few.

    Clarence Allen

    Allen was convicted in the 1974 murder of a 17-year-old robbery accomplice who had snitched on him. While in prison, he ordered the murders of three witnesses who had testified against him. He was sentenced to death in 1982 for those killings.

    Three dead because they did not smoke him for the first murder.  

    Lemuel Smith

    In 1981, Lemuel Smith was in the maximum-security Greenhaven Correctional Facility. On May 15, 1981, Greenhaven Corrections Officer Donna Payant was on duty when she received a phone call and told her co-worker she needed to take care of a problem. Her fellow officer returned to work at the end of the shift to pick Donna up, when she never came out, hundreds of corrections officers combed the entire prison grounds throughout the night and into the following morning. Trash dumpsters were emptied into a garbage truck, which two senior Correction Officers escorted to a dumpsite twenty miles away. When the garbage was spread out, officers finally found Payant's mutilated body.

    It was the first time in the United States that a female corrections officer had ever been killed inside a prison. More than five thousand officers attended Payant's funeral and New York governor Hugh Carey officially vowed "a swift response".

    The same examiner that observed bite marks on Maralie Wilson was coincidentally called to examine bite marks on Payant's body. He quickly recognized the bite marks and Lemuel Smith was charged with Payant's murder on June 6, 1981. A conviction for the charge carried a mandatory death sentence.

    Michael Mazza

    Michael Mazza, 40, was charged with first-degree murder, robbery, carjacking and escape. He is being held without bail and will likely be arraigned next month, according to prosecutor Michael J. Satz.

    Broward County Sheriff Al Lamberti said Mazza was serving two life sentences....



    Anecdotal evidence ... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Peter G on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 10:23:52 PM EST
    ... is hardly "evidence" at all. Clearly, there are cases of the type you cite.  Are you aware of any data that purport to show that those who have once murdered are more likely to commit murder again than those who have not? Or more likely than other previously convicted felons?  In any event, without links, it's hard to assess the particulars of your cases.  For example, the "Lemuel Smith" writeup is suspect by virtue of its reference to a "mandatory death sentence" applying in 1981, since the Supreme Court struck down such laws in 1976.  

    Parent
    You miss the point (none / 0) (#8)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 10:39:12 PM EST

    1. A life sentence (sadly) does not prevent future murders.

    2. The death penalty does.


    Parent
    The death penalty is only applied to a small (none / 0) (#9)
    by JSN on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 10:55:35 PM EST
    percentage of the persons convicted of first degree murder.

    Why are some people sentenced to death when others in the same state are sentenced to LWOP? For deterrence to be of any value justice must be certain but in this case it is uncertain because the penalty could be either the DP or LWOP.

    Only about three percent of those on death row are executed in a given year so it is possible for some one to die of natural causes before they are executed. That sounds like justice at-a-snails-pace to me. I was taught that you had to have swift-sure-justice for there to be significant deterrence. In the case of the DP it is neither swift nor sure.

    The Death Penalty Protects More Innocents (none / 0) (#10)
    by dudleysharp on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 11:54:06 PM EST
    The Death Penalty Protects More Innocents
    Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below
     
    Those who say the death penalty puts innocents at risk of execution forget to look at both sides of the equation.
     
    What is the risk to innocents within a life sentence and absent the death penalty? The evidence is that innocents are more at risk without the death penalty.
     
    Living murderers, in prison, after escape or after our failures to incarcerate them, are much more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers.
     
    This is a truism.
     
    No knowledgeable and honest party questions that the death penalty has the most extensive due process protections in US criminal law.

    Therefore, actual innocents are more likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment and more likely to die in prison serving under that sentence, that it is that an actual innocent will be executed.
     
    That is. logically, conclusive.
     
    16 recent studies, inclusive of their defenses,  find for death penalty deterrence.
     
    Is this a surprise? No. Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life.
     
    Some believe that all studies with contrary findings negate those 16 studies. They don't. Studies which don't find for deterrence don't say no one is deterred, but that they couldn't measure those deterred.
     
    What prospect of a negative outcome doesn't deter some? There isn't one . . . although committed anti death penalty folk may say the death penalty is the only one.
     
    However, the premier anti death penalty scholar accepts it as a given that the death penalty is a deterrent, but does not believe it to be a greater deterrent than a life sentence. Yet, the evidence is  compelling and un refuted  that death is feared more than life - even in prison.
     
    Some death penalty opponents argue against death penalty deterrence, stating that it's a harsher penalty to be locked up without any possibility of getting out.
     
    Reality paints a very different picture.
     
    What percentage of capital murderers seek a plea bargain to a death sentence? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment.
     
    What percentage of convicted capital murderers argue for execution in the penalty phase of their capital trial? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment.
     
    What percentage of death row inmates waive their appeals and speed up the execution process? Nearly zero. They prefer long term imprisonment.
     
    This is not, even remotely, in dispute.
     
    Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life.
     
    Furthermore, history tells us that "lifers" have many ways to get out: Pardon, commutation, escape, clerical error, change in the law, etc..

    In choosing to end the death penalty, or in choosing not implement it, some have chosen to spare murderers at the cost of sacrificing more innocent lives.
     
    --------
     
    Furthermore, possibly we have sentenced 20-25 actually innocent people to death since 1973, or 0.3% of those so sentenced. Those have been released upon post conviction review. There is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900.

    Of all the government programs in the world, that put innocents at risk, is there one with a safer record and with greater protections than the US death penalty?
     
    Unlikely.
     
    Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters