Proposition 62 in California - Death Penalty

[Jaxb]

There is a proposition on the ballot in California that has to do with the death penalty. Here is the link: http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/prop...-rebuttals.htm

The argument in favor of this proposition says the following:

1. The death penalty has failed. A lot of money is spent, but not that many executions are carried out.
2. California's death penalty system is a long, agonizing ordeal for our family. As my sister's killer sits through countless hearings, we continually relive this tragedy. The death penalty is an empty promise of justice. A life sentence without parole would bring real closure.
3. A death row sentence costs 18 times more than life in prison.
4. The death penalty system makes it possible to execute an innocent person. DNA technology and new evidence have proven the innocence of more than 150 people on death row after they were sentenced to death. In California, 66 people had their murder convictions overturned because new evidence showed they were innocent.

How would you respond to the above argument?

What do you think of the opposing side? I think the opposing side could have made a stronger case by stating what could be done to cut costs and the steps that can be taken to lessen the likelihood of executing an innocent person.

The opposing side says, "California has never executed an innocent, and never will." How can the opposing side be so certain that California will never execute an innocent person? It seems like an overly confident statement.

[seer]

It is simple, if a person is convicted of a capital offense they get one appeal to a three judge panel, and if they rule that the trial was on the up and up then the execution takes place within the month.

[Bill the Cat]

1. The death penalty has failed. A lot of money is spent, but not that many executions are carried out.

The cost associated is irrelevant to the success of the death penalty. Once a killer is executed, the death penalty, by definition, has succeeded.

2. California's death penalty system is a long, agonizing ordeal for our family.

That's an indictment of the process, not the punishment.

As my sister's killer sits through countless hearings, we continually relive this tragedy.

So fight for better, more expedited procedures for situations like your sister's. Or are you claiming that your sister's killer MAY be innocent if only DNA would exonerate him/her.

The death penalty is an empty promise of justice.

Any punishment is empty justice because it will not return their loved one. The difference is that, with the death penalty, you remove the ability for that killer to make another family seek hollow justice.

A life sentence without parole would bring real closure.

No it won't. There is honestly no such thing as "closure". My mom's sister was murdered in her office in 1986 by her estranged husband. There is no closure because she is still gone. You NEVER really close that book. A life sentence provides the opportunity for that killer to create another victim and another victim's family. While the death penalty does not bring "closure" to your family, you remove the killer's ability to take another life permanently.

3. A death row sentence costs 18 times more than life in prison.

A firing squad or a noose is pretty cheap. If there is absolutely no doubt that you are the killer, I say one appeal is all you get, and then you get executed in the most expedient and cost-effective manner possible. The reason it is so costly is because of the process, not the punishment.

4. The death penalty system makes it possible to execute an innocent person.

So, refine it to matters of clear guilt.

DNA technology and new evidence have proven the innocence of more than 150 people on death row after they were sentenced to death.

As of October 15 of last year, there were 156. And of the 21 overturned convictions by DNA, not a single one was before 2000. Technology drastically minimizes the initial errors, and an appeal provides the time for correcting new evidence.

In California, 66 people had their murder convictions overturned because new evidence showed they were innocent.

That's deceptive, since such a small fraction of murder convictions actually earn the death penalty. There have only been 3 death row cases in CA that were overturned and the suspect actually acquitted.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/inno...reed-death-row


Ernest (Shujaa) Graham CA Black 1976 1981 5yrs Acquitted NO DNA

Troy Lee Jones CA Black 1982 1996 14yrs Charges Dismissed NO DNA (Habeas Corpus dismissal, not an acquittal)

Oscar Lee Morris CA Black 1983 2000 17yrs Charges Dismissed NO DNA (Witness recanted on deathbed)

[Yttrium]

Looking over those arguments...

1. The death penalty has failed. A lot of money is spent, but not that many executions are carried out.

This could be fixed by changing the appeals process.

2. California's death penalty system is a long, agonizing ordeal for our family. As my sister's killer sits through countless hearings, we continually relive this tragedy. The death penalty is an empty promise of justice. A life sentence without parole would bring real closure.

Could be minimized by changing the appeals process.

3. A death row sentence costs 18 times more than life in prison.

Appeals process again.

4. The death penalty system makes it possible to execute an innocent person. DNA technology and new evidence have proven the innocence of more than 150 people on death row after they were sentenced to death. In California, 66 people had their murder convictions overturned because new evidence showed they were innocent.

Now we have that new technology, reducing the likelihood of convicting innocent people for murder.

My conclusion is that California could either fix it's endless appeals process (possibly along seer's lines), or scrap the death penalty. Either way could work. Maintaining their current system does sound like a bad idea.

[guacamole]

It is simple, if a person is convicted of a capital offense they get one appeal to a three judge panel, and if they rule that the trial was on the up and up then the execution takes place within the month.

Everything I've ever read on this agrees that the reason DP cases are so expensive is because of the number of lawyers involved on both sides to make sure that the law is followed to the letter (else potential lawsuits and further trials would cost millions more). One appeal would drop the cost significantly then. This would be a good way to do it.

[Terraceth]

Everything I've ever read on this agrees that the reason DP cases are so expensive is because of the number of lawyers involved on both sides to make sure that the law is followed to the letter (else potential lawsuits and further trials would cost millions more). One appeal would drop the cost significantly then. This would be a good way to do it.

This would mean that someone sentenced to the death penalty is given lesser appeal rights than everyone else. That seems downright nonsensical. In fact, I'm not even sure it's legal, because it is effectively giving a court the right to not even allow a higher court to decide whether to take the appeal or not, which seems to violate the entire purpose of the appeals process. Obviously, appeals are rejected all the time by higher courts, but that is dramatically different from forbidding such things before the fact.

However, there is a bigger problem with this idea. I'm seeing a number of people suggest changing the appeals process to save money. The problem? All of those extra processes that cost all that money are required. You see, the question of whether the death penalty constituted cruel and unusual punishment went up to the supreme court, and in Gregg v. Georgia, it was ruled that the death penalty does not count as cruel and unusual punishment... if certain requirements are met prior to its administration, and meeting those requirements is where much of the extra money comes from. You legally can't remove those costs, because they're required.

[KingsGambit]

Practically speaking, I predict the US Supreme Court will overturn the death penalty within 10-15 years. At least one of the liberal justices said he was open to European legal precedent which has abolished it there, and if Hillary pushes the court leftward I think that just might do it. Executions are becoming less and less frequent, and states are now having problems obtaining the lethal injection drugs.

This doesn't mean it's gone for good, though. SCOTUS ended it in 1972 and it was back within four years. All it takes is one widely publicized sadistic killer to turn the public's sentiment back toward the death penalty.

California in particular almost never executes anybody because the appeals courts there are so against the death penalty. If I lived there I'd probably vote to end it just because the program has become a colossal waste of money when the state de facto doesn't have capital punishment. The last California inmate to be executed was Clarence Ray Allen in 2006.

[Starlight]

Reminder, the civilized world doesn't use the death penalty. America's use of the death penalty puts it in the company of some of the most horrible nations of the world.


Blue - No death penalty (102 countries)
Green - Almost no death penalty (only for exceptional circumstances, e.g. during wartime) (6 countries)
Orange - Death penalty is on the books, but is not used in practice (no executions in the last decade) (32 countries)
Red - Use the death penalty (58 countries)

[Terraceth]

This doesn't mean it's gone for good, though. SCOTUS ended it in 1972 and it was back within four years. All it takes is one widely publicized sadistic killer to turn the public's sentiment back toward the death penalty.

That's technically true but not really an accurate description. The 1972 case (Furman v. Georgia) was not meant to necessarily be the end of the death penalty. After all, the decision said "The Court holds that the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in these cases constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments." (emphasis added) They didn't say the death penalty was inherently in violating of those Amendments. The decision essentially just said that the death penalty wasn't legal as it was, and that states had to enact procedures and whatnot in order to prove it was warranted when they execute someone. Then, four years later, there was Gregg v. Georgia, where the court ruled on whether the procedures that were afterwards put into place in various states satisfied those requirements (some did, some didn't). Furman v. Georgia was always meant to be followed up on.

[KingsGambit]

That's technically true but not really an accurate description. The 1972 case (Furman v. Georgia) was not meant to necessarily be the end of the death penalty. After all, the decision said "The Court holds that the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in these cases constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments." (emphasis added) They didn't say the death penalty was inherently in violating of those Amendments. The decision essentially just said that the death penalty wasn't legal as it was, and that states had to enact procedures and whatnot in order to prove it was warranted when they execute someone. Then, four years later, there was Gregg v. Georgia, where the court ruled on whether the procedures that were afterwards put into place in various states satisfied those requirements (some did, some didn't). Furman v. Georgia was always meant to be followed up on.

This is correct; my post vastly oversimplified the situation.

Stephen Breyer in particular has his eye on completely abolishing the death penalty.

[KingsGambit]

There was a recent high profile murder that made national headlines in the city that where I work (yes, the racially/religiously motivated murder). The defendant is 75 and terminally ill. Given that this state hasn't executed anybody in 50 years and that there is no chance he would survive the 10-15 years of appeals, I thought charging him with the death penalty was a waste of time and money, though I get that the decision to give him that sentence was really more symbolic.

[Bill the Cat]

Reminder, the civilized world doesn't use the death penalty. America's use of the death penalty puts it in the company of some of the most horrible nations of the world.


Blue - No death penalty (102 countries)
Green - Almost no death penalty (only for exceptional circumstances, e.g. during wartime) (6 countries)
Orange - Death penalty is on the books, but is not used in practice (no executions in the last decade) (32 countries)
Red - Use the death penalty (58 countries)

So, Colombia is "civilized" and the US isn't? Your anti-US bias isn't on any better display than it is here...

[Jaxb]

The cost associated is irrelevant to the success of the death penalty. Once a killer is executed, the death penalty, by definition, has succeeded.




That's an indictment of the process, not the punishment.



So fight for better, more expedited procedures for situations like your sister's. Or are you claiming that your sister's killer MAY be innocent if only DNA would exonerate him/her.



Any punishment is empty justice because it will not return their loved one. The difference is that, with the death penalty, you remove the ability for that killer to make another family seek hollow justice.



No it won't. There is honestly no such thing as "closure". My mom's sister was murdered in her office in 1986 by her estranged husband. There is no closure because she is still gone. You NEVER really close that book. A life sentence provides the opportunity for that killer to create another victim and another victim's family. While the death penalty does not bring "closure" to your family, you remove the killer's ability to take another life permanently.



A firing squad or a noose is pretty cheap. If there is absolutely no doubt that you are the killer, I say one appeal is all you get, and then you get executed in the most expedient and cost-effective manner possible. The reason it is so costly is because of the process, not the punishment.




So, refine it to matters of clear guilt.



As of October 15 of last year, there were 156. And of the 21 overturned convictions by DNA, not a single one was before 2000. Technology drastically minimizes the initial errors, and an appeal provides the time for correcting new evidence.



That's deceptive, since such a small fraction of murder convictions actually earn the death penalty. There have only been 3 death row cases in CA that were overturned and the suspect actually acquitted.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/inno...reed-death-row


Ernest (Shujaa) Graham CA Black 1976 1981 5yrs Acquitted NO DNA

Troy Lee Jones CA Black 1982 1996 14yrs Charges Dismissed NO DNA (Habeas Corpus dismissal, not an acquittal)

Oscar Lee Morris CA Black 1983 2000 17yrs Charges Dismissed NO DNA (Witness recanted on deathbed)

Those are good responses to the argument in favor of it.

[Jaxb]

There was a recent high profile murder that made national headlines in the city that where I work (yes, the racially/religiously motivated murder). The defendant is 75 and terminally ill. Given that this state hasn't executed anybody in 50 years and that there is no chance he would survive the 10-15 years of appeals, I thought charging him with the death penalty was a waste of time and money, though I get that the decision to give him that sentence was really more symbolic.

Why do the appeals take so long?

[Roy]

So, Colombia is "civilized" and the US isn't? Your anti-US bias isn't on any better display than it is here...

Where did he say Colombia was civilised? Your accusation of bias is based on a logical fallacy.