
Capital Punishment: The end of the death penalty - sergeant3
http://time.com/deathpenalty/
======
lutorm
I'm surprised the fact that numerous people on death row have been exonerated
after decades in prison only warranted a sub-point.

------
scrollaway
Note: If you have https everywhere, the article doesn't load because
time.com's https setup is broken. (They're using a *.wordpress.com cert...)

------
smallddemocrat
>Critics complain that the idea of “evolving standards” is a mere pretense to
wrap personal preferences in a scarf of constitutional law. But more than half
a century after the concept was coined, “evolving standards” is deeply woven
into Supreme Court tradition. The Justices all know that the modern death
penalty is a failure. When they finally decide to get rid of it, “evolving
standards” is how they will do it.

Does anyone else oppose both capital punishment and the use of judicial fiat
to bring about its abolition?

~~~
anigbrowl
Somewhat. I'd much rather just amend the Constitution, but that's a slow and
unreliable process. I do not see it as inevitable that the Supreme Court will
just get rid of it. The Constitution specifically mentions capital crimes so
it cannot be argued that the DP is inherently cruel and unusual or otherwise
prohibited by the Constitution - sure some people try to make that argument,
but like all people that try to cherry pick only the parts of the law that
suit their argument, they're wrong. An amendment is the only way to go, and
frankly we should be making more use of the amendment process instead of
treating the Constitution like some religious artifact that's going to
disintegrate if we alter it.

~~~
Retric
You can easily argue that 30 years on death row and 6 stays of execution is
Cruel and unusual punishment.

Basicly, while in theory there is nothing inherently wrong with the death
penalty our current system is broken.

~~~
anigbrowl
I'm not in favor of the DP and agree it's both monstrous and unworkable as it
is in the USA, and that it's not perfectible. But from a purely legal point of
view, abolition has to come from the legislative branch.

~~~
Retric
I don't think it's quite that black and white. The judicial branch could
decide anyone on death row for more than 10 years automatically has there
sentence committed to life.

Remember, the judicial branch is supposed to be equivelent to the other two.
They don't get to create the law on a whim, but they can get rid of any of
them.

------
pakled_engineer
In Canada it was argued that democratic consent of the death penalty means you
personally would be prepared to act as executioner. Most voters said no,
legalized murder of other adult citizens is ethically unacceptable whatever
the conditions. If the death penalty was done like jury duty, where citizens
were asked to take turns being executioners nobody except the deranged would
agree to it.

Reminds me of various cables from the front sent to commanders of the 'Axis'
where they lamented how soldiers were uncomfortable or downright refusing to
execute prisoners so they abstracted the entire nasty work of organized state
murder away to solve this problem. Replace human conscience with bland prison
bureaucracy and systems structures. Everybody passes paper, nobody thinks they
are ethically responsible.

~~~
mistermann
> If the death penalty was done like jury duty, where citizens were asked to
> take turns being executioners nobody except the deranged would agree to it.

I don't know, if I had the details and felt confident that the person was
indeed guilty, I don't think it would cause me much anguish to push the
button. However, if I didn't agree with the jury's decision of guilt, forcing
that person to do it would be extremely inhumane, it could ruin your life.

~~~
derefr
That's an interesting thought. Imagine if you needed _the same_ jury of twelve
people who were present at the trial, to all push a button simultaneously in
order to mete out whatever punishment they had decided was fair. (Anyone other
than those twelve might be acting on bias or stereotype due to a lack of
information about the case, after all.)

In fact, to go a bit further with this—imaging that _ongoing_ punishment
required getting this group of people _back_ together at regular intervals and
getting them all to push the button _again_. (For example, meting out a
lifetime prison sentence one year, or one month, at a time.) It isn't meant to
cause re-evaluation due to the meeting being a hassle, so maybe they could
just do this online—but it _should_ cause re-evaluation of whether each juror
still feels as strongly about the person's sentence now as they did before.

One could even imagine a situation where any capitol punishment would be
measured in QALYs, and then the jury each have to do that many man-years of
confirming in order to apply the punishment. (Thus, applying a sentence of
death to an eighteen-year-old would require decades of total work, or years
per juror.) That seems about the right weight upon one's conscience. It would
also mean you'd probably never be able to do jury duty more than once in your
life.

------
beloch
Just to put a slightly different spin on this... The U.S. penal system has a
fundamental problem: it's for-profit nature. Prisons create money and jobs,
which create lobby groups and, occasionally, bribes for crooked judges (e.g.
the "Kids for Cash" scandal). The incentives for this system are all messed
up. For example, a prison that effectively rehabilitates 100% of its inmates
would get fewer repeat "clients".

If the death penalty offers no deterrence and costs more, instead of less, why
is anyone still using it? It seems like something certain lobbyists would
like, but which actually runs against the public interest.

------
mixmastamyk
Good article, though I wasn't sure of his conclusion. He says they will be
exhausted and give up, however will the justice-system be willing to give up
the gravy-train of the death-penalty?

------
atap
To be honest, I'd rather have the government kill me, in many situations.

------
viggity
I know I have an unpopular opinion, but I'm glad Clayton Lockett had a
gruesome execution. He eventually died of a heart attack. He was convicted of
rape, sodomy, kidnapping and murder. HE BURIED A 19 YEAR OLD GIRL ALIVE. Fuck
him. I hope it hurt. I hope he was scared. I hope he is rotting in hell.

Every one of these god damn articles on the death penalty, THEY NEVER SPEND
ANY FUCKING TIME TALKING ABOUT THE VICTIMS. They have a fancy chart for how
15,000 murders were executed. Do they have a fancy chart to count the victims?
Do they have a fancy chart to show how many of the victims were raped before
they were murdered? Do they have a chart to show how many victims cried out
for their mother while being tortured? No, because you can't undermine the
death penalty unless you turn the victims into faceless abstractions.

The last time Bill Richard saw his son alive was right after the boston
marathon bombing. The bomb exploded and 8 year old Martin Richard was still
alive but gravely wounded. Bill had to leave his EIGHT YEAR OLD SON TO DIE
ALONE so he could rush his seriously wounded daughter to the hospital. Bill
may have advocated against the death penalty for Tsarnaev, but no parent who
has experienced that should be denied witnessing Tsarnaev's death if they so
chose. It isn't about revenge, it is about justice.

~~~
mikeash
Executing a criminal does nothing for their victims. That's why the victims
aren't usually mentioned.

Personally, I oppose the death penalty on practical grounds. It costs more
than life in prison, it eliminates the possibility of reversing a false
conviction, and it has no real advantage, so why do it?

~~~
viggity
putting them in prison doesn't do anything for the victim, maybe we should
just let them go free, amirite?

it is about justice. not vengeance. not revenge. justice. if you burn my house
to the ground, you go to prison, I sue you and take your property. that is
just.

if you intentionally and with malice kidnap, rape, beat, shoot and then bury
alive a 19 year old girl (like Clayton Lockett did). then you don't get to
breathe the same air as the rest of us. you don't get to go outside, you don't
get your prison tv. you get a needle and an unmarked grave. it is what is
fair.

~~~
mikeash
What's the difference between vengeance and justice, in your view?

~~~
wlievens
For those who are beyond help, nothing? For the loved ones of the victims, it
could provide a sliver of comfort, and that is priceless compared to taking
away the freedom of someone who has no right to it.

