Supreme Court declares Juvenile Death Penalty unconstitutional!

March 1, 2005 7:34 AM

The Supreme Court just ruledin a 5-4 decision that the Juvenile Death Penalty was unconstitutional. First, it was the mentally ill, now teenagers. Are we getting close to abolishing the death penalty altogether
posted by AaRdVarK (146 comments total)

no, we are just a small step closer to civility
posted by ba3r at 7:37 AM on March 1, 2005

No, I don't think we will ever see the end of the death penalty. Things that have been around since the beginning of time are usually a little harder to get rid of.
posted by AMWKE at 7:38 AM on March 1, 2005

In a related story, the Children of the Corn express their support for the court's decision.
posted by airguitar at 7:43 AM on March 1, 2005

Are we getting close to abolishing the death penalty altogether

I hope so.

Things that have been around since the beginning of time are usually a little harder to get rid of.

The death penalty was essentially prohibited in the United States from 1972 to 1976.
posted by pardonyou? at 7:44 AM on March 1, 2005

According to Wikipedia the US is one of only two countries who execute minors. But i'll be damned if they say who the other country is...link
posted by reflection at 7:46 AM on March 1, 2005

reflection, from your link:

Only eight countries in the world practice the death penalty for juveniles—criminals aged under 18 at the time of their crime. These are Bangladesh, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and the United States.
posted by odinsdream at 7:50 AM on March 1, 2005

thanks odinsdream, i posted the link but i was actually reading from google's cache because the site was so slow.

"The United States is second only to China in the number of death sentences passed, and is also one of only two countries in the world to allow the execution of minors."

link

I see they both also have your quote. Is there some difference here between a juvenile and a minor i'm not aware of?
posted by reflection at 7:54 AM on March 1, 2005

There are plenty of countries that most Americans would consider of "lower status" than the U.S. in the world that have abolished the death penalty calling it barbaric. South Africa comes to mind.

Reading the responses over at Free Republic put a bit of a smile on my face, as I was suprised to see so many different opinions.

My wife is the Death Penalty Abolition Coordinator for Amnesty International in Virginia. She's absolutely ecstatic, and I'm happy for her and everyone else who's been working hard for this.
posted by AaRdVarK at 7:55 AM on March 1, 2005

Is there some difference here between a juvenile and a minor i'm not aware of?

Well, in criminal justice terms, once you're over 16, you usually get charged as an adult, but you would still be considered a minor in other ways (voting, alcohol, etc).
posted by jonmc at 7:56 AM on March 1, 2005

Oh come on... we're not that barbaric! Its not like we torture captured soldiers or hold people indefinitely without counsel.
posted by gagglezoomer at 7:57 AM on March 1, 2005

Good news, IMHO, and I'm pro death penalty. There's no justice in executing people who were too young to understand the consequences of their actions.
posted by unreason at 8:00 AM on March 1, 2005

The opinion of the Court was written by Justice Kennedy. Justice Stevens filed a concurrence, joined by Justice Ginsburg. Justice O'Connor dissented. Justice Scalia dissented, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Thomas.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:00 AM on March 1, 2005

Are we getting close to abolishing the death penalty altogether.

Naaa... abortion will always be legal.
posted by wfrgms at 8:03 AM on March 1, 2005

Other good news today: U.S. must charge terror suspect Jose Padilla or let him go, judge in S.C. rules.
posted by odinsdream at 8:03 AM on March 1, 2005

Naaa... abortion will always be legal.

Anyone else just hear a starting bell?
posted by Cyrano at 8:04 AM on March 1, 2005

These are Bangladesh, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and the United States.

Good to see fine company that we're in...
posted by jperkins at 8:08 AM on March 1, 2005

To fully understand why this is a big deal, and to understand why it was such a narrow decision, Scalia's dissent is required reading. It's caustic, even for him, and exemplifies the tension between good law and good policy.

It's surprising that the 1989 decision was overruled not because it was considered to be a bad decision but because community standards had shifted. I don't think this is the correct approach. But I'm glad that we have joined the 20th century en route to the 21st.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 8:09 AM on March 1, 2005

Naaa... abortion will always be legal.

Anyone else just hear a starting bell?

No, just the thin, tinny little yap of a troll desperately trying to derail a thread.
posted by googly at 8:15 AM on March 1, 2005

No, I don't think we will ever see the end of the death penalty. Things that have been around since the beginning of time are usually a little harder to get rid of.

But not impossible.

The member States of the Council of Europe, signatory to this Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),

Considering that the evolution that has occurred in several member States of the Council of Europe expresses a general tendency in favour of abolition of the death penalty,

Have agreed as follows:

Article 1 – Abolition of the death penalty

The death penalty shall be abolished. No-one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed.
posted by three blind mice at 8:19 AM on March 1, 2005

Is there some difference here between a juvenile and a minor i'm not aware of?
Well, in criminal justice terms, once you're over 16, you usually get charged as an adult, but you would still be considered a minor in other ways (voting, alcohol, etc).

In most states, one is tried as an adult at the age of 18. Although, depending on the nature of the case, a juvenile can be considered an adult only if the Juvenile Court approves this through a direct filing to the District Court. I suppose for most cases considering the death penalty anything under 18 would be given an Adult treatment.
posted by Viomeda at 8:22 AM on March 1, 2005

South Africa comes to mind.

Although if you took a poll of the SA population today, the vast majority are actually in favour of it.
posted by PenDevil at 8:26 AM on March 1, 2005

If you can't do the time, then don't do the crime..

Murderers, regardless of their age, are best removed from society. I don't care if you are 12, 22, or 52, if you take intentionally another person's life, yours should be forfeit.

I do not believe that a 16 yo who rapes and kills a grandmother, or kills a little girl, or whatever, can ever be rehabilitated (or trusted).

Mind if I send them all to your neighborhood?
posted by eas98 at 8:28 AM on March 1, 2005

I like this from Scalia's dissent, even though I'm glad for the ruling:

Consulting States
that bar the death penalty concerning the necessity of making an exception to the penalty for offenders under 18 is rather like including old-order Amishmen in a con-
sumer-preference poll on the electric car. Of course they don't like it, but that sheds no light whatever on the point at issue.
posted by OmieWise at 8:35 AM on March 1, 2005

Bangladesh, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and the United States.

That's a short list isn't it? America's remaining on this list is more a case of national hubris or political gridlock? The U.S. knows better than practically the entire planet or the judicial / political system has become so unwieldily that fundamental change can no longer occur?
posted by scheptech at 8:38 AM on March 1, 2005

eas98, no one's advocating releasing the offenders. But, hey, nice straw man.
posted by MrMoonPie at 8:38 AM on March 1, 2005

a troll desperately trying to derail a thread

Call me a troll if you want, but I'm not trying to derail the thread.

One of the most glaring hypocrisies of our day is conservative's inability or unwillingness to link their pro-life/anti-abortion stance with one that is also pro-life/anti-death penalty.

The reversal of this - liberals pro-choice but anti-death penalty stance - is only slightly less hypocritical than that of the right's.

When is state sanctioned death justifiable? If you ask a conservative it's when someone does something really bad - like commit murder. If you ask a liberal it's anytime before the third trimester.

I'm just say'n...
posted by wfrgms at 8:39 AM on March 1, 2005

AaRdVaarK's Free Republic link is filled with so much fear it's hard for me to understand. As if the only thing holding back teenagers from murderous rampages was that it's against the law.

Ah! The teenage murderer permit has just been issued. Prepare for a bloodbath, and anguished crys of how many CHILDREN are being murdered by other CHILDREN with GUNS!!!!!

How about an 17 year old gang-banger who taunts the victim with "I can do anything I want to you and they can't kill me" as they perform a torture-murder on one of your family members?

If I lived in this world, I don't know if I could go outside. How can anyone be mad at these people? They need a hug and a reassurance we are not yet Beyond Thunderdome.
posted by unsupervised at 8:39 AM on March 1, 2005

eas98, you don't need to defend your views here. Forward thinking countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia support your position. Progressive socieities should give the state the right to decide who should live or die.
posted by chunking express at 8:41 AM on March 1, 2005

eas98,

A lot of juvenile murders already live in my neighborhood. And the issue is not as you have presented it, and it does a disservice to your pro-death penalty argument to pretend that it is. The choice is not between killing them and turning them loose on the streets to kill and kill again. The choice is between killing them and punishing them in some other way, like, for instance, extended incarceration.

The rehabilitation argument is dangerous because there are many things for which we could say it is much more difficult to be rehabilitated than for murder. Drunk driving, for instance, must have a very high recidivism rate since it's a crime frequently abetted by an addiction, an actual physical and psychological addiction, and yet one hears of very few people in support of the death penalty for drunk driving.
posted by OmieWise at 8:43 AM on March 1, 2005

I find it amusing that many forms of punishment are deemed to be "cruel and unusual," but execution is not.

Ask a convicted murderer if he would prefer to participate in a voluntary study on the effects of a particular medical condition and the treatment of that condition (where he would be allowed to request death if he were too uncomfortable) or be executed, and you can probably guess what many of the murderers would choose. If the murderers themselves say that A is not cruel and unusual, isn't it odd that we say that it is?
posted by flarbuse at 8:47 AM on March 1, 2005

Murderers, regardless of their age, are best removed from society ... I do not believe that a 16 yo who rapes and kills a grandmother, or kills a little girl, or whatever, can ever be rehabilitated (or trusted).

I believe in most, if not all, states without the death penalty, the penalty for first degree murder (aka the crime that warrants the death penalty in other states) is life in prison without the possibility of parole. Accordingly, issues of rehabilitation or removal from society are irrelevant.
posted by pardonyou? at 8:49 AM on March 1, 2005

AaRdVaarK's Free Republic link is filled with so much fear it's hard for me to understand. As if the only thing holding back teenagers from murderous rampages was that it's against the law.

It's the flat out lies that get me. Here are the big ones I've read so far:

• a poorly publicised strength of capital punishment is the money it saves... corpses don't cost the state thousands of dollars a year.
• First off, there is absolutely no evidence a factually innocent person was executed for the crime of murder in the US since 1900. And with the application of modern forensic science, such a possibility is not at all

Ugh. Please make it stop.
posted by AaRdVarK at 8:50 AM on March 1, 2005

Scalia despises the notion that 'evolving standards of decency' might involve a hat-tip to the world beyond the borders of the US. The only foreign precedent, for him, is to be found in English common law before American independence. Other justices disagree, and basically say that Scalia's condemnation of 'dangerous dicta' from Foreign is a big ol' strawman.

He is, to his credit, astonishingly consistent in this position, although he still does set up a few cornfields' worth of strawmen in this particular dissent. Although I'd suggest that, for additional consistency, he ought only to hunt ducks with rifles made in the eighteenth century, and should be explicit about his affection for public hangings in the town square.

The U.S. knows better than practically the entire planet or the judicial / political system has become so unwieldily that fundamental change can no longer occur?

The judicial system's advantages are also, to some perspectives, its flaws. The reverence with which the US constitution is generally held, and the school of strict constructionism, mean that in some cases, the US resembles a person with one foot on a bank, and the other on an unanchored boat.

I think Scalia's dissent is pretty solid given what he's working with; I also find it distasteful. When playing by the rules means that the state deliberately kills kids, I'd recommend changing the rulebook. And that makes me rather glad I don't have to worry about its effect on me. As for policy: well, there's the head-on collision between extradition treaties and the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Convention seems to come off the better.
posted by riviera at 8:52 AM on March 1, 2005

What a great day! That makes me so happy. Baby steps towards civilization. Makes me want to hum Lee Greenwood songs all day long.
posted by Arch Stanton at 8:53 AM on March 1, 2005

Don't compare the US to Saudi Arabia when it comes to the death penalty. There, they invoke it for offenses that are not even considered crimes here.

Nevertheless, what's the point of keeping someone incarcerated for 80 years at the law-abiding taxpayer's expense? Why should I pay to keep some demon-child alive? (Ok, but it was funny)

And hey, I will support the death penalty for drunk driving when it's already in place for cell-phone-using drivers..
posted by eas98 at 8:55 AM on March 1, 2005

wfrgs, abortion, according to law, is not murder. Murder is the premeditated killing of a human being by a human being. A blastocyst or early fetus is not considered a human being by all of the supporters of abortion rights that I know.

You may disagree, but it doesn't mean that a person who is against the death penalty and supports reproductive rights is being hypocritical.

If a person supports legal abortion and that person also believes that the fetus is a human being, with all of the natural rights of humans, then, you might be able to argue that person is inconsistent if they oppose the death penalty.

An interesting wrinkle on the Freeper threads is the impact that execution of minors has for parental consent laws. If a girl is old enough to be executed for her choices, then she is old enough to make her own choices, no?
posted by Cassford at 8:58 AM on March 1, 2005

Don't compare the US to Saudi Arabia when it comes to the death penalty. There, they invoke it for offenses that are not even considered crimes here.

Well, there are the small matters of blatant disregard for the Vienna Convention; risible standards for defence lawyers; a grotesque racial disparity in the number of capital sentences; etc. Clive Stafford Smith has a pretty good perspective on all this.

(* Note to Scalia, like note to self: don't dissent when angry.)
posted by riviera at 9:00 AM on March 1, 2005

If minors or young adults are thinking and acting like adult criminals, why should there be a totalitarian exception for all. The exceptions come from the good lawyers and the nature of the American legal system (for the most part the best). If you get caught, there are consequences that include all humanity. Mental illness and disability is one thing and an expert witness could make a big difference on a death sentence. However, in dealing with murder 1 in cold blood the odds get tough. Albeit these laws exist, it seems the death penalty is reserved as a last resort, the crime being far beyond a reasonable doubt, unforgivable. That takes the extremes.
posted by Viomeda at 9:02 AM on March 1, 2005

So, let's see if I've got this right... they're saying that the death penalty for juveniles is illegal because it's BOTH cruel and unusual, and since the death penalty for adults is only cruel, and not particularly unusual, it's legal?
posted by Pretty_Generic at 9:05 AM on March 1, 2005

wfrgms, perhaps the troll label was a bit harsh, but your original post was pretty trollish, in that it introduced a tangential issue (abortion) into a discussion about something else entirely (the death penalty) in a way that provoked response but didn't really illuminate anything - unlike your second post, which fleshed out the reasoning behind your linking abortion with the death penalty.

FWIW, despite being pro-choice and anti-death penalty myself, I agree with the spirit of your second post. But I think its worth pointing out that there areimportant differences between abortion and the death penalty:

1) In the former case, the state allows "killing" to occur, while in the latter it actively takes a person's life. Its one thing to stand by and watch someone be killed; its another to actively kill someone. Neither may be moral, but there is a big difference.

2) Abortion is deemed legal because the fetus is not recognized as a person, and thus termination of a fetus is not killing. If you assume that a fetus is a viable human life, then yes, abostion is murder; if you don't, then it isn't. So your equation of abortion with the death penalty rests on an assumption that not everybody makes.
posted by googly at 9:06 AM on March 1, 2005

Nevertheless, what's the point of keeping someone incarcerated for 80 years at the law-abiding taxpayer's expense?

Wasn't there a study done a while ago that revealed that for a majority of cases the death penalty was in fact more expensive than life imprisonment?
posted by clevershark at 9:08 AM on March 1, 2005

The real problem is that capital punishment in its current form is not a deterrent. The gas chamber and lethal injections 'are just like going to sleep". You're not going to deter people who live in the constant pain that many desperate criminals do with the promise of a gentle end. For the death penalty to be a truly effective deterrent we need to bring back hanging, breaking on the wheel, firing squad, etc. it needs to be a public spectacle as well.

Otherwise, get rid of it. In fact, I bet the lure of an easy death at the hands of the state is actually a motive in some murders.

(Sorry, I spent most of yesterday sick and watching The New Statesman, and my inner monologue is all tangled up with Alan B'Stard.)
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:10 AM on March 1, 2005

Cassford, in a perfect Freeper-run world all minors (and anyone else for that matter) would be equal - easily measured under the law based on just a few factors... say... race, gender and age. Thus passing judgment on them would be as simple as following a mathematical formula.

The problem is that these people rely on their own anecdotal experiences when making decisions about people whom they have never met or cases and situations for which they have only the most fleeting awareness.

Thus, the over ridding sense of fear and dread at the SC decision... these people have been whipped into a frenzy by talk radio and message boards for years now into fearing all sorts of things... among them the specter of 'gangbangers' or inner-city youth.

For them, the death penalty is a barrier protecting them and their families from killers and thugs who don't even live in their community and whom they have never met or are unlikely to ever encounter.

Crazy? Sure... but there is a method to their madness.
posted by wfrgms at 9:11 AM on March 1, 2005

Wasn't there a study done a while ago that revealed that for a majority of cases the death penalty was in fact more expensive than life imprisonment?

Should that be the case, it only brings up another issue that is in need of reform -- the countless appeals and delays for convicted murderers on death row.
posted by eas98 at 9:17 AM on March 1, 2005

majority of cases the death penalty was in fact more expensive than life imprisonment?

That's pretty much commonsense knowledge by this point.

And the death penalty isn't a deterrant. Just like life in prison is a deterrant. The only deterrant from crime is giving people something to do with their time. Education and economic opportunity, essentially hope for a better life (hope is on the way) is a much better deterrant than the death penalty.

On Preview: issue that is in need of reform -- the countless appeals and delays for convicted murderers on death row.

Yeah, those people have it to easy. One trial and they're done.
posted by Arch Stanton at 9:21 AM on March 1, 2005

I think what eas98 is proposing is a Saudi- or Chinese-like system where, upon being pronounced guilty, the accused is taken out and beheaded (Saudi) or shot (Chinese).
posted by clevershark at 9:26 AM on March 1, 2005

Nevertheless, what's the point of keeping someone incarcerated for 80 years at the law-abiding taxpayer's expense? Why should I pay to keep some demon-child alive? (Ok, but it was funny)

That's asinine. The reason enlightened societies don't execute humans has very little to do with sentimental/moralistic reasoning, e.g., "We libruls have no spines and just can't stomach frontier justice." We shouldn't execute humans because if you happen to be black, poor, retarded, abused, etc. you are more likely to be executed. Justice is not and never has been perfect, since it's a human institution.

If we had a truth machine that could, without any doubt, prove that person X is a murderous bastard, I wouldn't lose any sleep over his or her death. But we will never have a system of justice that is perfect, and to try and pretend that we could have such a system is a hopeless fallacy.
posted by bardic at 9:26 AM on March 1, 2005

Those poor murderers.. Where do I send a check to donate to their well-being?
posted by eas98 at 9:26 AM on March 1, 2005

Perhaps someone in this forum can provide us with the Freeper's point of view... anyone? *cough*eas98*cough*
posted by clevershark at 9:33 AM on March 1, 2005

If you pay taxes as a US citizen, you're sending plenty of money to Shrubco. So, mission accomplished.
posted by bardic at 9:34 AM on March 1, 2005

Clinton already "reformed" the appeals process by signing the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which limited the number and type of appeals a death row prisoner can make.

Many of the wrongly-convicted people who have been released from death row over the past several years would already be dead if the 1996 law had been applicable to them.

You better hope you aren't in the wrong place at the wrong time eas98.
posted by Cassford at 9:34 AM on March 1, 2005

AaRrdVarK said:"Are we getting close to abolishing the death penalty altogether?"

Under this Presidential administration?

They'll just find a way to hold 'em till they're 18 and then kill 'em. Or execute more adults to make up the difference.

Then PinkStainlessTail said: "The real problem is that capital punishment in its current form is not a deterrent. The gas chamber and lethal injections 'are just like going to sleep". You're not going to deter people who live in the constant pain that many desperate criminals do with the promise of a gentle end. For the death penalty to be a truly effective deterrent we need to bring back hanging, breaking on the wheel, firing squad, etc. it needs to be a public spectacle as well."

Read much Foucault, troll?

Then Arch Stanton: "On Preview: 'issue that is in need of reform -- the countless appeals and delays for convicted murderers on death row.'"

"Yeah, those people have it to easy. One trial and they're done."

No chance at appeal, just kill 'em? I suppose you'd say the say if it was you on trial, even after researching the verdicts that have been overturned because of DNA test mismatches and prosecutorial misconduct? And "those people"? I'll bet you're white, middle-class and suburban.

And on preview: "I think what eas98 is proposing is a Saudi- or Chinese-like system where, upon being pronounced guilty, the accused is taken out and beheaded (Saudi) or shot (Chinese)."

I think so too, clevershark.

And I second bardic.
posted by davy at 9:34 AM on March 1, 2005

The only deterrant from crime is giving people something to do with their time. Education and economic opportunity, essentially hope for a better life (hope is on the way) is a much better deterrant than the death penalty.

Only poor, uneducated, and bored people commit crime?

(Not that I think the Death Penalty is a great deterent...).
posted by stifford at 9:36 AM on March 1, 2005

davy. If you read my entire comment, you will know that the end of my comment was a sarcastic response to a silly comment. I am white and middle-class though.

On Preview: Only poor, uneducated, and bored people commit crime?

No. As BTK proves to us, even the educated and church-going commit crimes. Amongst millions of other examples. However, if you compare economic indicators to crime statistics, it's clear that the better the economy, the lower the crime.
posted by Arch Stanton at 9:39 AM on March 1, 2005

Read much Foucault, troll?

Didn't follow my link, did you snappy?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:39 AM on March 1, 2005

Only poor, uneducated, and bored people commit crime?

You'd think so looking at death row. You won't see too many millionaires or PhDs on death row. Nor, frankly, will you see many caucasians.
posted by clevershark at 9:40 AM on March 1, 2005

Actually you will, but you'll also see a disproportionately high number of minorities as well. Still though, there be an awful lot of white folks in this country, including criminals.
posted by DaShiv at 9:43 AM on March 1, 2005

I'll bet you're white, middle-class and suburban.

*gasp*

Nor, frankly, will you see many caucasians.

Actually according to 2000 government statistics there were 1701 caucasian death row inmates or 46.71 percent of the total.

Non-whites are disproportionately represented, true, but let's not be disingenuous.
posted by jonmc at 9:43 AM on March 1, 2005

I don't mind if other people support the death penalty -- I disagree with them, but that never killed anybody. I don't have much respect for the sort of crudthink people routinely turn out on the issue, e.g.:

Mind if I send them all to your neighborhood?

Those poor murderers.. Where do I send a check to donate to their well-being?

blah blah, which consistently reveal an inability to think these issues through at a level beyond that of the first (and bloodiest) gut reaction.
posted by argybarg at 9:44 AM on March 1, 2005

Should that be the case, it only brings up another issue that is in need of reform -- the countless appeals and delays for convicted murderers on death row.

Actually, the majority of the cost of the death penalty is incurred at the pre-trial and trial stage. I've read some studies that showed that these early stages of the trial accounted for up to 60% of the total cost of an execution.

It's a common misconception that the appeals process makes the death penalty so expensive.

Nor, frankly, will you see many caucasians.

You'll see plenty of caucasians on death row. They wont be as well represented as in the total american population, but it is absurd to say that one wont find many caucasians on death row.
posted by Doug at 9:45 AM on March 1, 2005

Children of the Corn, Village of the Damned, the kids know what they are doing! Past the point of no return, give them to Julie Andrew that'll fix em.
posted by Viomeda at 9:46 AM on March 1, 2005

Under this Presidential administration?

They'll just find a way to hold 'em till they're 18 and then kill 'em. Or execute more adults to make up the difference.

Although capital punishment is possible for some federal crimes, the vast majority of executions (and I would assume almost all executions of minors) are done by states. This administration thus will not "find a way to hold 'em," nor will it "execute more adults to make up the difference" (and on that point, how exactly do you think such a thing could be accomplished? People can only be executed who have been convicted and sentenced to death.)
posted by pardonyou? at 9:46 AM on March 1, 2005

Nevertheless, what's the point of keeping someone incarcerated for 80 years at the law-abiding taxpayer's expense?

It is more expensive to execute someone then life in prison. The facilities to execute them are very expensive and are only used for a few executions a year. On death row you have unlimited appeals, which entails lawyers paid for by the state, and a lot of court time.

Do you think when a human life is on the line, that person should be given every opportunity to prove their innocence.

We have executed innocents before. This is the biggest reason that I am against the death penalty. Do you think that the people we have killed who did nothing wrong just "took one for the team" so we could kill the rest as opposed to life in prison?
posted by AaRdVarK at 9:46 AM on March 1, 2005

Andrews
posted by Viomeda at 9:47 AM on March 1, 2005

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold=damaged goods. Thankfully, they anticipated their sentence and took care of it themselves.
posted by Viomeda at 9:58 AM on March 1, 2005

Under this Presidential administration?

well, certainly not under a Democrat's. can you imagine President Kerry waking up today and going, "hey, good idea, let's lose the death penalty altogether".
he'd be impeached before lunch, speed-tried in the afternoon by the Senate, convicted and executed for treason (he's not a minor after all) before Rehnquist leaves for dinner.

US abolitionists lack real political clout, and I don't see a sane Democrat running for President in the future (with chances to get nominated) arguing that the death penalty must go. in Presidential races, abolition means liberal. and we all know how well the L word worked for President Dukakis, right?

interestingly enough, the always indispensable RudePundit points out that

Anyone who dares suggest that society is degraded by a juvenile death penalty will be mocked and derided for being a part of the "loony left."

It's gonna be a party of hatred, a chance for us to do our little jigs of death and doom and horror. It's gonna be all about Lee Boyd Malvo, the juvenile D.C. area sniper, sent to jail for life, but we wanted his blood, motherfuckers, we wanted that juvenile bastard executed on the fuckin' mall, with a big American flag behind him, and fuckin' Toby Keith singin' songs of how great the U.S. of A. is because we're killin' that kid. But, now, aww, fuck, it's like gettin' a hard-on and havin' nowhere to shove it.

Be ready, though, 'cause we're gonna be inundated.

posted by matteo at 10:03 AM on March 1, 2005

I'm all for abolishing it for kids and folks without the mental capacity to understand their crime that they are being punished for.

But I am wholly against the abolition of the death penalty for those most heinous of crimes. I firmly believe that people can and do act in ways that void their right to life. People like the BTK serial killer, people that have multiple cold murders, people that prey on children.

Aardvark, yes, innocent people get chewed up by the system, its inevitable and tragic and the system should be constantly monitored and adjusted to reduce those mistakes. But removing the threat of the death penalty altogether, I think, is a mistake.
posted by fenriq at 10:04 AM on March 1, 2005

Scalia despises the notion that 'evolving standards of decency' might involve a hat-tip to the world beyond the borders of the US. The only foreign precedent, for him, is to be found in English common law before American independence. Other justices disagree, and basically say that Scalia's condemnation of 'dangerous dicta' from Foreign is a big ol' strawman.
Say hello to our next chief Justice, unfortunately.

This, and the Padillo ruling give me hope. Let's see what happens with the rest of the docket.

And life in prison with no chance of parole is far more punishing (but also holds hope for rehabilitation and contributions to society) than death.
posted by amberglow at 10:07 AM on March 1, 2005

fenriq, check the murder rates in states with the death penalty, and without. You'll find there's no correlation at all, i think.
posted by amberglow at 10:08 AM on March 1, 2005

Elevate the discourse, edify yourself:

2004 term Supreme Court slip opinions:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04slipopinion.html

Direct link to the opinion (PDF):
Roper v. Simmons

(That's an akamai link; if it dies, someone let me know and I can host a copy after the initial frenzy dies down.)
posted by rkent at 10:10 AM on March 1, 2005

innocent people get chewed up by the system, its inevitable and tragic and the system should be constantly monitored and adjusted to reduce those mistakes.

That strikes me as reason enough to get rid of the death penalty. You can call killing an innocent person a mistake, but in the end it is simply murder.
posted by chunking express at 10:11 AM on March 1, 2005

The problem with using the death penalty as a deterrent is that it requires the criminal to (a) think they'll be caught and (b) actually be thinking about consequences when they act.
posted by Karmakaze at 10:15 AM on March 1, 2005

eas98-

The whole anti-death penalty must=love for criminals meme is so tired. Are you just trolling, or do you really not have an argument for why the death penalty is a good thing. I thought you supported it. Where's your argument? What's the point? If you want to be snarky and derailing, then please make it funny, otherwise spare us your misanthropic bs.
posted by OmieWise at 10:18 AM on March 1, 2005

Amberglow: Looks like you would agree with Beccaria. I'm inclinded to agree with the both of you.

Although I am most interested in Beccaria's argument against the death penalty on the grounds that no reasonable man should (or would) give power to the government to kill him. I've always felt that supporters of the death penalty are either very trusting, or very naive.
posted by Doug at 10:20 AM on March 1, 2005

I've always felt that supporters of the death penalty are either very trusting, or very naive.

But strangely, the ranks of supporters are filled with people who want to limit the role of government in almost all other ways, especially altruistic ways. This, to me, exposes the moral hypocrisy that underlies the current Rightist attack on social programming.
posted by OmieWise at 10:24 AM on March 1, 2005

It's amazing to me that people still don't realize that yes, innocent people are convicted of crimes. And yes, innocent people are executed for crimes they didn't commit.
"Oh those poor murderers."
I don't fault anyone for disliking murderers, but the inability to see that not every person convicted is guilty is disgustingly myopic.
I have a personal link to the death penalty as my cousin was wrongly convicted of a murder and was sent to death row. Luckily, he's on the verge of being released.
Should that be the case, it only brings up another issue that is in need of reform -- the countless appeals and delays for convicted murderers on death row.
If it weren't for these appeals, innocent men would be dead. Period.
Why is there this idea that the justic system is perfect? I didn't realize just how horrible it can be until the situation with my cousin, so I can understand if the average person thinks everything works pretty much in a fair and ok manner. And I'm sure sometimes it does. But in the cases that it doesn't, people convicted of crimes need every single chance they get to try to prove their innocence. Unfortunately, there's no magic potion to determine who's guilty and who's innocent, so we must give this privilege to everyone. But honestly, I don't mind a guilty man appealing his conviction if it means that an innocent one can do the same.
posted by ella minnow pea at 10:25 AM on March 1, 2005

Unfortunately Karmakaze, that same argument applies to any deterrent you choose, not just capital punishment; it's actually an argument against the entire Benthamite system of the prison. Which is not to say I disagree with you, just that you're biting off quite a chunk in making that claim.

*sigh*... I'm really trying to find a non-westlaw copy of a law review article that addresses some of these points. It's in the newest edition of the Southern California Law Review (77 So. Cal. L. Rev. 1103 if you have Westlaw or Lexis), which has a homepage here if you want to look for the article later, since the link to "current issue" is broken at the moment. Sorry.
posted by rkent at 10:27 AM on March 1, 2005

amberglow is correct. All the research indicates that the death penalty is not a deterrent. For the United States to continue this barbaric practice is illogical at best and isolating at worst.
posted by ScaryShrink at 10:29 AM on March 1, 2005

Nevertheless, what's the point of keeping someone incarcerated for 80 years at the law-abiding taxpayer's expense? Why should I pay to keep some demon-child alive? (Ok, but it was funny)

Just so I'm getting you, are you really claiming that we should kill a teenager because it's cheaper?
posted by callmejay at 10:30 AM on March 1, 2005

By the way, I live in Illinois, where the death penalty has been put on moratorium until we get it straightened out. And the rate of capital murder has actually gone down since the death penalty got put on hold.
posted by ScaryShrink at 10:31 AM on March 1, 2005

i'm opposed to the death penalty, but this decision strikes me as masking opposition to the death penalty in general with an arbitrary distinction between adults and children. kennedy quoted the decision to abolish the death penalty for mentally ill people, saying "our society views juveniles ... as categorically less culpable than the average criminal." but the earlier decision rested on that fact that "Mentally retarded persons ... by definition ... have diminished capacities to understand and process information." people under 18 have no diminished capacities to understand and process information. so this decision seems to me rather hollow of reason. if the supreme court agrees with most of the world that the death penalty is generally wrong, they should just say so and be done with it, without introducing some imaginary inheritance of culpability on one's 18th birthday.
posted by scottreynen at 10:32 AM on March 1, 2005

amberglow, I know the death penalty isn't a deterrent for other criminals but it seems to work pretty well on the person being executed. Their recidivism rate is zero.

And no, I'm not being facetious. To me, the death penalty as a deterrent for capital crimes doesn't work outside the individual circumstance. It works on the criminal that committed the crime and that's really the only deterrent effect I'm primarily concerned with.
posted by fenriq at 10:40 AM on March 1, 2005

fenriq, if your concern is truly deterrence, and not retribution, would you be equally for a system of physical incapacitation? Surgical paralysis, or lobotomization? What about solitary confinement, with no human contact whatsoever?
posted by Doug at 10:43 AM on March 1, 2005

Fenriq, but there is a cost to that deterrence, and the cost is that as a society we choose to kill people as part of our justice system. Setting aside for a moment the questions of wrongful conviction and imbalances in racial groups on death row etc, when do we get to take issues of moral philosophy into account. I'm not being snarky, I'm really asking, because it seems to me that when the death penalty has no global deterrent effect and does not bring the murder victim back to life, an enlightened (and especially a Christian) society should not condone it.
posted by OmieWise at 10:49 AM on March 1, 2005

I don't see how removing consequences for actions is "enlightened." That's sort of what the rule of law is based upon.
posted by TetrisKid at 10:51 AM on March 1, 2005

Once again, and perhaps people can repeat this to themselves: "Execution is not the only possible consequence for committing a crime."
posted by OmieWise at 10:56 AM on March 1, 2005

Apparently, many years spent in prison is not a consequence in TetrisKid's mind.

Personally, I'd rather die.
posted by argybarg at 10:59 AM on March 1, 2005

Doug, solitary confinement without contact is cruel and inhuman treatment. Capital punishment is, the way I see it, almost a mercy killing. These people are defective humans, they are unable to operate within the bounds of society, they kill, they prey, they use others. They forfeit their right to freedom but I don't think anyone can forfeit their right to not be treated in a cruel and inhuman way, even if they themselves are guilty of treating others cruelly and inhumanely.

And don't get me wrong, part of the death penalty is payback. Its a crude balancing out of justice but a definite part of it is retribution for their crimes.

Omiewise, sorry but an appeal to Xian beliefs is completely off the reservation here. This nation is not a Christian country, this country is a huge conglomeration of belief systems. Besides, doesn't the Bible say an Eye for an Eye? Or am I cross referencing theologies and maxims?

What do you mean here by moral philosophy? There are several ways to interpret that statement and I'd like to make sure we're on the same page before traipsing off into philosophical asides.
posted by fenriq at 11:03 AM on March 1, 2005

fenriq-Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the USA was a Xian nation, although I was consciously tweaking a certain (large and assumed on my part) percentage of Xian supporters of execution. An eye for an eye is indeed a part of the bible, the Hebrew Bible, which does not apply to Xians, as much as they would like to claim otherwise, if it did they would have to follow all kinds of laws that they claim Jesus exempted them from. Eye for an eye is one such law, as, btw, are the anti-sodomy proscriptions in Leviticus.

I'm not actually referring to any specific branch of moral philosophy, just trying to expand the discussion of what we should think about when we think about execution. So far in this thread it has been cast in a Utilitarian frame, and sometimes in an economic way, but I think that there is also a question about how we think about our justice system in the abstract, what its goals are, how we conceive of citizens in light of that system, etc. Your post seemed to reduce the reason for killing someone to deterring them from killing again. I was suggesting that given the (moral) weight that I think attaches to execution, that's too little reason to justify execution.
posted by OmieWise at 11:25 AM on March 1, 2005

fenriq, you realize that's an incredibly slippery slope, and that you or i could someday be determined to be "defective humans" too? (many people already think that i am, being gay and all)

A murderer is not a "defective human"--in fact it's an incredibly human thing to do. Sometimes it's a person killing to protect their family, or because they've been abused by another person, or because they just needed money and robbed a place and the situation got out of control. It's not always a psychopath or sociopath.
posted by amberglow at 11:26 AM on March 1, 2005

And, this:

These people are defective humans, they are unable to operate within the bounds of society, they kill, they prey, they use others.

is an argument with a lot of consequences beyond capital punishment. If you remove the final clauses, it looks a lot like a justification for eugenics, which we've already been through in this country. Even with those final caveats, one has to wonder who gets to set the societal limits. Are the mentally ill defective humans? People of diminished capacity? I understand that you are not saying so, but your position has to deal with the questions in order to be defensible.

On preview, too slow.
posted by OmieWise at 11:30 AM on March 1, 2005

Just so I'm getting you, are you really claiming that we should kill a teenager because it's cheaper?

Because if he is, he's wrong. With the costs to the state to hold appeals, increase the security around death row, and the creation of new facilities, it's actually cheaper to keep them alive.
posted by shawnj at 11:31 AM on March 1, 2005

In addition to rkent's link to the slip opinion:
Decisions, resources & briefs (Findlaw.com)
Google News thread on the juvenile death penalty
Supreme Court Ends Death Penalty for Juveniles (Nina Totenberg, National Public Radio)
Juvenile death sentences nullified(SCOTUSblog)
posted by gleenyc at 11:36 AM on March 1, 2005

what shawnj said. it costs more to execute someone.

and Doug: thanks--i've never heard of Beccaria.
posted by amberglow at 11:37 AM on March 1, 2005

amberglow do your crimes address the death penalty? The sentence most esp for children takes more than self and hunger desperation.
posted by Viomeda at 11:39 AM on March 1, 2005

not in some states, Viomeda--any first-degree murderer in some places is eligible for the death penalty.

This has more info, state by state
posted by amberglow at 11:47 AM on March 1, 2005

I know the death penalty isn't a deterrent for other criminals but it seems to work pretty well on the person being executed. Their recidivism rate is zero.

Yeah, but why isn't life in prison an acceptable consequence?
posted by Specklet at 11:50 AM on March 1, 2005

Sometimes it's a person killing to protect their family, or because they've been abused by another person, or because they just needed money and robbed a place and the situation got out of control.

Well, to be fair, such cases don't usually wind up being adjudicated as 1st degree murder.

I'll take the liberty of assuming that the 'defective humans' being referred to are serial killers, rapist-murderers, professional killers, or repeat violent felons; in other words, people we all agree need to separated from the rest of society, perhaps permanently.

The debate is over the best way to do that.
posted by jonmc at 11:52 AM on March 1, 2005

If the death penalty is outlawed, only outlaws will have the death penalty. Wait. . .
posted by spock at 11:53 AM on March 1, 2005

Homer: We really appreciate your help, Johnny. Is there any way we can repay you?

Johnny the Canuck: Well, I always wanted to see a man with the I.Q. of a child executed by the state. We don’t get that up here.

/SimpsonsFilter

Bangladesh, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and the United States

The Coalition of the Killing

/BadPunFilter

Still, that's an elite group: a thuggish failing parliamentary democracy, a Muslim theocracy, an occupied client state, two military dictatorships, two more Muslim theocracies, and "the last, best hope for mankind." No wonder Scalia and his allies are so reluctant to leave it.
posted by gompa at 11:59 AM on March 1, 2005

spock makes an excellent point. Gangsters from the Gotti/Soprano-type to Bloods and Crips enforce their own Death Penalty, and they are so effective at keeping their neighborhoods safe for the innocents...
THAT'S SARCASM PEOPLE!
posted by wendell at 12:20 PM on March 1, 2005

jonmc, thanks for the interpretation, you got pretty much what I was trying to say. It is a slippery slope and the ethical morass is deep and thick indeed, but that certainly doesn't mean that we can't explore it and try to find the most equitable resolution to the problem. For some that's abolishing the death penalty, for others its fixing the system that makes it more economically viable to keep a person on death row for forty years rather than kill them. Arguments against the death penalty from a financial standpoint fail, I think, because the system can be made to work better, the problems and expense can be fixed out of it.

Omiewise, I think my simplified argument for the death penalty is two fold. One, the criminal's capacity to kill is permanently removed by execution. Two, some measure of retribution for the life they took is repaid by forfeiting their own life.

Its obviously far from that simple but those are the two main reasons I support the death penalty. Payback and removing their ability to commit those crimes again.

Can lifelong incarceration achieve the same thing? Yes but I don't think it can to the same degree. Life without parole says to me that this person, who ended another person's life, is allowed to live out their days with shelter, food and medical care. No, its not a good deal but that aspect always bothered me. They ended a life prematurely, now they get to spend the rest of theirs staring out from behind some prison bars? They get to live out their life after taking someone else's. The two sides of the equation don't add up for me.

And that's where the retribution comes in. I don't see a life imprisonment as retribution, I see it as putting something away until it dies on its own. I see that as giving them something that they not only don't deserve but have specifically gone out of their way to not deserve by killing another person.

Sorry for the length of this comment and if I left any thoughts dangling. Its a heady issue and won't be solved here. For what its worth, I think this was a good ruling as I don't think its rationally justifible to execute children for capital crimes. Same thing for people with diminished capacities.
posted by fenriq at 12:39 PM on March 1, 2005

There's really no connection between abolishing the DP for competent adults and for the other classes of people. The more likely argument for abolishing the DP is a due process or equal protection argument: that whites get executed less (I don't think that's true--is it?); or that the criminal justice system(s) are too flawed to administer penalties that can't be modified.

And gompa: F you very much.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:39 PM on March 1, 2005

I would have sided with the minority, because, e.g., a 17 year-old mass murderer, or terrorist certainly deserves to die as much as an 18 year-old. Will I lose sleep over this? No. (I lose more sleep over the fact that a 30 or 40 year-old terrorist in Europe won't be allowed to fry.)
posted by ParisParamus at 12:52 PM on March 1, 2005

Just remember that retribution is just revenge dressed up in fancy language. Quite unchristian.
posted by caddis at 2:05 PM on March 1, 2005

One of the most glaring hypocrisies of our day is conservative's inability or unwillingness to link their pro-life/anti-abortion stance with one that is also pro-life/anti-death penalty.

The reversal of this - liberals pro-choice but anti-death penalty stance - is only slightly less hypocritical than that of the right's.

The two sides understand the importance of "life" differently. Liberals consider life as defined by consciousness, essentially, and so a fetus is not living in a meaningful way, as it doesn't yet have a sense of self. Animals are in a murky in-between area; some people feel they should also be protected, while others don't (but animals certainly have more consciousness than fetuses).

Conservatives measure life more as a thing given by god, and deserved or not according to innocence, rather than experience. That is, fetuses are alive, have a heartbeat (whether they scientifically experience anything yet isn't really the point), and so deserve to continue to be alive. Criminals essentially negate their right to life when they commit a horrific crime.

kant suggested that people who commit terrible crimes but are essentially good (rehabilitatable) would want to be killed anyway, because if they were truly rehabilitated, they wouldn't be able to live with themselves having committed such atrocities. In that case, it would be crueler to force them to live with what they've done than to relieve them of life and close the story honorably, so to speak. He suggested that life without prison as the catch-all answer unfairly makes things better for the unrepentant and worse for the repentant, and that death evens this out, being worse for the unrepentant but better for the repentant (I don't fully agree, but I think it's a good point anyway).

My opposition to the death penalty is based around our fallibility in application more than anything. Although, there is also something discomfiting about the way it seems to make the murderer into a martyr and even a sort of hero, rather than just 'damaged goods'...
posted by mdn at 2:14 PM on March 1, 2005

Scalia thinks it's important that juveniles could've been executed at the founding. That's an interesting guideline, given that "offenses such as striking one's mother or father, or denying the "true God," were punishable by death." Other death eligible crimes included stealing grapes, killing chickens, trading with Indians, and (for gentiles) marrying a Jew.

Pretty_Generic - I think you're right - the Court is saying that now as a society we finally recognize that executing juveniles is both cruel AND unusual.
posted by Amizu at 2:39 PM on March 1, 2005

The fifth amendment to the constitution reads in part: "no person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Conversely then, with due process, a person may be deprived of life. However you feel about the death penalty (I tend to be against on 100% certainty grounds, though I reserve the right to change my mind if anyone touches my daughter), that looks pretty unequivocal to me.

So what am I missing?

(Pardonyou?, your comment that "The death penalty was essentially prohibited in the United States from 1972 to 1976." Could you elaborate or provide links? Many thanks in advance.)
posted by IndigoJones at 3:12 PM on March 1, 2005

Nevertheless, what's the point of keeping someone incarcerated for 80 years at the law-abiding taxpayer's expense? Why should I pay to keep some demon-child alive? -eas98

I know this is late in the discussion, but . . .

What a disgusting callous person you are! That you can speak so disrespectfully of another human being's life is outrageous. Really. I mean, you really just asked what the POINT of NOT KILLING someone is. On top of that, you also turned it into a cost/benefit analysis. Jesus man, what the fuck is wrong with you?
posted by Boydrop at 3:18 PM on March 1, 2005

kant suggested that people who commit terrible crimes but are essentially good (rehabilitatable) would want to be killed anyway, because if they were truly rehabilitated, they wouldn't be able to live with themselves having committed such atrocities. [emphasis mine]

That's an awful big assumption. But the more pressing and practical issue is that those who have committed atrocities are kept away from society, for the greater good.
posted by jonmc at 3:18 PM on March 1, 2005

True in your second point amberglow but murder 1 is a premeditated and planned act of assignation. Self defence and burglary is third degree manslaughter. Almost never is a death penalty a result of third degree.
posted by Viomeda at 3:45 PM on March 1, 2005

IndigoJones:
The fifth amendment to the constitution reads in part: "no person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.["] Conversely then, with due process, a person may be deprived of life. However you feel about the death penalty... that looks pretty unequivocal to me. So what am I missing?

Um, the 8th Amendment? Or is that not what you were asking? This case wasn't brought on due process grounds.
posted by rkent at 3:52 PM on March 1, 2005

One of the most glaring hypocrisies of our day is conservative's inability or unwillingness to link their pro-life/anti-abortion stance with one that is also pro-life/anti-death penalty.

The reversal of this - liberals pro-choice but anti-death penalty stance - is only slightly less hypocritical than that of the right's.

So between the two parties there is a different way of the defining life. These definitions are based on moral opinions only not the scientific reality. In both cases, born or unborn the heartbeat, soul, and spark of life exist, moral parameters cannot take away this phenomena. I agree with the hypocrisy; this is a fare counter-issue
posted by Viomeda at 4:05 PM on March 1, 2005

with due process, a person may be deprived of life. However you feel about the death penalty... that looks pretty unequivocal to me. So what am I missing?

That there are endemic problems with the process by which we determine to deprive people of life? That, at least, seems to be the main issue with Illinois suspending capital punishment.
posted by LionIndex at 4:17 PM on March 1, 2005

So between the two parties there is a different way of the defining life.

I disagree. There isn't a disagreement over the definition of life, but over the relative value of different forms of life. Even the most ardent pro-choicer would agree that a fetus or embryo is alive, and would probably agree that it is human. The most ardent supporter of the death penalty would also agree that heinous criminals are alive, and that they are human. The debate is over the worth of these lifeforms.
posted by Doug at 4:18 PM on March 1, 2005

Canada - 489 murders, or 0.01 murders per 1000 people (in the year 2000); source; no death penalty.

USA - 12 658 murders, or 0.04 per 1000 people; source; death penalty in 39 states.

Hmm.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 4:27 PM on March 1, 2005

IndigoJones - The Supreme Court ruled in 1972 that the death penalty was an unconstitutional violation of the 8th Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Basically, the Court held in Furman v. Georgia, that states' sentencing procedures could result in unconstitutional sentences that were arbitrary, too severe, or offended society's notions of decency. States quickly responded by changing their capital sentencing laws to conform with what the Court suggested might be constitutional. Then in 1976, in Gregg v. Georgia, the Court said those variations were okay and reinstated the DP.

That's a rough history of our brief attempt to get rid of the death penalty in the US.
posted by Amizu at 4:31 PM on March 1, 2005

fenriq wrote: those are the two main reasons I support the death penalty. Payback and removing their ability to commit those crimes again. [. . .]

They ended a life prematurely, now they get to spend the rest of theirs staring out from behind some prison bars? They get to live out their life after taking someone else's. The two sides of the equation don't add up for me.

Re: payback: In societies in which capital punishment has been abolished, the thinking is that a legal system exists to punish wrongdoers, rehabilitate them if possible, and safeguard the public - not to extract vengeance. The US legal system mostly conforms to this approach, I think (robbery, for example, is not punished by cutting off the hands of the offender, nor is the offender obliged to provide compensation for the stolen goods) except for the anomaly of the death penalty.

Re: removing the ability to reoffend: Life imprisonment accomplishes this task just as effectively as execution.

The thinking behind removing the state's right to execute criminals is also that since no legal system is infallible, no punishment should be irreversible. If the state wrongfully imprisons someone, the person can at least be freed and compensated (see, for example, the famous Canadian case of David Milgaard). The state cannot, however, reincarnate someone it wrongfully executed.

PP wrote: And gompa: F you very much.

Zing!
posted by gompa at 4:38 PM on March 1, 2005

dirtynumbangelboy, correlation isn't causation, and those sky-high homicide numbers are probably why Americans clamor for the death penalty.

Not that that neccessarily makes sense either, but it's worth thinking about.
posted by jonmc at 4:38 PM on March 1, 2005

Of all the problems with the death penalty, one that hasn't been raised yet in this forum that I think needs to be addressed (especially in light of comments equating executions with "putting people to sleep") is the problem that lethal injection is incredibly painful.

The idea behind lethal injections was to put prisoners to death painlessly and without the aid of an MD (as the AMA forbids doctors to put a patient to death). However, the drug combination is very tricky and often, as it is usually given by prison wardens with a minimal medical training, given in the wrong proportions - often causing the procedure to last much longer, and thus the prisoner to suffer much longer, than necessary.

While I'm not a wide eyed idealist who thinks that the US will ever abolish the death penalty in my lifetime, I do think that if we're going to do it, we should at least do it in a way that is safe and humane. Everything I've read over the past year or so has indicated to me that there are many flaws with the lethal injection that need to be fixed if it is not to be a "cruel and unusual" punishment.

/end seriousness.

Also : If Justice Scalia insists that the 8th ammendment is to be considered only in light of how the world was in 1776, I want to bring back tarring and feathering. That'll deter some minor criminals.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 4:40 PM on March 1, 2005

One problem I have with the death penalty (among many) - people can be executed even if they don't commit murder. Felony-murder statutes, for example, make people eligible for the death penalty for participating in a felony where someone gets killed (by an accomplice, I think).
posted by Amizu at 4:40 PM on March 1, 2005

Even the most ardent pro-choicer would agree that a fetus or embryo is alive, and would probably agree that it is human.

No, this is demonstrably untrue; especially the first part.
posted by argybarg at 4:46 PM on March 1, 2005

Good point, grapefruitmoon. I think many people probably assume lethal injection is fairly painless. It's not. I had the recent unpleasant assignment of investigating botched executions and developing facts for a challenge to lethal injection as cruel and unusual punishment. I think anyone who reads about lethal injection should be able to agree it's incredibly painful, and I think it might be ruled unconstitutional if such a ruling wouldn't mean that the DP was unconstitutional in this country again.

Personally, I don't particularly care how painful the execution method is - I think the whole thing is repulsive, but don't have much sympathy for murderers. If we're going to kill them, I don't much care how we do it. I don't necessarily think it's unconstitutional, though, unfortunately. It's the cruel AND unusual that gets us into trouble. The DP is clearly cruel (I think), but it's not yet clearly unusual (at least in this country). I suppose the same goes for lethal injection in particular - cruel but not unusual.
posted by Amizu at 4:57 PM on March 1, 2005

jonmc: dirtynumbangelboy, correlation isn't causation, and those sky-high homicide numbers are probably why Americans clamor for the death penalty.

Oh no, I wasn't saying that there was any causation. I was pointing out that in a nation that hasn't put anyone to death since 1962, the per capita rate of homicide is lower, rather neatly taking all steam out of the DP-as-deterrent argument.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 4:59 PM on March 1, 2005

I was pointing out that in a nation that hasn't put anyone to death since 1962, the per capita rate of homicide is lower, rather neatly taking all steam out of the DP-as-deterrent argument.

Deterrence was never really the main argument, truthfully. Most people see it as retribution and revenge. The question is whether you have a problem with that. Something like 75% of Americans don't.
posted by jonmc at 5:02 PM on March 1, 2005

You are right Doug, worth is at question. However, the act of putting something (one) to death is the same in both accounts. No matter the worth, does abortion and the death penalty still bring us to the level of the criminals as in, we inflict the end of a life or seek revenge by ending a life? I really question this myself.
posted by Viomeda at 5:05 PM on March 1, 2005

Grapefruitmoon and Amizu ummmm maybe ahhh ok but not likely. I'm going to rely on my experience here and not just everything I read. As a vet's ass. for a year we put down several horses, dogs and even a cow, out in dirty fields, sometimes in the snow. The tranquilizer always hits first, giving a nice deep restful sleep. The sodium penathol comes in after the victim is numbed and unconscious. Unlike a vets, the instruments on a criminal are programmed and timed (Dead Man Walking). I'm sure the 1 or 2 mistakes documented were not intentional and unfortunate.

I believe in Utah the prisoner still has the option to receive a line-up firing squad. Thank you but I would choose the injection even if they stumble the IV.
posted by Viomeda at 5:35 PM on March 1, 2005

Thank you, Amizu, that's what I was looking for. And thank you rkent, re: the eighth amendment, and Lionindex for your observation that there are endemic problems with the process by which we determine to deprive people of life

I agree. But I tend to be literal minded, even flatfooted when rules and regs are concerned. They either mean what they say, or they do not. Clearly execution was not considered either cruel or unusual at the time the constitution was written. If it is both of those things now, then it is up to us, society, to get the constitution amended.

The more people in power fiddle with laws that seem clear to the man in the street, the more nervous I get.

Raise your hand everyone who saw A Man For All Seasons

(I also realize that, this being the law, there is much of what I said this is way over simplified, but who has time to read long responses? And isn't the complexity part of the problem? There is a case to be made for Code Napoleon.... )
posted by IndigoJones at 5:36 PM on March 1, 2005

Mistakes are always bound to happen but injection is as humane and painless as you get. Maybe prison doctors should go to vet school.
posted by Viomeda at 5:44 PM on March 1, 2005

They're not doctors... doctors are forbidden by the AMA to put anyone to death.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 5:53 PM on March 1, 2005

Trained prison wards then, pardon.
posted by Viomeda at 5:57 PM on March 1, 2005

Viomedia : Suit yourself. However, we're not talking "one or two mistakes." We're talking a system that while effective in causing death, is ineffective in doing so painlessly. The system used for euthanizing animals is much less painful and much more effective than what we've got going for people. The idea that prison wardens should go to vet school may have been intended humorously, but it's not a bad idea.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 6:06 PM on March 1, 2005

Fare enough, I dunno. I can't believe for the first time in history animals get the superior treatment over humans, wow! There is no perfect system but I want to believe that humans still attempt to approximate it the best they can. Really, I remain uncertain and this conclusion has grown tiresome.

Thanks for the lively conversation and info.
posted by Viomeda at 6:23 PM on March 1, 2005

I was pointing out that in a nation that hasn't put anyone to death since 1962, the per capita rate of homicide is lower

Did the homicide rate in Canada go down after 1962? Anyone?
posted by IndigoJones at 6:30 PM on March 1, 2005

The removal of capital punishment from the Canadian Criminal Code in 1976 has not led to an increase in the murder rate in Canada. In fact, Statistics Canada reports that the murder rate for 2003 was the lowest since 1967 at 1.73 murders for every 100,000 population.

The total number of murders in Canada in 2003 was 548, 34 fewer than in 2002.

Dammit... StatsCan has the data I want, but wants to be paid for it. this is where you want to go to get the info, if you wish to pay.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 6:48 PM on March 1, 2005

Ah..

Contrary to predictions by death penalty supporters, the homicide
rate in Canada did not increase after abolition in 1976. In fact, the
Canadian murder rate declined slightly the following year (from 2.8
per 100,000 to 2.7). Over the next 20 years the homicide rated
fluctuated (between 2.2 and 2.8 per 100,000), but the general trend
was clearly downwards. It reached a 30-year low in 1995 (1.98)
--the fourth consecutive year-to-year decrease and a full one-third
lower than in the year before abolition. In 1998, the homicide rate
dipped below 1.9 per 100,000, the lowest rate since the 1960s.

Bear in mind, of course, the year to look at is not 1962, it's 1976, which is when the death penalty was actually abolished.

This page may also be useful, particularly the graph halfway down the page.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 6:52 PM on March 1, 2005

Indigo Jones, a simple google search will show you that in fact it went up since 1962 (the year you asked about). However, it seems to follow the homicide rate in the United States quite closely. (second link PDF). I don't think that this is evidence of any correlation of the Death Penalty and deterrence.
posted by Eekacat at 7:12 PM on March 1, 2005

Except as I pointed out, Eekacat, 1962 is actually a red herring (which, admittedly, was my initial mistake). 1976 is the year that the death penalty was abolished; 1962 simply happened to be the last year in which an execution took place.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 7:49 PM on March 1, 2005

gompa, I'm well aware of what the state's view on capital punishment should be and is, I was speaking for my own personal beliefs.

Even further, I don't really care for the idea that some one who tortured people until they died getting "off" with a quick and painless death, it seems wrong. Less wrong than letting them sit behind some bars for the rest of their natural life but wrong nonetheless.

Its a good thing I'm not a government though, I know that.
posted by fenriq at 8:44 PM on March 1, 2005

Hrm. A little late, but here's my take:

1) The decision itself is probably good, I think. Some people are too young for the death penalty. Life in prison is probably just as good for them. As long as they're out of society, fine. But I don't think that's the real issue at all here.

2) This really worries me. Now, not only does the supreme court get to decide elections, but they get to decide "national consensus" on "evolving standards of decency?" Why don't we just throw in the towel and switch over to oligarchy? These guys already seem to have the executive and legislative branches in the bag.

This whole thing should've been resolved in Congress. That's where we do "national consensus" on this type of thing. This is not a constitutional issue, and it's becoming clear that the supreme court just doesn't care, and will run the government how they want to. Scalia's rage is justified, if somewhat misplaced. What's to prevent these guys' "evolving standards of decency" from deciding tomorrow that we should have George W. be president for four more years? Or that the death penalty should be mandatory for juvenile murderers? You guys do realize they have that power now, right?

Furthermore, the laws of other countries have nothing to do with ours. The supreme court is supposed to make judgements based on our constitution and laws, in hand with a notion of justice; the whole world can be wrong just as much as they can be right, and if they're right on this issue, I guarantee you they'll be wrong tomorrow.
posted by koeselitz at 8:35 AM on March 2, 2005

koeselitz, they always had the power to do what they did yesterday. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to check, if necessary, the actions of the President and Congress. They were asked a very specific question -- does a legal ruling that calls for the execution of a minor violate the 8th and 14th amendments? Is it "cruel and unusual." They found that yes, it is cruel and unusual and therfore prohibited by the Constitution.

In your hypothetical, the Supreme Court could not decide to keep GW Bush in power unless a law was passed making it so and someone challenged that law in court. So, no, they do nothing by simple fiat. Same goes for mandatory execution.

Sometimes they get it wrong. This time, they were right.

Justice Stevens' short concurrence makes it clear that thus has it always been.
posted by Cassford at 9:31 AM on March 2, 2005

Cassford: like I said, I'm pretty sure I agree with the ruling. But I admit I don't know much about this stuff: most of the justification behind Kennedy's majority opinion bothered me, and I'm having a hard time seeing if my feeling is justified.

Am I wrong to think that this "evolving standards of decency" thing is a sort of ridiculous thing to base judicial right on? That such standards pretty much nullify the whole notion of precedent? And isn't it just a little weird to compare the US with a dozen other countries in a ruling?

I don't suppose it matters, I guess. I can't imagine that the court will still believe in "evolving standards of decency" in fifty years; they'll have evolved beyond that.
posted by koeselitz at 10:08 AM on March 2, 2005

i think, tho i'm no expert, that the Supreme Court has always used "standards of decency" in their rulings for good and ill--whether it's interracial marriage, sodomy, pornography, civil rights, worker protection, etc. They're not outside of time or this era, altho Scalia would prefer to be.
posted by amberglow at 11:09 AM on March 2, 2005

Cassford -- please identify a person who was set free as wrongly convicted who would not have been set free under AEDPA? Thanks.
posted by esquire at 1:55 PM on March 2, 2005

Grapefruitmoon -- you think the system is effective in putting people to death? How do you measure efficiency? Presumably, not by the ratio of persons sentenced to death over persons executed.
posted by esquire at 2:11 PM on March 2, 2005

There are four main goals of punishment in the penal system: rehabilitation, specific deterrence, general deterrence and retribution. Specific and general deterrence differ in that the former deters that particular defender from committing more bad acts and the latter deters similarly situated potential bad actors from committing bad acts. For instance, someone in jail is specifically deterred (prevented?) from committing crimes while in jail. Someone seeing the perp get hard time is generally deterred from committing a similar offense by being afraid of similar consequences to themselves. Retribution is just, well, revenge.

For something like premeditated murder we pretty much toss rehabilitation out the window; the options are life in jail (or a really long sentence) and the death penalty. From a specific deterrence point of view, either life in jail or the death penalty will prevent future crimes by the perpetrator. From a general deterrence point of view, both life in prison and the death penalty are pretty extreme. Perhaps the death penalty provides a smidgen more deterrence, but I doubt it. Either way, your life is over. That leaves only retribution - REVENGE. Really, the only reason for the death penalty, especially given the economics of the whole mess, is retribution. It is the one factor that makes the penalty compelling for many people. When you boil it down to revenge, it makes the whole act of putting criminals to death contrary to the teachings of Jesus. He taught us to forgive, turn the other cheek, and not to take revenge. "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive others who trespass against us." Funny, how the biggest death penalty proponents tend to be Christian fundamentalists. What a bunch of hypocrites. Worse, since they never ask forgiveness for this sin, they may as well give up on the notion of going to Heaven, at least in their view of how this all works. So that is it, Christian fundy supports death penalty, rots in Hell.
posted by caddis at 6:30 PM on March 2, 2005