Death Took A Holiday ...
... but the vacation is over.
Last week, Ruth commented on the Supreme Court decision which held the Kentucky cocktail for execution was not cruel and unusual punishment. She predicted that her home state would greet the decision with an uptick in executions:
The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday ruled that the state of Kentucky could administer a three-drug cocktail which has proved to be painful in some cases, to cause death for the condemned. In Texas, where many executions have been on hold, this makes many convicted prisoners closer to death.
Like Ruth, I find the death penalty both barbaric and execrable. My objections (and I suspect Ruth's) are based in ethics and morality. For the state to take a life as a punitive reaction is about as sensible as a mother slapping one child for slapping another and saying, "Stop that! Hitting is bad." Unfortunately, we are in the minority, or, more likely, in the unenviable position of being among the powerless right now.
That's why this op-ed column by Rudolph J. Gerber was so refreshing. Here's his CV as provided by the SacBee: "a former prosecutor, trial judge and a judge of the Arizona Court of Appeals for 13 years, [he] teaches at Arizona State University. He drafted Arizona's death penalty law." Not exactly your limp wristed DFH, eh?
What Mr. Gerber has done is provide a thoroughly grounded pragmatic approach to the issue and has concluded that maybe the death penalty is not such a useful idea and perhaps should be scrapped. I am, of course, not doing justice to Mr. Gerber's argument, but short of simply reproducing the entire column (or, heaven forfend, just providing a link and urging you to march on over), that's the best summation I can give.
Perhaps combining the ethical with the practical may be the best approach in these bottom line days. Here's some of Mr. Gerber's argument:
According to a recent report, in a state with more than 660 men and women on death row, California spends an estimated $117 million per year on death penalty cases that are in the judicial review process and at least $20 million annually on capital trials. On average, California carries out one execution every other year. In Georgia, the death penalty has drained the public defender system dry. One capital case can bankrupt a county, and the chances of execution for even those who are sentenced to death remain low. The average time between sentencing and execution is more than 10 years, and in many states such as California it takes much longer. And because of the exposure of glaring mistakes in the past, there is little prospect that the death penalty will become swifter or cheaper in the foreseeable future. ...
The halt in executions does demonstrate that the death penalty is not essential to our society. Many people are probably unaware, as its absence has no effect on people's daily lives, that the death penalty has been on hold since September.
The cases, however, are stacking up. At some point, executions may resume in greater numbers than we have been used to. This present period of quiet could be used to reflect on whether the death penalty is doing us any good.
Only 10 states had executions in 2007. The overwhelming number of executions carried out occurred in just one state – Texas. Are the residents of those states with no executions any less safe than the inhabitants of the few states in which executions occurred?
Several states, including New Jersey, New York, and California have either done away with the death penalty or are revisiting the statutes because of the costs attendant to the appeals accorded the defendants. Individual counties have to provide the costs of the captial trials and appeals and that money just isn't there anymore. Without that kind of assistance, poor defendants are deprived of due process, and, even with this Supreme Court, that just isn't going to fly constitutionally.
Given the costs attendant to a penalty which more often that not ultimately results in the alternative penatly, life without parole, the death penalty just does not make sense on all sorts of grounds. As Mr. Gerber points out, now is the perfect time to consider that:
...The death penalty is overdue for examination as a public policy – its burdens and alleged benefits should be fairly weighed. For many years, we have only considered the death penalty in theory – whether it might be appropriate for the most horrible crime. But the death penalty in practice is what needs to be examined....
Hopefully reasonable people will do just that.
Last week, Ruth commented on the Supreme Court decision which held the Kentucky cocktail for execution was not cruel and unusual punishment. She predicted that her home state would greet the decision with an uptick in executions:
The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday ruled that the state of Kentucky could administer a three-drug cocktail which has proved to be painful in some cases, to cause death for the condemned. In Texas, where many executions have been on hold, this makes many convicted prisoners closer to death.
Like Ruth, I find the death penalty both barbaric and execrable. My objections (and I suspect Ruth's) are based in ethics and morality. For the state to take a life as a punitive reaction is about as sensible as a mother slapping one child for slapping another and saying, "Stop that! Hitting is bad." Unfortunately, we are in the minority, or, more likely, in the unenviable position of being among the powerless right now.
That's why this op-ed column by Rudolph J. Gerber was so refreshing. Here's his CV as provided by the SacBee: "a former prosecutor, trial judge and a judge of the Arizona Court of Appeals for 13 years, [he] teaches at Arizona State University. He drafted Arizona's death penalty law." Not exactly your limp wristed DFH, eh?
What Mr. Gerber has done is provide a thoroughly grounded pragmatic approach to the issue and has concluded that maybe the death penalty is not such a useful idea and perhaps should be scrapped. I am, of course, not doing justice to Mr. Gerber's argument, but short of simply reproducing the entire column (or, heaven forfend, just providing a link and urging you to march on over), that's the best summation I can give.
Perhaps combining the ethical with the practical may be the best approach in these bottom line days. Here's some of Mr. Gerber's argument:
According to a recent report, in a state with more than 660 men and women on death row, California spends an estimated $117 million per year on death penalty cases that are in the judicial review process and at least $20 million annually on capital trials. On average, California carries out one execution every other year. In Georgia, the death penalty has drained the public defender system dry. One capital case can bankrupt a county, and the chances of execution for even those who are sentenced to death remain low. The average time between sentencing and execution is more than 10 years, and in many states such as California it takes much longer. And because of the exposure of glaring mistakes in the past, there is little prospect that the death penalty will become swifter or cheaper in the foreseeable future. ...
The halt in executions does demonstrate that the death penalty is not essential to our society. Many people are probably unaware, as its absence has no effect on people's daily lives, that the death penalty has been on hold since September.
The cases, however, are stacking up. At some point, executions may resume in greater numbers than we have been used to. This present period of quiet could be used to reflect on whether the death penalty is doing us any good.
Only 10 states had executions in 2007. The overwhelming number of executions carried out occurred in just one state – Texas. Are the residents of those states with no executions any less safe than the inhabitants of the few states in which executions occurred?
Several states, including New Jersey, New York, and California have either done away with the death penalty or are revisiting the statutes because of the costs attendant to the appeals accorded the defendants. Individual counties have to provide the costs of the captial trials and appeals and that money just isn't there anymore. Without that kind of assistance, poor defendants are deprived of due process, and, even with this Supreme Court, that just isn't going to fly constitutionally.
Given the costs attendant to a penalty which more often that not ultimately results in the alternative penatly, life without parole, the death penalty just does not make sense on all sorts of grounds. As Mr. Gerber points out, now is the perfect time to consider that:
...The death penalty is overdue for examination as a public policy – its burdens and alleged benefits should be fairly weighed. For many years, we have only considered the death penalty in theory – whether it might be appropriate for the most horrible crime. But the death penalty in practice is what needs to be examined....
Hopefully reasonable people will do just that.
Labels: Capital Punishment
posted by Diane at 3:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home