1,000 Down, 599,000 to Go: Why America Needs More Executions

Human Events Online ^ | 12/2/2005 | Amanda B. Carpenter

[Neville72]

Kenneth Boyd’s execution in North Carolina this week marked only the 1,000th time the death penalty has been used since the Supreme Court reinstated it in 1976.

But a simple comparison of the number of murders to the number of executions shows that the murderers are winning—by a long shot.

According to the Justice Department, 32,665 people were murdered in America in 2003 and 2004. In those same two years, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, 124 murderers were executed. That was 0.0037% executions per murder.

[randog]

I've always been a fan of the electric bleachers.

[onevoter]

And now we are supposed to take pity on the CRIPS founder. After all, he didn't just murder people in cold blood - he also writes children's books!

[Senator Goldwater]

1000 executions since 1977, and how many murders since?

We've got some serious catching up to do.

[Semper Paratus]

The man who organized the candle-light vigil for the recently deceased Kenny Boyd was interviewed on a Boston radio station yesterday.

He was asked who Boyd's victims were and he couldn't come up with anything better than "I guess, Mrs. Boyd". He also claimed innocent people have been executed but could not come up with one name when asked.

[brightforestway]

I no longer feel terribly good about the death penalty in America. They expected DNA studies to eliminate the prime suspect in felony cases in something like one or two percent of cases and it turned out to be more like 35%. That translates into some really huge number of people sitting around in prisons for stuff they don't know anything about since the prime suspect in a felony usually goes to prison.

In theory I could live with the death penalty in cases like Manson or that BTK killer easily enough, but the criteria would have to be different than for other kinds of crime. The two mandatory criteria would have to be (in theory):

1. Guilty beyond any doubt whatsoever.

2. Continuing danger to the public should the person ever get loose.

The problem is that you'd still have prosecutors and judges trying to claim some people were guilty beyond any doubt whatsoever when many would still have doubts, like that Sarah Johnson case in Idaho. You'd have to come up with some criteria which was totally ironclad and foolproof.

[somerville]

I had the same experience in May when the Connecticut ACLU was trying to stop the execution of serial killer Michael Ross. His first victim was my college roommate. I called up the acting president of the ACLU and asked her if she knew the name of my friend. She did not. I was left with the impression that his eight victims were just ciphers to her.

[MarkL]

I have developed mixed feelings over the years for the death penalty...

For example, there are plenty of murderers in jail who should NOT be continuing to use up MY air... People like Berkowitz and Manson... the list goes on and on. It's a travesty that some people like Gacy, Bundy, and Dahmer spent so long living in jail, although we owe someone a debt of gratitude for saving the public lots of money on the later...

On the other hand, I'm also a strong supporter of life in prison without the possibility of parole, if there's even the slightest possible doubt that the person did it. The thought that courts will not allow new evidence that might exonerate the convict horrifies me. There was actually a MO State attourney who said something along the lines of (paraphrased), "just because we know he's not guilty doesn't mean we shouldn't execute him. He did get a fair trial!" He didn't say it in those exact words, but he fought to keep the appeals court from allowing a new trial when he KNEW that the evidence cleared the man! Thankfully, the appeals court was sickened by that response, and ordered the new trial, which exonerated the man (who at one point had been less than 2 hours from the death chamber).

I actually support the commutation of that convicted murderer the other day, where they wanted to check the evidence, and it had been destroyed. I'm glad that the governor commuted the sentence to life without parole. On the other hand, from what I've read, there's no doubt that "Tookie" has committed multiple murders, and he should be put to death.

Simply put, if there's absolutely no doubt that the convict is guilty (and I mean NOT relying only on eye-witness accounts, which has been proven to me to be unreliable), then I'm OK with the death penalty, but if there's even the slightest doubt (past the "reasonable" mark) then the sentence should be life in prison. After all, "life without parole" is reverable if a mistake was made, while death isn't.

Mark

[Hardastarboard]

How many cases have we heard of lately that have been over-turned and the condemned man released because of DNA evidence?

I have no problem whatsoever with executing someone who is guilty of a heinous crime. I'll pull the handle. What I do have a problem with is State's Attorneys like Eliot Spitzer and Ronnie Earle who are only interested in conviction rates and how that affects their interest in higher office, and your guilt or innocence be damned.

As long as there are @$$holes like them out there (and I'm sure there are plenty of them, perhaps even the majority), the death penalty is a bad idea. To me, the death penalty is just another government program gone bad.

BTW, I love using that line when I'm arguing the death penalty with liberals. They're really trapped by it.

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

The standard of absolute certainty of guilt is an impossible one to achieve. Our court system would fail under that standard.

The jury makes its best collective judgment based upon the evidence of "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Those individuals selected for the jury are acting on behalf of us all. The criminal trial jury (usually of 12) must ALL agree to put someone to death.

To set as a goal avoiding all mistake of conviction is the wrong choice for a society to make. Will the innocent be put to death? Yes, some will. That is the risk we take to have a system of justice that is workable and has a fighting chance to punish the guilty.

Anyone who says there should be no death penalty if there is any doubt whatsoever of guilt is guaranteeing an unworkable system of justice.

[Vigilanteman]

Good post. Whenever any liberal tells me I have no respect for human life because I support the death penalty, I tell them that is the reason I support it-- because I respect and don't wish to cheapen the lives of the murder victims by giving the perp some token punishment.

One fairly balanced study estimated that every legal execution saved 5-6 murder victims. I suspect it would be even more were my tagline to become reality.

[somerville]

Also, it was driving my murdered friend's family crazy that her murderer Michael Ross was getting so much publicity and attention( and loving it, I might add)

As my friend's brother told the press right after Ross was executed: "At least we won't have to hear about people fussing about him anymore."

[hoosierham]

Who once said it is better that 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man hang? I know it was some person of importance to the beginnings of this nation.

I will have to say that I , too, believe execution should be carried out only if there is incontrovertible proof.Even by this high standard several times more executions could undoubtedly have been carried out since 1977.

I support the sentence of life without parole for the first conviction of premeditated murder,reserving the possibility of parole for those who killed in the heat of anger ,i.e. not premeditated. And those persons would permanently be monitored at some level..While incarcerated the prisoners should be required to engage in some form of productive labor but the prisons NOT allowed to be operated by any non-gov't entity or as a profit making enterprise by anyone.

I have been a juror in a criminal case, and what I saw was that most jurors deferred to the strongest personality ,made him(or her) foreman and were more anxious to get it over than in justice. The young members are and their opinions are brushed aside and pressured to conform.

There is no doubt that many people have been convicted more because of juror prejudice than clear evidence.What percentage this might be I do not know. This accounts in part for the defense attorney's juror shopping, which I believe only makes a bad situation worse. Our system needs reform so the juries are fully informed;perhaps every juror should first attend a full day of instruction on the duties,rights, responsibilities and history of the jury in America.

Judges should be required to advise the jury that the law is always on trial not just the question of did the defendant violate that specific law.

Any member of the law enforcement or legal profession should know that the consequences of hiding or planting any evidence or testimony will be permanent barring from law enforcement and legal profession in addition to criminal penalties.

Any system set up by human beings will have flaws and we ought to strive for improvement in justice.

[BohDaThone]

That was 0.0037% executions per murder.

Sorry, that's .37% executions per murder.

Or, it's .0037 per murder.

But not both. We've gotta get our own math straight, if we're going to give others their richly-deserved attacks (e.g. NYT recently said the arctic ice cap had shrunk to "200 million square miles" -- which would cover the entire earth!) (2 million is right)

[OldPossum]

I really wish we could bring back the gas chamber. Make the lowlifes suffer a bit before they die, not as much as most of their victims did but a bit.

[TheDon]

600 murders and 1 execution, and even comes decades late. We must do better. Execution of convicted murderers is the only way to prevent them from murdering again.

[DustyMoment]

I agree. We need to make the punishment swift and sure. If there is cause to believe that the convicted person might be innocent, we can always put the case on the back burner while we fry the ones about which there is no doubt.

We can't cut the murder rate by allowing convicted murderers to die of old age while waiting on a verdict to determine if their conviction should be overturned on appeal because their attorney had a toothache or ate peanut butter or something.