I was a very strong supporter of the death penalty many years ago. I am no longer convinced the death penalty is appropriate in most "death penalty cases". Having had a few experiences with prosecutors and cops, I don't trust them to comply with Brady requirements.
Also don't trust that judges will allow certain defenses such as alternative suspect arguments and refusing to suppress evidence that shouldn't be suppressed.
Another big problem for me is the judicially created whole refusal to reconsider obvious problems with problem convictions because of the whole lending of a strong preference to "finality of a conviction". That is total bullshit. If there is strong evidence the convicted person didn't or couldn't have committed the crime, appellate courts should be quick to grant new trials no matter how long ago the case finished appeals. How is that justice? Judges and prosecutors are all to willing to allow an innocent person waste away in prison just to save themselves embarrassment of admitting they and the jury got it wrong.
What do you think?
I will answer your question this way...before I became a prosecutor,( which was before I later became a death penalty defense attorney)...I believed every murder deserved the death penalty. After a few years prosecuting cases, I pivoted in my opinion and settled on this position. Before I would pursue a death penalty, I had to answer two questions. If either was present, I would pursue the death penalty. The first question was...”was the crime so heinous as to shock one’s conscious, that any reasonable person would think the DP was warranted. The second question was...could the murder have happened to any citizen in similar circumstances? If either was a yes, I went for the DP. Now, this pretty much ruled out drug murders, gang murders, etc. Honestly, those were hard to convince a jury to impose death. Jurors looked at those cases and said...”the victim had it coming” or “It wouldn’t happen if the victim hadn’t been engaged in bad behavior” etc. But if it was like a case we had where a guy walked into a flower shop on Main Street in our town and robbed the place and made all the employees and one customer lay on the floor then he shot each in the head execution style...well that could have been anyone. And that one shocked the conscious. Or one where a pizza delivery guy was gunned down just doing his job. That could have been anyone. Now obviously there has to be evidence to support all this...but I was very careful to ensure that everything was disclosed and that my convictions were good.
I believe that in todays day and age, with the advances in science, we need to be for sure that we get the right guy. As we all know, there are no “do-overs” once we kill the guy. A good example is the case of Cameron Todd Willingham. I had prosecuted him at one time in our state, then he moved to Texas. Now, he was a turd, no question, but he was most likely wrongfully convicted and executed. In fact, it has been pretty convincingly established that he was not guilty, but it was too late...he had already been executed. The prosecutor was disbarred and may have been prosecuted himself (that I cannot remember). But Cameron Todd Willingham is the post child for doing away with the death penalty. Just google that case and read some about it. It will blow your mind. It is disgraceful.
With that said...I still support the DP (in theory) in limited circumstances. My biggest problem is that the rationale for the DP is mostly flawed. As a deterrent...that is bogus. I have represented over 50 people charged with murder in my career. I can tell you to a man and woman...none of them ever thought about that issue. Because out of those 50 or so, only 4-5 were planned, thought out murders. The rest were “spur of the moment” killings. Those folks Never gave it a thought. The second argument is...it saves money. That too is bogus. With the system we have where a DP defendant has so many appeals...by the time we get to the point of executing them, we have spent several million dollars handling the case. Whereas the cost of incarcerating them for 30-50 years is less than half the cost. The other argument is it gives the family of the victim “closure.” This too is crap. I accompanied a man to the execution of the guy that murdered the man’s wife. Te appeals took about 20 years. After the execution, I was with the husband at the press conference and a reporter asked him...”now that X is dead, do you finally have closure?’ The husband, with tears in his eyes said “No, I’m still going home to an empty house.” So that is crap. The only reason for the DP is “a pound of flesh.” Retaliation.
I do think to more fully answer your question is...appeals courts are more willing than ever to reconsider problems in cases. This Peterson case is a prime example. Now as to the length of time it takes to get to that point...I can only say...it is what it is. These cases take a lot of time. The bigger the case, the longer it takes. And...sometimes appellate counsel does not do a good job.
Finally, I would say...I believe we are moving in the direction of very few, or no death penalty sentences in the very near future. People are just losing interest. It takes too long. There is no real connection to the crime and the imposition of the sentence anymore.