Second, the death penalty as it's currently applied in the United States is largely arbitrary. In other words, there often appears to be no particular rhyme or reason to why certain people are executed and others are not.
To the extent that there IS a rhyme or reason, however, this brings us to point #3 (and this one's "deadly" to the death penalty in my opinion): "Even though blacks and whites are murder victims in nearly equal numbers of crimes, 80% of people executed since the death penalty was reinstated have been executed for murders involving white victims." In addition, "More than 20% of black defendants who have been executed were convicted by all-white juries." I've got major problems with this state of affairs.
Fourth, it's far more likely you'll be executed if you're poor than if you're relatively well-to-do. According to the Death Penalty Information Center:
Perhaps the most important factor in determing whether a defendant will receive the death penalty is the quality of the representation he or she is provided. Almost all defendants in capital cases cannot afford their own attorneys. In many cases, the appointed attorneys are overworked, underpaid, or lacking the trial experience required for death penalty cases. There have even been instances in which lawyers appointed to a death case were so inexperienced that they were completely unprepared for the sentencing phase of the trial. Other appointed attorneys have slept through parts of the trial, or arrived at the court under the influence of alcohol.
That's obviously not acceptable either.
Fifth, there's the issue of deterrence, or more likely lack thereof:
In an article in the Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, Dr. Jeffrey Fagan of Columbia University describes numerous serious errors in recent deterrence studies, including improper statistical analyses and missing data and variables that are necessary to give a full picture of the criminal justice system. Fagan writes, "There is no reliable, scientifically sound evidence that [shows that executions] can exert a deterrent effect.... These flaws and omissions in a body of scientific evidence render it unreliable as a basis for law or policy that generate life-and-death decisions.
Finally, there are serious questions about the method of execution, lethal injection using a three-drug combination, currently used in many states (including Virginia). The risk is that "prisoners might not be fully anesthetized before they are given drugs that can cause excruciating pain." That could constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" under our constitution. Although the Scalia/Thomas/Robert/Alito Supreme Court recently upheld this method, "no majority opinion was reached; instead, seven separate justices wrote their own opinions, reflecting deep uncertainty and calling into question whether the decision will be viewed by lower courts as a true standard."
Anyway, with that background, why on earth is a governor who is a deeply religious Roman Catholic continuing to allow executions to proceed in Virginia? Yes, it's true that capital punishment is legal in Virginia, but it's also legal for the governor of the Commonwealth to intervene and halt an execution for any reason he or she wants. Again, that's not a specific set of reasons, it's ANY reason. And yes, the word "any" would include the possibility that said governor might consider the death penalty to be deeply, morally wrong.
Tim Kaine, of course, is - by his own description - a deeply religious Roman Catholic, a former Catholic missionary no less. And perhaps his deep Roman Catholic religious faith is the reason behind his moral objection to state funding of embryonic stem cell research, I don't know. As someone who strongly support embryonic stem cell research in order to cure diseases like Juvenile Diabetes, Alzheimers, Parkinson's, cancer and many others, I disagree vehemently with Gov. Kaine on this one, but at least I can (sort of) understand why he might have come to his (wildly incorrect) decision.
The problem is, Gov. Kaine's being highly inconsistent in opposing embryonic stem cell funding while approving of executions. Both are opposed by the Catholic Church. On the death penalty, Pope John Paul II in 1999 said called it "both cruel and unnecessary." And in a March 1995 encyclical, Pope John Paul II wrote, "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person."
Well, it just so happens that there IS such a "bloodless means." It's called "life imprisonment without the possibility of parole," and it's an option in just about every state in the country. Americans are deeply split on this issue, with a recent poll by Quinnipiac Univesrity indicating that 47% support the death penalty for convicted murderers, while 44% support life in prison with no chance of parole. But here in Virginia, apparently, it's "all systems go" on capital punishment, even with all its flaws, and even with a "deeply religious Roman Catholic" governor (who can commute death penalty sentences for ANY REASON HE WANTS), whose church strongly opposes the death penalty. Can anyone explain this? I'm baffled.
So why is it that the death penalty is so hugely popular with segments of the general population? And why is it more popular in some states than in others? Clearly this is not viewed as rehabilitative. It appears to not have much of a deterrent effect either as the public never really talks about this aspect.
It seems then that the public is simply seeking retribution. In the old days, there were instances where mobs would form and hang a suspect - sometimes even breaking into the jail to obtain access to the individual. That type of mob justice is no longer possible in our modern society, so people wishing this type of justice must get the state to do it for them.
I think there is also a religious element to this as well, but this is an area where I am not an expert in all of the different traditions and opinions.
I did find this though:
These are hopeful times for death penalty opponents. On Monday (Jan. 7), the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on whether death by lethal injection violates the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. New Jersey recently became the 14th state to ban executions. And Gallup Poll data show public support for the death penalty in murder cases has slipped from a high of 80 percent to 69 percent over the past 13 years.
But you did bring up many good arguments against the continued exercise of death penalty in this state and I think they deserve real public discussion. We should be using these points to push public opinion away from the use of the death penalty so that rather than asking one man to break a public promise to uphold existing laws on the matter, we can work to change the laws themselves. There's a really great Catholic organization of speakers on the topic of eliminating the death penalty--all of the speakers are parents, siblings or spouses of victims of violent capital crimes. I'll see if I can remember the name later today.
BTW, when did the General Assembly manage to get state funding for stem cell research into the budget? That's a tremendously surprising development for me, considering how they tried to strip funding from Planned Parenthood. Gives me new hope that maybe someday they'll bury the hatchet and find common ground on funding for roads, too.
But I support the death penalty, though in specific cases, such as the murder of police officers, children, first responders, terrorists, and serial killers. In my opinion those types of murderers deserve the death penalty.
It is true that many murderers are never caught. The same thing can be said for rapists, armed robbers, and burglers. Does that mean that it is wrong to imprison the one who are caught and convicted?
Your earlier comment about it being all about vengence is incorrect. There is a fine line between vengence and justice. The difference is that justice represents the collective need of society as a whole to feel secure in that anti-social, criminal behavior has been dealt with appropriately. That is why particularly heineous murderers are still executed even on those occasions when their victim's loved ones forgive them. It has nothing to do with avenging the death; it is all about serving the ends of justice.
BTW, the chart posted below by loboforestal is interesting. Notice that public approval of the death penalty began to decline in 1987. In 1989, Ted Bundy was executed in Florida. Shortly after that, public approval increased to its peak of 80% about 1994. Coincidence?
Honestly they're all convicted killers. I'm more concerned about those receive false convictions.
This is not a high school debating match.
Not sure what you're problem with me is, but leave me out of the beef you have with others, if you don't mind.
Isn't that the point?
I used to be strongly in favor of the Death Penalty. Now, not so much. And, I'm beginning to think it's a really bad idea completely.
....
I am quite puzzled by the Quinnipac Poll ( http://pollingreport.com/crime... ) link above.
I click on it and the numbers I see jive with recent Pew polls : ( "Do you favor or oppose the death penalty for persons convicted of murder?" 63% percent favor).
Allow me to describe the past three murders that warranted the death penalty.
First, a man in Mecklenburg County killed a 77 year old convenience store owner and robbed him of beer and cigarettes. He tied the elderly man up and used a pocket knife to cut around the man's neck until he was nearly decapitated. Investigators believe the victim died slowly from massive blood loss.
Second, a man in Newport News broke into an elderly neighbor's apartment and severely beat her, raped her, shoved her walking cane down her throat, and stabbed her. He lived in the apartment across the hall from where the murder took place for a year before being arrested. The victim was 79 years old.
Third, A man murdered his co-worker in a Danville motel while the victim was asleep. He used a brass lamp to bludgeon the sleeping man to death. This was all to steal his wallet to but crack. Worth noting for some on here, the murderer was white.
Folks, this is not an episode of Law & Order. These were real victims no different from anyone's grandparent.
These were not people killed in a dispute or by someone they knew.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that Virginia usually executes people who commit a murder in the commission of another felony. Again, it is not applied to killers who get into an altercation in the neighborhood. The circumstances of the crime are taken into account in death penaly cases.
Someone had mentioned that there is no public policy argument to support the death penalty. Well, the public supports the death penalty in Virginia therefore making it legitimate.
As a liberal, I think that Virginia ought to be proud of the fact that it punishes ruthless murderers so severely. The ideology of people in Connecticut should not be forced upon our state.