Those who support the death penalty often point to its retributive function, its finality and completeness, its strong deterring force. In light of humanity's most severe crimes - brutal counts of rape, homicide, and torture - the death penalty may seem to be the only tool society has to fully compensate for these immense injustices. However, in light of the immorality of the punishment itself, I argue that the practice should be abolished entirely.
It is intuitive to us what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes clear: punishment is "now acknowledged to be an inherently retributive practice." The entire institution of modern punishment is based off the idea that we are, by punishing, restoring some balance to the social order that is disturbed when a crime is committed. The "compensation" provided by capital punishment, however, does not actually provide the retribution society seeks; by taking a criminal's life, the government is not un-raping or un-killing a victim. Proponents of the death penalty may argue that the death penalty provides permanent separation between the perpetrator and society; others may say it takes away someone's life who doesn't deserve it. The first aim could be accomplished by sentencing someone to a life in prison, and the second aim, by claiming that some don't "deserve" life is to say that some people aren't human. Recall that every person has a core of individual rights, one of which is the right to life that cannot be violated, least of all by the government.
We must also consider the humanity of the process itself. As Linda Greenhouse of the NYT Online writes, 38 of 39 states with the death penalty use the lethal injection (Nebraska still uses the electric chair), which may not be as "safe" a procedure as one would expect. As Greenhouse writes, "Leading medical organizations have told their members not to participate, and lawyers for death-row inmates have produced evidence showing that in the absence of expert medical attention, there is a substantial risk of error in administering the combination of anesthesia and paralyzing drugs necessary to bring about a quick and painless death." Though I believe that taking another's life (even if the operant is the government) is inhumane in the first place, doing it in a matter that is painful (even if briefly) is not just.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Lethal Injection: Current Controversies Resolved
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info, below
updated 4/08
Several issues have come up with regard to lethal injection.
Generally, they are:
1) The murderer experiencing pain during execution;
2) The ethics of medical professionals participating in executions; and
3) Proper training of execution personnel.
1) PAIN AND LETHAL INJECTION
The evidence, including the immediate autopsy of executed serial murderer/rapist Michael Ross, supports that there is no pain within the lethal injection process.
There is a concern that some inmates may be conscious, but paralyzed, during execution, because one of the three drugs used may have worn off, prior to death.
There is rare evidence this may have occurred. There is a lot of speculation.
If properly administered, it cannot occur with the properties and amounts of the chemicals used and within the time frame of an execution.
An Associated Press reporter correctly stated that "there is little to support those claims except a few anecdotes of inmates gasping and convulsing and an article in the British medical journal Lancet." (AP, "Death penalty foes attack lethal-injection drug", 7/5/05)
The British Medical Journal, The Lancet, published an article critical of lethal injection (Volume 365, 4/16/05). A follow up article, by essential the same group of researchers, published a similar report in PLoS Medicine on 4/24/07.
The articles did not/could not identify one case where evidence existed than an inmate was conscious during execution.
The Lancet article identified 21 cases of execution where the level of "post mortem" (after death) sodium thiopental was below that used in surgery and, therefore, may suggest consciousness was possible.
A more accurate description would be all but impossible.
A "long after execution" post mortem measurement of sodium thiopental is very different from a moment of death measurement.
Dr. Lydia Conlay, chair of the department of anesthesiology, Baylor College of Medicine (Texas Medical Center, Houston) said the extrapolation of postmortem sodium thiopental levels in the blood to those at the time of execution is by no means a proven method. "I just don't think we can draw any conclusions from (the Lancet study) , one way or the other."
Actually, we can. The science is well known. Sodium thiopental is absorbed rapidly into the body. Long after execution blood testing of those levels means absolutely nothing with regard to the levels at the time of execution. Nothing.
The Lancet article did not dispute the obvious -- for executions, the sodium thiopental is administered in dosages roughly 10-20 times the amount necessary for sedation unconsciousness during surgical procedures.
Unconsciousness occurs within the first 30 seconds of the injection/execution process. The injection of the three drugs takes from 4-5 minutes. Death usually occurs within 6-7 minutes and is pronounced within 8-10 minutes.
The researchers also failed to note the much lower probability (impossibility?) that the murderer could be conscious, while all three drugs are coursing through the veins, concurrently.
Despite the Lancet article's presumptions and omissions, there is no scientific evidence that consciousness with pain has occurred with the amounts and methods of injecting those three chemicals within the execution period.
The AP article also stated that "They (death penalty opponents) also attack lethal injection by saying that the steps to complete it haven't been reviewed by medical professionals."
That is both deceptive and irrelevant.
The unchallenged reality is that medical professionals have both reviewed and implemented injection procedures for decades. The same procedures are used in executions. Criminal justice professionals have been trained in this application.
Does anyone not know this?
The chemicals used in lethal injection, as well as their individual and collective results, at the dosages used, are also well known by medical and pharmacology professionals.
Dr. A. Jay Chapman, the former Oklahoma Medical Examiner, who created the protocol, consulted a toxicologist and two anesthesiologists. He states the obvious " ' . . .it didn't actually require much research because the three chemicals - a painkiller, a muscle-paralyzing agent and a heart-stopper - are well-known to physicians.' 'It is anesthetizing someone for a surgical procedure, but simply carried to an extreme.' 'If it is competently administered, there will be no question about this business of pain and suffering.' "("Lethal Injection Father Defends Creation", Paul Ellias, Associated Press, 5/10/07)
Further, lethal injection is not a medical procedure, but the culmination of a judicial sentence carried out by criminal justice professionals, the result of which is intended as death, the outcome of every case.
The follow up research/article is "Lethal Injection for Execution: Chemical Asphyxiation?"(Public Library of Science (PLoS) Medicine, 4/24/07). Dr. Koniaris was an author in both this and the Lancet article.
The question mark from the title says it all.
From the Conclusion:
" . . . our findings suggest that current lethal injection protocols "MAY" not reliably effect death through the mechanisms intended, indicating a failure of design and implementation. "IF" thiopental and potassium chloride fail to cause anesthesia and cardiac arrest, potentially aware inmates "COULD" die through pancuronium-induced asphyxiation." (Underline, quote , caps and color change are mine, for emphasis)
In other words, the authors tell us they cannot prove this has ever happened. They are speculating.
In Belgium and the Netherlands, Pancuronium (the paralytic) is recommended in the protocol for euthanasia. After administering sodium thiopental to induce coma, Pancuronium is delivered in order to stop breathing.(1)
Exactly the first two drugs in lehtl injection.
Skip the speculation: Some Reality
From Hartford Courant, "Ross Autopsy Stirs Execution Debate----Results Cited To Counter Talk Of Pre-Death Pain", August 11, 2005
The below is a paraphrase of parts of that article, including some exact quotes.
Results of the autopsy done on serial killer Michael Ross are being cited by several prominent doctors to refute a highly publicized article that appeared in The Lancet, the British medical journal, in April, 2005.
Critics of the Lancet article say it does not account for postmortem redistribution of the anesthetic - thiopental. The redistribution, the critics say, accounts for the lower levels of thiopental on which Dr. Koniaris based his Lancet article conclusions that the levels of anesthetic were inadequate. The Ross autopsy results document this redistribution, bolstering the critics' assertions.
Dr. H. Wayne Carver II, Connecticut's chief medical examiner, was aware of the controversial Lancet article before performing the Ross autopsy. As a result, he took the additional step of drawing a sample of Ross's blood 20 minutes after he was pronounced dead at 2:25 a.m. May 13. Carver took a subsequent sample during the autopsy, which began about 7 hours later, at 9:40 a.m.
The 1st sample showed a concentration of 29.6 milligrams per liter of thiopental; the second sample showed a concentration of 9.4 milligrams per liter. The 1st sample was drawn from Ross' right femoral artery, and the second from his heart, which can account for some of the discrepancy. But Dr. Mark Heath, a New York anesthesiologist and one of the numerous doctors who have signed letters to The Lancet challenging the Koniaris article, said it clearly substantiates the postmortem redistribution of the thiopental.
Dr. Jonathan Groner, a pediatric surgeon from Ohio said he interviewed a number of forensic toxicologists before adopting the view that thiopental in a corpse leaves the blood and is absorbed by the fat, causing blood samples taken hours after death to be an unreliable marker of the levels of thiopental in the body at the time of death.
Groner described the Ross autopsy results as "a powerful refutation" of the Lancet-Koniaris study.
Dr. Ashraf Mozayani, a forensic toxicologist with the Harris County Medical Examiner's Office in Texas, said the level of thiopental "drops quite a bit" after death. Even in the living, Mozayani said, thiopental levels decline rapidly after administration of the drug. She cited one study in which a patient was administered 400 milligrams of thiopental intravenously. After two minutes the concentration in the blood was measured at 28 milligrams, but dropped to 3 milligrams concentration 19 minutes after the anesthetic was injected.
Mozayani said the declining concentration of thiopental cited in the Ross autopsy report "make sense."
On The Lancet article, she said, "I don't think they have the whole story - the postmortem redistribution and all the other things they have to consider for postmortem testing."
NOTE: I think they had and knew the whole story. They just didn't include it in their report(s).
The Veterinary sidetrack
Opponents of the death penalty, as well as other uninformed or deceptive sources, have been stating that even vets do not use the paralytic agent in the euthanasia of animals. This is a perversion of the veterinary position, which actually provides support, however unintended, for the human execution process.
Some fact checking is in order -- www(dot)avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf
NOTE: That said, it might easier to have only a one drug - an anesthetic - execution and I am not sure why it isn't being done, with the possible exceptions that I have read that it may result in 1) much longer execution time and 2) a deep coma, not death (1)
In April, 2008, The US Supreme Court found lethal injection constituional and not a violation of the 6th Amendment. The final vote was 7-2 in Baze v. Rees (07-5439).
2. THE MEDICAL/ETHICAL DILEMMA
Medical groups cite that there is an ethical conflict for participation in the lethal injection process, because medical professionals have a requirement to "do no harm".
Those ethical codes pertain to the medical profession, only, and to patients, only. Judicial execution is not part of the medical profession and death row inmates are not patients.
Doctors and nurses can be police and soldiers and can kill, when deemed appropriate, within those lines of duty and without violating the ethical codes of their medical profession. Similarly, medical professionals do not violate their codes of ethics, when acting as technical experts, for executions, in a criminal justice procedure.
Physicians are often part of double or triple blind studies where there is hope that the tested drugs may, someday, prove beneficial. The physicians and other researchers know that many patients, taking placebos or less effective drugs, will suffer more additional harm or death because they are not taking the subject drug or that the subject drug will actually harm or kill more patients than the placebo of other drugs used in the study.
Physicians knowingly harm individual patients, in direct contradiction to their "do no harm" oath.
For the greater good, those physicians sacrifice innocent, willing and brave patients. Of course, there have been medical experiments without consent and, even, today, they continue ("Critical Care Without Consent", Washington Post, May 27, 2007; Page A01).
The greater good is irrelevant, from an ethical standpoint, if "Do no harm" means "do no harm". Physicians knowingly make exceptions to their "do no harm" requirement, every day, within their profession, where that code actually does apply. And, they should. There are obvious moral and ethical nuances and we should consider and pay attention to them, as is done within the medical profession.
The "do no harm" has no ethical effect in a non medical context, because this ethical requirement is for medical treatments, only, and for patients, only.
The classic Hippocratic oath, primarly prohibits abortion and euthanasia, two practices commonly accepted by many physicians. Do you see medical groups doing everything they can to stop those two practices? Of course not. Medical groups simply pick and chose what they like, based upon their own personal preferences, not some iron clad ethical code - a code and oath which they simply discard whenever it is convienient. Is it now the Hypocrisy Oath?
There is no ethical connection between medicine and lethal injection. Therefore, there is no ethical prohibition for medical professionals to participate in executions.
To put it clearly: The execution of death row inmates is not equivalent or connected to the treatment of patients.
Is this a mystery?
The acknowledged anti death penalty editors of The Public Library of Science (PLoS) Medicine agree. They write:
"Execution by lethal injection, even if it uses tools of intensive care such as intravenous tubing and beeping heart monitors, has the same relationship to medicine that an executioner's axe has to surgery." ("Lethal Injection Is Not Humane", PLoS, 4/24/07).
The PLoS Medicine editors have made the same point many of us have been making - similar acts and similar equipment do not establish any equivalence or connection.
Obviously, execution is not a medical treatment, but a criminal justice sanction. The basis for medical treatment is to improve the plight of the patient, for which the medical profession provides obvious and daily exceptions. The basis for execution is to carry out a criminal justice sentence where death is the sanction.
Justice, deterrence, retribution, just punishments, upholding the social contract, saving innocent life, etc., are all recognized as aspects of the death penalty, all dealing with the greater good.
Are murderers on death row willing participants? Of course. They willingly committed the crime and, therefore, willingly exposed themselves to the social contract of that jurisdiction.
Lethal injection is not a medical procedure. It is a criminal justice sanction authorized by law. Therefore, there is no ethical conflict with medical codes of conduct and medical personal participating in executions.
Any participation in executions by medical professionals should be a matter for their own personal conscience. In fact, 20-40% of doctors surveyed would participate in the execution process.
A side note:
40,000 to 100,000 innocents die, every year, in the US because of medical misadventure or improper medical treatment. (2)
Do no harm? The doctor doth protest too much, methinks.
There is no proof of an innocent executed in the US since 1900.
3. PROPER TRAINING
In every state, there are hundreds or thousands of people trained for IV application of drugs or the taking of blood. Even many hard core drug addicts are proficient in IV application.
There are very few errors in lethal injections which can be attributed to personnel error. The simple fact is that, if necessary, non medical personnel can be properly trained to mix and administer the chemicals used in lethal injection. But, it isn't necessary.
It appears that some 500-1000 innocent patients die, every year, in the US, due to some type of medical misadventure, with anesthesia. (2)
I am unaware of evidence that shows criminal justice professionals are more likely to commit critical errors in the lethal injection process than are medical professionals in IV application.
Furthermore, even with errors in lethal injection, those cases resulted in the death of the inmate - the intended outcome for the guilty murderer.
In the errors of medical professionals, we are speaking of a large number of deaths and injuries to innocent patients - the opposite of the intended outcome.
1) The following is a Dutch protocol for parenteral (intravenous) administration to obtain euthanasia:
Intravenous administration is the most reliable and rapid way to accomplish euthanasia and therefore can be safely recommended. A coma is first induced by intravenous administration of 20 mg/kg sodium thiopental (Nesdonal) in a small volume (10 ml physiological saline). Then a triple intravenous dose of a non-depolarizing neuromuscular muscle relaxant is given, such as 20 mg pancuronium bromide (Pavulon) or 20 mg vecuronium bromide (Norcuron). The muscle relaxant should preferably be given intravenously, in order to ensure optimal availability. Only for pancuronium bromide (Pavulon) are there substantial indications that the agent may also be given intramuscularly in a dosage of 40 mg.
wweek.com/___ALL_OLD_HTML/euthanasics.html
2) "Deaths from Medical Misadventure"at
www(dot)wrongdiagnosis.com/m/medical_misadventure/deaths.htm
and
"Health Grades Quality Study: Patient Safety in American Hospitals, July 2004"
www.(dot)healthgrades.com/media/english/pdf/HG_Patient_Safety_Study_Final.pdf
originally written May, 2005. Updated as merited.
copyright 2005-2008 Dudley Sharp - Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS , VOA and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.
A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.
Twee-
Though I completely agree with you that life should be considered equally regardless of the crimes one may or may not have committed, I can see (though not necessarily completely agree with) the some people's (see: dudleysharp) justification for administering the death sentence. I think this idea of retribution is instinctive to us, going back into ancient texts (e.g. Code of Hammurabi), and cannot be so easily overwhelmed by the reasoning that the crime cannot be undone. It may seem carnal and cruel, but I cannot find fault with people allaying themselves via retribution, as I see it to be the most natural path to take. In fact, I believe if we (the general public) had absolute confidence in the judgment of our justices and were not part of a Christian-majority nation, society as a whole would probably be more receptive to the death penalty. If innocents are assured never to be killed, then the death penalty has some advantages- decreases the costs of upkeep for the prisoner and satiates our base desire for revenge. Not that I would advocate the practice, but that I highly doubt the idea will go away any time soon.
Tom, re: Christianity and the death penalty:
Christian Scholars: Support for the Death Penalty
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below
The strength of the biblical, theological and traditional support for the death penalty is, partially, revealed, below.
(1) Capital Punishment: New Testament Teaching", 1998, Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., considered one of the most prominent Roman Catholic theologians of the 20th century. See bottom.
http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Sacred_Scripture/Sacred_Scripture_014.htm
"There are certain moral norms that have always and everywhere been held by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Although never formally defined, they are irreversibly binding on the followers of Christ until the end of the world." "Such moral truths are the grave sinfulness of contraception and direct abortion. Such, too, is the Catholic doctrine which defends the imposition of the death penalty."
"Most of the Church's teaching, especially in the moral order, is infallible doctrine because it belongs to what we call her ordinary universal magisterium."
"Equally important is the Pope's (Pius XII) insistence that capital punishment is morally defensible in every age and culture of Christianity." " . . . the Church's teaching on 'the coercive power of legitimate human authority' is based on 'the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine.' It is wrong, therefore 'to say that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances.' On the contrary, they have 'a general and abiding validity.' (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1955, pp 81-2)."
about Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
http://www.mariancatechist.com/html/general/stjohnhardon.htm
http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/archives.htm
http://www.mariancatechist.com/html/general/fatherhardon.htm
http://www.saintphilomena.com/newpage4.htm
http://credo.stormloader.com/Saints/hardon.htm
(2) "The Death Penalty", by Romano Amerio, a faithful Catholic Vatican insider, scholar, professor at the Academy of Lugano, consultant to the Preparatory Commission of Vatican II, and a peritus (expert theologian) at the Council.
http://www.domid.blogspot.com/2007/05/amerio-on-capital-punishment.html
A thorough theological repudiation of Pope John Paul II's death penalty prudential judgements and of their improper inclusion into the amending of the Catechism.
"Amerio has the great gift of going to the heart of a subject in a few lines and very neatly distinguishes genuine Catholicism from imitations and aberrations." "What makes Amerio's analysis unique is that he restricts himself to official and semi-official pronouncements by popes, cardinals, bishops, episcopal conferences and articles in L'Osservatore Romano, from the time of Pope John XXIII to 1985 when the book was originally written." (1)
titled "Amerio on capital punishment ", Chapter XXVI, 187. The death penalty, from the book Iota Unum, May 25, 2007
About Romano Amerio
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/176565?eng=y
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2006/02/romano-amerio-and-pope-benedict.html
http://www.latin-mass-society.org/2007/romanoamerio.html
http://www.angeluspress.org/oscatalog/item/6700/iota-unum
(3) Christian Scholars & Saints: Support for the Death Penalty", at
http://www.homicidesurvivors.com/2006/10/12/catholic-and-other-christian-references-support-for-the-death-penalty.aspx
(4) "Capital Punishment: A Catholic Perspective",
by Br. Augustine (Emmanuel Valenza)
http://www.sspx.org/against_the_sound_bites/capital_punishment.htm
(5) "Capital Punishment: The Case for Justice", Prof. J. Budziszewski, First Things, August / September 2004 http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles4/BudziszewskiPunishment.shtml
(6) Chapter V:The Sanctity of Life, "Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics" By John Murray
http://books.google.com/books?id=phoqAAaGMpUC&pg=PA107&lpg=PA114&ots=mFvByHqGSy&dq=Murray+%22It+is+the+sanctity+of+human+life+that+underlies+the+sixth+commandment.%22&ie=ISO-8859-1&output=html&sig=ACfU3U1b0mdM3BfpNSXnhrwFYXaE_9Ij9A
(7) "Capital Punishment: What the Bible Says", Dr. Lloyd R. Bailey, Abingdon Press, 1987. The definitive biblical review of the death penalty.
(8) "Why I Support Capital Punishment", by Andrew Tallman
sections 7-11 biblical review, sections 1-6 secular review
http://andrewtallmanshowarticles.blogspot.com/search?q=Capital+punishment
(9) "The Death Penalty", by Solange Strong Hertz at
http://www.ourworld.compuserve.com/HOMEPAGES/REMNANT/death2.htm
(10) "A Seamless Garment In a Sinful World" by John R. Connery, S. J., America, 7/14/84, p 5-8).
(11) "God’s Justice and Ours" by US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, First Things, 5/2002
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2022
(12) Forgotten Truths: "Is The Church Against Abortion and The Death Penalty"
by Luiz Sergio Solimeo, Crusade Magazine, p14-16, May/June 2007
http://www.tfp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=957
(13) "The Purpose of Punishment (in the Catholic tradition)",
by R. Michael Dunningan, J.D., J.C.L., CHRISTIFIDELIS, Vol.21,No.4, sept 14, 2003
http://www.st-joseph-foundation.org/newsletter/lead.php?document=2003/21-4
(14) "MOST CATHOLICS OPPOSE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT?",
KARL KEATING'S E-LETTER, Catholic Answers, March 2, 2004
http://www.catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040302.asp
(15) "THOUGHTS ON THE BISHOPS' MEETING: NOWADAYS, VOTERS IGNORE BISHOPS",
KARL KEATING'S E-LETTER, Catholic Answers,, Nov. 22, 2005
http://www.catholic.com/newsletters/kke_051122.asp
----------
Religious positions in favor of capital punishment are neither necessary not needed to justify that sanction. However, the biblical and theological record is very supportive of the death penalty.
Many of the current religious campaigns against the death penalty reflect a fairly standard anti death penalty message, routed in secular arguments. When they do address religious issues, they often neglect solid theological foundations, choosing, instead, select biblical sound bites which do not impact the solid basis of death penalty support.
Footnotes:
(1) Books: 'Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church', by Romano Amerio, Fr Peter Joseph (reviewer)
IOTA UNUM: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the 20th Century
by Romano Amerio (English translation by Fr John Parsons)
(Sarto House, USA, 786 pp)
Reprinted from AD2000 Vol 9 No 8 (September 1996), p. 14
---------------------
70% of Catholics supported the death penalty as of May, 2oo5, Gallup Poll, Moral Values and Beliefs. The May 2-5, 2005 poll also found that 74% of Americans favor the death penalty for murderers, while 23% oppose.
copyright 1999-2008 Dudley Sharp
Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS , VOA and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.
A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.
dudleysharp, you certainly seem knowledgeable about the death penalty issue. I recommend that you check out my post on this blog from a few weeks ago that deals with an economic analysis of the death penalty.
You are certainly right that "living murderers, in prison, after release or escape, are much more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers." But let's be real: most of those convicted of crimes liable to receive the death penalty--and do receive this penalty--would almost certainly receive life in prison with no possibility of parole otherwise. There is no "release." In regards to murderers escaping, this happens maybe a few times a year at most. The vast majority of the time these criminals are caught and returned to prison within days or hours. Even if they are not, they very rarely murder again.
To be honest, you're right about the innocence issue: its probably pretty small. What is real, as I have discussed, are the potential lives that is not saved due to the cost of execution.
Playdoh,
You are in error.
You writee: "let's be real: most of those convicted of crimes liable to receive the death penalty--and do receive this penalty--would almost certainly receive life in prison with no possibility of parole otherwise. There is no "release."
To state the obvious, murderers harm and murder in prison and after escape.
And there have been releases and escapes from a life sentence and they have murdered, again.
In additon, several states in the US are talking about releasing lifers, a process which can be accomplished because of executive commutation. This is being done because of the huge cost of geriatric care, recently found to be around $70,000 per year per inmate - a cost which I have never seen in a cost analysis com paroin g the death penalty to a true life sentence.
I will look for your cost analysis.
Did you take the following into account?
Cost Comparisons: Death Penalty Cases Vs Equivalent Life Sentence Cases
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below
In comparing the cost of death penalty cases to other sentences, the studies are woefully incomplete.
Generally, such studies have one or more of the following problems.
1) Most studies exclude the cost of geriatric care, recently found to be $60,000-$80,000/inmate/yr. A significant omission from life sentence costs.
2) All studies exclude the cost savings of the death penalty, which is the ONLY sentence which allows for a plea bargain to a maximum life sentence. Such plea bargains accrue as a cost benefit to the death penalty, such benefit being the cost of trials and appeals for every such plea bargain. The cost savings would be for trial and appeals, estimated at $500,000 to $1 million, which would accrue as a cost benefit/credit to the death penalty.
Depending upon jurisdiction, this MIGHT result in a minimal cost differential between the two sanctions or an actual net cost benefit to the death penalty, depending upon how many LWOP cases are plea bargained and how many death penalty cases result in a death sentence.
3) FCC economist Dr. Paul Zimmerman finds that executions result in a huge cost benefit to society. "Specifically, it is estimated that each state execution deters somewhere between 3 and 25 murders per year (14 being the average). Assuming that the value of human life is approximately $5 million {i.e. the average of the range estimates provided by Viscussi (1993)}, our estimates imply that society avoids losing approximately $70 million per year on average at the current rate of execution all else equal." The study used state level data from 1978 to 1997 for all 50 states (excluding Washington D.C.). (1)
That is a cost benefit of $70 million per execution. 15 additional recent studies, inclusive of their defenses, support the deterrent effect.
No cost study has included such calculations.
Although we find it inappropriate to put a dollar value on life, evidently this is not uncommon for economists, insurers, etc.
We know that living murderers are infinitely more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers. There is no doubt that executions do save innocent lives. What value do you put on the lives saved? Certainly not less than $5 million.
4) a) Some studies compare the cost of a death penalty case, including pre trial, trial, appeals and incarceration, to only the cost of incarceration for 40 years, excluding all trial costs and appeals, for a life sentence. The much cited Texas "study" does this. Hardly an apples to apples cost comparison.
b) The pure deception in some cost "studies" is overt. It has been claimed that it costs $3.2 million/execution in Florida. That "study" decided to add the cost of the entire death penalty system in Florida ($57 million), which included all of the death penalty cases and dividing that number by only the number of executions (18). One could just have easily stated that the cost of the estimated 200 death row inmates was $285,000 per case.
5) There is no reason for death penalty appeals to take longer than 7 years. All death penalty appeals, direct and writ, should travel through the process concurrently, thereby giving every appellate issue 7 years of consideration through both state and federal courts. There is no need for endless repetition and delay. This would result in a reduction in both adjudication and incarceration costs.
Judges may be the most serious roadblock in timely resolution. They can and do hold up cases, inexcusably, for long periods of time. Texas, which leads the nation in executions, by far, takes over 10 years, on average, to execute murderers. However, the state and federal courts, for that jurisdiction, handle many cases. Texas has the second lowest rate of the courts overturning death penalty cases. Could every other jurisdiction process appeals in 7-10 years. Of course, if the justices would allow it.
Justice
6) The main reason sentences are given is because jurors find that it is the most just punishment available. No state, concerned with justice, will base a decision on cost alone. If they did, all cases would be plea bargained and every crime would have a probation option.
1). "State Executions, Deterrence and the Incidence of Murder", Paul R. Zimmerman (zimmy@att.net), March 3. 2003, Social Science Research Network, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID354680_code021216500.pdf?abstractid=354680
copyright 2003-2008 Dudley Sharp
Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS , VOA and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.
A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.
In regards to murderers escaping, this happens maybe a few times a year at most. The vast majority of the time these criminals are caught and returned to prison within days or hours. Even if they are not, they very rarely murder again.
To be honest, you're right about the innocence issue: its probably pretty small. What is real, as I have discussed, are the potential lives that is not saved due to the cost of execution.
November 29, 2008 2:38 AM
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
▼ 2008 (35)
▼ November (14)
Iran, Game Theory, and You
Death to the death penalty
Social Conservatism, Kekes, and 2008
Lucky to Become President in This Period of Econom...
Who Owns the Republican Party? Palin?
Civil Rights In The New Millennium
New President, New Deal
It’s Time to Take Control of Rent Laws
Inequality of Public Defender Income
The Bane of "Hussein"
My Post-Election Hangover
Party Backlash
Media, Propaganda, and Public Opinion: Election 20...
Obama's Spending Plans Simply Don't Add Up
► October (10)
Guantánamo has gotta go
Powell, McCain, and Obama
Education? I Can Vouch for That
Republicans Bash Obama’s Abortion Views
“Drill, Baby, Drill”
Politics of an Economic Nobel
Majors
A Secular Society?
Palin adopts new campaign strategy: name-calling
The Death Penalty: An Economic Analysis
► September (11)
Put Away the Champagne, Dems
Good For All, Available for None- Universal Health...
The Apotheosis of John Rawls
Debate Off
Sarah Staggers Under Stress
Why Your Vote Doesn't Count
A new (green)house for homeless i-bankers?
race in the Big Race
Be the change you wish to see in the world, unless...
Oh, Those Bailouts
What Has the Amethyst Initiative Been Drinking?
Left Blogs & Websites
AMERICAblog
Common Dreams
Crooked Timber
Daily Kos
Democratic Underground
Eschaton
Informed Comment
Mother Jones
Talking Points Memo
Right Blogs & Websites
Cafe Hayek
Front Page
Instapundit
Little Green Footballs
Michelle Malkin
Newsmax
Powerline
Right Reason
Town Hall
OK, Mr. Sharp.
Regarding my argument concerning the opportunity cost of executing a criminal, I think we are simply haggling over statistical details. These details are of great importance, however, because they dictate from a cost-benefit analysis whether the state should use the death penalty or not. But I assume you would accept my premise that if the cost were greater than the benefits, you would be against the death penalty. You, and you maybe right, just think that the cost is not greater.
OK, I'm going to do a 180 here and argue from a anti-utilitarian perspective. Let's say, for argument's sake, that we can deter 100 deaths by, instead of only executing a criminal, torturing him in the streets a la Braveheart. Clearly, the benefit to these 100 people outweighs the cost of this one man, so he should be tortured, right? I think not. There's a certain line at which our morality says no. This example clearly crosses that line.
From a moral perspective, maybe the death penalty is the same way. Maybe its just not right.
But, let's go back to another utilitarian argument, though this one is more subtle. Maybe I, along with 100 million other Americans or whatever, derive a certain amount of pleasure from knowing that the state does not execute anyone--or at least I don't derive pain from knowing that it does. Let's say this pleasure outweighed the pain from pro-death penalty advocates who must go without it, and from the however many people who are murdered because of the lack of the death penalty (minus the cost of the process). Would it be worth it then? From a utilitarian perspective, no.
Look, Mr. Sharp, I've googled you and you clearly know a lot more about this issue than probably anyone else I know--or will ever know. CNN interview and everything! Hopefully you will take my musings on this subject as they should be taken--lightly. But its nice to go toe to toe with an expert.
Plydoh states: I assume you would accept my premise that if the cost were greater than the benefits, you would be against the death penalty. You, and you maybe right, just think that the cost is not greater.
Your assumption is false. I support the death penalty because it is a just and appropriate santion and, secondarily, because it saves more innocent lives.
I agree with you on torture.
The real difference between those who approve of the death penalty and those who don't is that some find it morally just while others do not.
That's it.
I am not sure pleasure has a place in this discussion. I support the death penalty but take no pleasure in it.
80% of Americans support the death penalty for some crimes. I doubt they take pleasure in it ot would take more pleasure without it.
If this argument is about utility, I think it could--if the facts were known--be won by one side or the other. But, if it comes down to morality, I think we both are arguing from unwinnable positions. There are countless conceptions of morality out there. Morality is in the eye of the beholder.
Your claim that "secondarily, [the death penalty] saves more innocent lives" is purely utilitarian.
Your other argument that "I support the death penalty because it is a just and appropriate santion" is an opinion. I don't know if you can ever really PROVE that, which is why this debate even goes on today in the first place.
Playdoh, so there is no misunderstanding. I do not support the death penalty for utilitarian reasons. My "secondarily" that the death penalty saves additional innocents is a vey important and benficial by product of the death penalty, but not the reason for it.
It SHOULD be a moral debate. However, because the anti death penalty side lost that debate. long ago, their arguemnt, at least in the US, for getting rid of it are now based upon utility and alleged errors in implementation.
How did the anti-death penalty side lose the morality debate?
Post a Comment