Wednesday, July 05, 2006
About the Death Penalty
I had a short discussion this morning with my friend TC about the death penalty. We had finished an argument about "English Only" or "English should be the official language of the US and I'm annoyed by a recorded telephone message that says 'dial 1 for English.'" To begin with, my friend supports the death penalty and I oppose it. My response to his question was, "if I ever get the chance, I will vote against it."
TC volunteered that he resented supporting a murderer in prison for life at a cost of thirty thousand dollars a year to taxpayers. My response was that the cost argument he cited was weak, as it costs more to execute a convict than it does to keep him locked up for life. There are automatic appeals from any death sentence and many grounds for appeal. These appeals take time and can be very expensive.
TC said that he thought the appeal process should be shortened. I challenged that for the reason that occasionally an innocent person is convicted. We want to be very careful that we do not execute a person who is in fact innocent of the crime for which he or she was convicted.
We were at breakfast with several friends, and we dropped the death penalty to join other conversations.
I imagined a continuation of the conversation, somewhat as follows:
Me: The expense argument you advance against the alternative of life without parol actually works the other way. It is really cheaper simply to lock up the convict for life rather than go through all the legal procedures that must precede execution.
TC: How about someone like Charles Manson? No legal appeal is ever going to get him off. There is no question of his guilt. He has no redeeming qualities and has not repented for his crimes. Why not execute him?
Me: I agree that Manson is a special case. A hard case. The law should not be based on Manson and his crimes. Hard cases make bad law.
About this time I realize that TC and I are talking past each other. He is not really concerned about the money. He is concerned about the outrage done to society by a murderer, particularly one like Charles Manson. Mere prison time, even a life sentence, is not a satisfactory punishment for such an outrage. For my part, I am concerned about the death penalty as a policy. Experience has shown that our courts make mistakes and some innocent persons are convicted and sentenced to death. Quite a few such cases have come to light recently. There may also be innocent persons who have been executed. However, after an execution there isn't much incentive to try to prove innocence. In addition, the prosecutor and the State have a strong incentive to keep any proof of innocence hidden from the public.
I am pleased to report that TC did not advance the argument that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to others who might commit murder. We agreed in the end that neither of us was going to change his mind.
TC volunteered that he resented supporting a murderer in prison for life at a cost of thirty thousand dollars a year to taxpayers. My response was that the cost argument he cited was weak, as it costs more to execute a convict than it does to keep him locked up for life. There are automatic appeals from any death sentence and many grounds for appeal. These appeals take time and can be very expensive.
TC said that he thought the appeal process should be shortened. I challenged that for the reason that occasionally an innocent person is convicted. We want to be very careful that we do not execute a person who is in fact innocent of the crime for which he or she was convicted.
We were at breakfast with several friends, and we dropped the death penalty to join other conversations.
I imagined a continuation of the conversation, somewhat as follows:
Me: The expense argument you advance against the alternative of life without parol actually works the other way. It is really cheaper simply to lock up the convict for life rather than go through all the legal procedures that must precede execution.
TC: How about someone like Charles Manson? No legal appeal is ever going to get him off. There is no question of his guilt. He has no redeeming qualities and has not repented for his crimes. Why not execute him?
Me: I agree that Manson is a special case. A hard case. The law should not be based on Manson and his crimes. Hard cases make bad law.
About this time I realize that TC and I are talking past each other. He is not really concerned about the money. He is concerned about the outrage done to society by a murderer, particularly one like Charles Manson. Mere prison time, even a life sentence, is not a satisfactory punishment for such an outrage. For my part, I am concerned about the death penalty as a policy. Experience has shown that our courts make mistakes and some innocent persons are convicted and sentenced to death. Quite a few such cases have come to light recently. There may also be innocent persons who have been executed. However, after an execution there isn't much incentive to try to prove innocence. In addition, the prosecutor and the State have a strong incentive to keep any proof of innocence hidden from the public.
I am pleased to report that TC did not advance the argument that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to others who might commit murder. We agreed in the end that neither of us was going to change his mind.
