Death Penalty: As Random As 'Struck By Lightning'

[lakhota]

Receiving Death Penalty Is As Random As Being 'Struck By Lightning': Report

Thirty-five years after the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment and approved new sentencing criteria to make it less random, a new report has found that receiving the death penalty is still as arbitrary and unfair as being "struck by lightning."

A number of factors unrelated to the crime, including race, geography and money, influence the sentencing of capital punishment as much as, if not more than, the severity of the actual crime, according to the study released Wednesday by the Death Penalty Information Center.

Defendants who kill white victims are far more likely to be sentenced to death than those who kill black victims, the study found. Further, a vast majority of U.S. executions occur in only a handful of states; the quality of defense a defendant is able to afford affects his chances of receiving the death penalty; and county budgets are often a deciding factor in whether a district attorney will seek the death penalty or not. A number of these cases are overturned on appeal and assessed very differently the second time around, suggesting the decisions are often unjustified.

"The lingering problem with death penalty is that it is applied unevenly and unfairly," Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, told HuffPost. "It's not always a matter of the worst crimes getting the worst sentences. Those that have fewer resources or don't get great lawyers or don't have someone reinvestigating are going to end up getting the death penalty, while the worst crimes sometimes get good representation and don't."

As an example, the DPIC report pointed to the case of Gary Ridgway, a serial killer in Washington State who pled guilty to murdering 48 people in 2003 and was given a life sentence in exchange for detailed confessions about the victims. By contrast, Teresa Lewis, a mentally disabled woman in Virginia who stood by as two men shot her husband and son, was handed the death penalty while the two murderers received life sentences.

A national poll conducted in 2010 by Lake Research Partners showed that the unfairness of death sentencing is a top concern among voters who oppose capital punishment. Two-thirds of voters said they would prefer alternative punishments for murder, such as life without parole, over the death penalty, and 69 percent of respondents said they disagreed with the death penalty because of how unevenly it is applied.

Having the death penalty costs states a significant amount of taxpayer dollars, even when the states barely use it. The DPIC report estimates that only one person is executed for every 326 murders, which suggests that the death penalty is handed down too sparsely to be effective as a deterrent or as retribution.

"The constitution requires fairness, not just in lofty words, but also in daily practice," the report concludes. "On that score, the death penalty has missed the mark."

www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/23/report-receiving-death-pe_n_883255.html

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

I support the abolition of the Death Penalty in the United States.

[Mad Dawg Wiccan]

Thirty-five years after the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment and approved new sentencing criteria to make it less random, a new report has found that receiving the death penalty is still as arbitrary and unfair as being "struck by lightning."

So I can be walking down the street, through the woods, etc and be suddenly without warning, trial, or appeal be instantly executed by the State?

I think not.

[lakhota]

So I can be walking down the street, through the woods, etc and be suddenly without warning, trial, or appeal be instantly executed by the State?

I think not.

That is one hilariously stupid analogy. Duh, I think you missed the thrust of the article.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

It's nice to see you doubt government on at least something. I'm with you on this. I didn't used to be, and I'm still not in principle- I favor killing people back. However, being from a state that put over 200 people erroneously on death row, I no longer trust the government with life and death.

[EVT1]

Jun 24, 2011 0:12:17 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

It's nice to see you doubt government on at least something. I'm with you on this. I didn't used to be, and I'm still not in principle- I favor killing people back. However, being from a state that put over 200 people erroneously on death row, I no longer trust the government with life and death.

Wow- some common ground. My problem with the death penalty has never been the penalty- just the application. Death row contains many people convicted by unethical conduct of police and prosecutors. Easy fix- raise the burden of proof from beyond a reasonable doubt to no doubt. Caught red handed, video, etc. Other than that forget it- I side with Governor Ryan- until we have a way to make sure we don't kill innocent people-we need to end the practice. As a bonus I think that life in prison is much worse than an easy death- so the penalty needs to go away.

[cme1201]

Wow, so much agreement.

[Bluerobin]

I just don't see the endless appeals processes. In this day and age, with all the forensics and DNA, once you are declared guilty, you should immediately go from the court room to the gallows. No appeals.

ETA: For any 1st degree conviction.

[cme1201]

Jun 24, 2011 6:49:16 GMT -5 Bluerobin said:

I just don't see the endless appeals processes. In this day and age, with all the forensics and DNA, once you are declared guilty, you should immediately go from the court room to the gallows. No appeals.

ETA: For any 1st degree conviction.

I can't say no appeal. A more streamlined process would be extremely beneficial, no more 35+ years waiting, you could still have prosactorial(sp?) misconduct or bad representation, but it should really take no more than 5 years for 1 appeal to work it's way out.

[Bluerobin]

If the evidence shows you did it, no appeal is necessary. We probably need new laws regarding evidence. But if forensics and DNA show you did it, even F Lee Bailey is not gonna get you off.

[pig]

One of many reasons why I oppose the death penalty. First being that the state should not be able to murder it's citizens.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Wait! We all agree? Who started this boring thread? ;D

[floridayankee]

Bring back public executions in the town square!


that should liven it up a little for ya PBP

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

One of the reasons I think the government should return to its ONLY legitimate function: protecting unalienable rights; is that I think we have mutated into a society where government is thought of as the answer to too many problems. The more local, transparent, and accessible government is; and the more self-reliant people are, the less of this kind of stuff we're going to have.

Start with the absolute right to defend life, limb, and property from molestation by criminals. This has a number of benefits, but chief among them is there is just flat out less crime to start with. People don't attempt what they think they cannot get away with. Second, when crime does happen- it can be thought of something that the individual citizen and or his neighbors can handle, with LOCAL police as a back up plan.

Mind you, I'm not talking about vigilanteism or street justice. I'm talking about re-thinking how we deal with crime. I think it should first and foremost be something you and your neighbors develop a plan for dealing with.

On the other side of the coin, we need to eliminate fake crime. It begins with a change in attitude- government at every level must adopt the "allow anything non-violent" attitude. Fake crimes are those thing which government far, far away from the local level has decided arbitrarily is a crime-- growing and smoking pot is a great example of a fake crime. Even for those that argue that drug use "causes crime" - a case I think that is largely flawed, if not outright false (most drug crime results from trying obtain a substance the government doesn't want people to have) - we have to agree that we can't arrest people for what they "might" do. This means, we can't assume that because you're high- you're a threat. When you DO something- then we nail your ass. And we nail you good. That means we also can't have "roadside checkpoints" for DUI-- and in fact, we can't even arrest people for being high or drunk behind the wheel-- but cause a wreck and on the FIRST OFFENSE when you have caused property damage, injured someone, or killed someone, your ass is OFF the road. You go to jail for a long, long time- and you never get to own a car ever again. Ever. You make plans for when you're 85 and maybe- maybe- out of jail, to ride the BUS, or get a cab.

The basic premise is we leave people alone until they do something that directly, immediately, and clearly infringes on another's real, unalienable rights-- not fake rights like the right to never ever ever be 'offended'-- and when you cross that line, you get nailed. You get nailed first and foremost by the person or persons you're assailing, if back up is needed-- neighbors know when it's time to step in and help, and finally if need be we call 911.

This way we don't have 200 people on death row. We don't even have 200 people charged with capital offenses-- let alone offenses they didn't commit. Because crime either a) Doesn't happen in the first place; b) when crime does happen it's dealt with close to the offense; and b) when law enforcement gets involved- it's the last resort.

[Bluerobin]

PBP, PA now has the Castle Law. Sorry, if you are in my bedroom at 3 am, uninvited, you are not leaving.

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

It's nice to see some agreement.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 24, 2011 10:56:37 GMT -5 Bluerobin said:

PBP, PA now has the Castle Law. Sorry, if you are in my bedroom at 3 am, uninvited, you are not leaving.

Well, you have to leave eventually. I don't want your corpse stinking the place up.