Capital Punishment For Murderers

[jlkrusty]

Here's one consideration hardly ever anyone mentions:

5. How important is it to keep capital punishment to have something to plea bargain with the defendant?

Capital punishment gives the prosecutor something to bargain with. Very often the defandant strikes a plea with the prosecutor and admits how he committed his murder(s) in order to avoid the death penalty. This saves the ordeal of a very costly and emotionally draining trial (especially on the victim's family). Without the death penalty, we'd lose this valuable bargaining chip.

[AlienBoy]

That's an interesting argument. Though what if the prosecutor (maliciously) uses it, either not offering a plea, or using it to threaten someone where there is insufficient evidence to go to trial?

I see the plea bargaining system as rife with holes and injustice in the first place...

AB

[jlkrusty]

[ QUOTE ]
That's an interesting argument. Though what if the prosecutor (maliciously) uses it, either not offering a plea, or using it to threaten someone where there is insufficient evidence to go to trial?

I see the plea bargaining system as rife with holes and injustice in the first place...

AB

[/ QUOTE ]

There are "what ifs", but as a practical matter, it has proven very useful.

As for not offering it, prosecutors almost always offer it (unless the crime is so henious that the public would feel injustice would occur if it were offered). Remember, prosecutors are overloaded with work as well. If they can save the burden of a trial, they would prefer it also.

As for insufficient evidence to go to trial, a defendant has the right to know the evidence against him. T.V. shows depicting total surprise in the court room does not reflect reality. The defendant and his lawyer will be able to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to go to trial before deciding whether to accept the plea.

You should also remember that when a criminal does plea bargain to avoid the death penalty, he'll often admit to several other unsolved crimes--thus allowing some closure in other cases as well.

So, I will stand by what I said. The death penalty remains a very important plea bargaining tool that saves tons of time, expense, and emotional turmoil.

For these reasons (and others), I'm slightly in favor of keeping the death penalty.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's one consideration hardly ever anyone mentions:

5. How important is it to keep capital punishment to have something to plea bargain with the defendant?

[/ QUOTE ]Good point. But I have two questions :

--Should a person be punished for being a bad negotiator? (Or employing a defence council who's a bad negotiator?)

--Having a disproportionately harsh penalty hanging Damocles' sword-like over the defendant's head tends to distort the fairness of the proceedings and the quest for justice & truth. (E.g. fearing the absolute worst, innocent people might plea bargain themselves into long jail terms.) True or False?

Mickey Brausch

[Girchuck]

Is a murderer more likely to surrender without a fight when cornered because the death penalty is not automatic?

[jlkrusty]

[ QUOTE ]
Good point. But I have two questions :

--Should a person be punished for being a bad negotiator? (Or employing a defence council who's a bad negotiator?)

[/ QUOTE ]

You or your counsel don't have to be a good negotiator to be offered a waiver of the death penalty. Prosecutors regularly offer waiving the death penalty, not because your counsel negotiated well, but because the prosecutor wants to alleviate his time, the court's time, and strain on the victim's family.

The offer of waiving the death penalty is primarily a tool for the prosecutor (and ergo we the public). If you talked with prosecutors, most (if not all of them) would agree that they have saved all sorts of time, money, and emotional drauma on behalf of the public by offering the accused murderer life in prison instead of the death penalty. I'm not saying this should swing someone's opinion in favor of the death penalty, but they should at least add this factor to thier list of considerations.

Still, I'll give you this point: our justice system is not always fair because those with better counsel are more likely to get good results than those without--e.g., O.J. Simpson. It's imperfect to say the least. However, regardless of whether we have the death penalty, this imbalance is always going to exist.

[ QUOTE ]
--Having a disproportionately harsh penalty hanging Damocles' sword-like over the defendant's head tends to distort the fairness of the proceedings and the quest for justice & truth. (E.g. fearing the absolute worst, innocent people might plea bargain themselves into long jail terms.) True or False?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a possibility, but does this play out in actual reality? There are several instances of people found guilty, and later exonerated with DNA evidence, but what about instances of someone admitting to a crime? Do we have many instances of people confessing because Damocles' sword was hanging over their head, and later they were found to be not guilty? There must be at least one example, but how often does this actually occur?

Anyhow, my main point is that we should be giving the plea bargaining factor some weighted consideration in favor of the death penalty. There might be factors as you are mentioning that offset the utility of this plea bargaining tool, but it still must be a consideration. That is, we should give at least some weight to the effect of saving the prosecution, the judge, and the victim's family countless hours of litigation. Perhaps this is not enough to swing one's opinion, but it ought to be considered nonetheless.

[jlkrusty]

[ QUOTE ]
Is a murderer more likely to surrender without a fight when cornered because the death penalty is not automatic?

[/ QUOTE ]

All you have to do is listen to the news to hear of countless instances where a murderer did surrender without a fight to avoid the death penalty. If you start keeping track of the number of times a murderer plea confesses to avoid the death penalty, you too will start to say that having the death penalty is a useful plea bargaining tool.

[LouBlue]

It seems to me that some of the discussion has failed to address theoriginal discussion, as it was framed. If there's no doubt that the person is guilty, and if the murder was barbaric, does that manke any difference to those of you who are arguing against capital punishment?


[ QUOTE ]
... Assuming we are talking about cold blooded murders, committed by "sane" defendents, ...

[/ QUOTE ]

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that some of the discussion has failed to address theoriginal discussion, as it was framed. If there's no doubt that the person is guilty, and if the murder was barbaric, does that manke any difference to those of you who are arguing against capital punishment?


[ QUOTE ]
... Assuming we are talking about cold blooded murders, committed by "sane" defendents, ...

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

The original discussion is not about an idealized scenario where the system fulfills its intentions perfectly.

[ QUOTE ]

1. Will it dissuade others from committing murder?

2. Is there more than a micro chance that the life sentence will allow an eventual release or escape?

3. Does it cost more to keep him alive?

4. Is there more than a micro chance that the defendent is innocent?

[/ QUOTE ]

[AlienBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a possibility, but does this play out in actual reality? There are several instances of people found guilty, and later exonerated with DNA evidence, but what about instances of someone admitting to a crime? Do we have many instances of people confessing because Damocles' sword was hanging over their head, and later they were found to be not guilty? There must be at least one example, but how often does this actually occur?

[/ QUOTE ]


Happens alot. See:

http://www.just-say-know.com/articles/misc/silent.html


AB