Why is the application of the death penalty so arbitrary?

Question

Consider this article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070925/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_lethal_injection_1;_ylt=AiMV8Pw_1UZCMHjE7dXxTokE1vAI

One of these inmates gunned down two policemen, in front of witnesses no less, when they came to arrest him. The other is a mentally retarded guy who was probably set up by the real killers. At the very least, there is lots and lots of reasonable doubt. No criminal record, no motive, no forensic evidence. One guy deserves to die, the other does not. Yet prosecutors don't really seem to care. It's just a mark on a scorecard to them. As long as the death penalty is applied so capriciously, it needs to be stopped. I support the death penalty in principle, but it seems that the police and the state prosecutors are too callous, too corrupt, too incompetent, and waaaaay too dumb to handle these life and death decisions.

What should we do?

Of course I read the fcking article. I'm making a point here that has nothing to do with the article per se, just the two inmates mentioned by the article. I got their names from the article, looked them up, learned about their cases. It's called "independent thought". You should try it sometime...

Answer 1

You make a GREAT point. As a matter of fact, this was part of the argument that got the death penalty ruled unconstitutional back in 1972 -- its APPLICATION was so arbitrary and capricious that it rose to the level of cruel and unusual punishment. (not the death penalty itself, as so many believe). Juries were viewed as having "unbridled discretion" in deciding between a sentence of life or death.

The "solutions" upheld by the SCOTUS beginning in 1976 to remedy the "unbridled discretion" all revolved around some sort of sentencing process that provided "guided discretion" to juries in making the sentencing determination. Most involve answering a series of questions that almost formulaically bring the jury to the "correct" answer.

Problem is, as you have noted, the discretion involved in death penalty cases does not exist only at the level of the jury. Having worked capital cases across the state of North Carolina I have witnessed first hand the dramatic differences across counties and based on the DA, color of the defendant, color of the victim, ages of both, etc. All factors that contribute to capricious application. Unfortunately, no one has been able to convince the SCOTUS of that these differences rise to the level necessary to deem the punishment unconsitutional again. At least, not yet. . . .

Answer 2

The system is arbitrary and, like you, many people who might support the death penalty in principle don't support it in practice. You don't have to condone brutal crimes or want the criminals who commit them to avoid a harsh punishment to ask whether the death penalty prevents or even reduces crime and whether it risks killing innocent people.

What about the very worst crimes?
The death penalty isn’t reserved for the “worst of the worst,” but for defendants with the worst lawyers. When is the last time a wealthy person was sentenced to death, let alone executed??

What about the risk of executing innocent people?
124 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence.

Doesn't DNA keep new cases like these from happening?
DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides and can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.

Doesn't the death penalty prevent others from committing murder?
No reputable study shows the death penalty to be a deterrent. To be a deterrent a punishment must be sure and swift. The death penalty is neither. Homicide rates are higher in states and regions that have it than in states that do not.

So, what are the alternatives?
Life without parole is now on the books in 48 states. It means what it says. It is sure and swift and rarely appealed. Life without parole is less expensive than the death penalty.

But isn't the death penalty cheaper than keeping criminals in prison?
The death penalty costs much more than life in prison, mostly because of the legal process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people.

Doesn't the death penalty help families of murder victims?
Not necessarily. Murder victim family members across the country argue that the drawn-out death penalty process is painful for them and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.

So, why don't we speed up the process?
Over 50 of the innocent people released from death row had already served over a decade. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent person.

Answer 3

I think we need to put another moratorium on the death penalty until we find out why the death penalty is applied so arbitrarily, why many executions are found to be wrongful, and more minority offenders are executed than white offenders, despite a similar ratio of crimes. There is no easy answer and we need to be prepared to stop executions for years, perhaps decades, while the penal system is revamped.

Answer 4

We should read the articles we get weepy over.

There's no challenge to the conviction or the sentence, only the manner of execution. They claim that sedating a person so that he dies painlessly in his sleep is cruel and unusual.

Perhaps it is, but it seems gentler than hanging, which was common enough at the time the Constitution was written. Maybe they'd prefer hanging.

Answer 5

Death Records Search Database : http://DeathRecordsInfo.com/Official

Answer 6

Someone dies intentionally at the hands of another. That is illegal.... No wait.....

Lets see.... What did i just say?

Let us clarify!!!!!! Someone dies intentionally at the hands of the GOVERNMENT..... Thats perfectly legal?!?!??

Someone dies at the hands of another (who is NOT the government).... that's not legal.... wait..

This is confusing.