The Conservative Case Against the Death Penalty

By TChris, Section Death Penalty
Posted on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:07:34 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Virginia is a distant second to Texas in the number of executions carried out since 1976. The trend in Virginia has slowed recently. Why? Among the many reasons, this one should give everyone pause:

Jon Gould, director of the Center for Justice, Law and Society at George Mason University, thinks prosecutors may be more cautious in seeking the death penalty because he said the state has had 12 wrongful convictions for rape or murder since the late 1990s.

It's good to see a fair and balanced article about the death penalty in The Washington Times. Conservatives do not uniformly support the death penalty. Traditional conservatives have always distrusted government. [more ...]

The most conservative argument against the death penalty is that the government cannot be entrusted with the most important decision that can be made about an individual's life: whether to end it. Neocons have replaced that distrust with absolute faith that the government can do no wrong as long as Dick Cheney is running the show, but traditional conservatives and libertarians often join with the progressive view that our government should not be empowered to punish crime with death.

Other reasons for the decline in executions:

Lawmakers in 1994 also allowed juries to sentence convicts to life in prison without parole - a change former State Attorney General William G. Broaddus thinks is "the single biggest factor" in the decline of executions. ...
Virginia's changing demographics and increasing lean to the left also could play a role in the declining execution rate: Residents in recent years have elected two Democratic governors in a row, allowed a Democrat to take over an incumbent Republican's seat in the U.S. Senate and pushed Democrats into the state Senate majority.

Executions were also delayed while the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of most popular method of delivering a lethal injection.

< A Generational Shift? | Saturday Night Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Conservative Case Against the Death Penalty | 17 comments (17 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Penalty (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by koshembos on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:18:15 AM EST

Death penalty is the best example for punishment not as deterrent but as retribution/vengeance. Society, liberal or conservative, should not seek revenge or vengeance. Since this country has lost its conservative movement, Bush is a radical not a conservative, and sadly has lost its liberal movement too, Obama supporters are not liberal they just follow a charismatic and enigmatic leader, it's not much of a surprise that murder is a weapon of choice of the justice system.

Let's hope for the abolition of capital punishment and restoration of both the conservative and liberal movements. All three are badly needed for the good of our society.

PS: I don't believe the life without parole is a human solution either. Do you hold a 70 year old in jail for a murder she/he committed when 20?

Public safety, retribution and rehabilitation (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by JSN on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:20:37 AM EST

are all factors in determining an appropriate sanction.

In many first degree murder cases retribution dominates because the chances of the convict committing another offense are small. In such cases LWOP would be an acceptable option to many people but in cases where there is a good chance the convict could commit another homicide or there were multiple victims the same people would favor the DP.

Another issue is the possibility of a false conviction. If the penalty is the DP an error is not correctible. In my opinion there are too many DP cases where the evidence of guilt does not measure up to the standards needed to justify a DP or LWOP sentence.

I have a number of reasons for opposing the DP but the most important is the possibility of a false conviction. I like the dangerous offender classification system used in Canada because the classification is subject to periodic review. In this country the only review is a commutation process that is so highly politicized that it is nearly nonfunctional.

Addendum (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by KarenJo12 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:36:03 AM EST

I didn't make it clear why Koshembos' comment fed into the popularity of the death penaly. Many people believe that LWOP doesn't really mean "life," it means "until he gets old and someone feels sorry for him." If you really mean life without parole, you mean it. Never draw a free breath again. I object to the death penalty solely because it can't be made perfect. Inflicting the ultimate penalty kinda reduces the incentive on the cops to find the right killer when they realize they made a mistake. Since convicting the wrong guy means the right guy gets away with it, I want every cop to have every bit of encouragement to fix mistakes. Still, compassion for thugs has nothing to do with my opposition. Criminals belong in prison.

: Is it OK to move a lifer (none / 0) (#10)
by JSN on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:01:28 AM EST

from a nursing home inside the prison walls to a nursing home outside the prison to reduce costs?

My former boss was the kind of conservative (none / 0) (#1)
by Teresa on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:18:24 PM EST

you describe...he thought anyone anti-choice should also be anti-death penalty and that it was hypocritical to think otherwise. He's the only hardcore conservative that I've met who will say this.

I'm surprised that Va is second to Texas.

I always thought that life (none / 0) (#2)
by zfran on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:21:52 PM EST

in prison w/o parole was worse than getting the death penality.

Me too. (none / 0) (#4)
by Valhalla on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 01:59:34 AM EST

I'm mildly claustrophic, get bored easily, and do not submit well to strict routine imposed by others at all.

Although I suppose I can't really know without being in that particular situation.


I think it used to be (none / 0) (#5)
by Grace on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 02:35:07 AM EST

until prisoners started getting "perks."

On Death Row, don't prisoners get individual cells? Can't they get books, paper, all that stuff? Since "cruel and unusual punishment" is not allowed in the USA, I think they get enough stuff to keep them occupied.


Single cells a given? (none / 0) (#11)
by CoralGables on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:05:52 AM EST

Don't all states have individual cells for death row inmates. I thought maximum security was standard. They are as close to solitary confinement as you can get. Eat alone, sleep alone, exercise alone. Afterall, what is the added punishment to killing your cellmate?

In Florida a death row cell is a 6 x 9 room. That's their world.

I would see solitary as a perk, but doubt most individuals would view it that way.


: Gosh what would the voters think if (none / 0) (#12)
by JSN on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 12:32:41 PM EST

someone escaped from death row? It is bad enough whenever a lifer is out and about.

is there any research (none / 0) (#3)
by desmoinesdem on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 01:21:48 AM EST

on how prosecutors in death-penalty states are able to get defendants to plead guilty (even where the evidence is weak) by promising that they will not seek the death penalty if the defendant takes the deal?

I recognize that would be a hard thing to research, but I have heard anecdotally that a lot of innocent people plead guilty to lesser charges because they're afraid if they don't the prosecutor will seek the death penalty.

70-year-olds in prison (none / 0) (#8)
by KarenJo12 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:28:15 AM EST

Koshembos states the biggest reason why the death penalty remains popular. Yes, if the crime was bad enough you DO keep the perp in prison for the rest of his natural life. I remember a comment by the parents of one of the victims of the guy immortalized in "Dead Man Walking." The father of the girl Willie killed said that while Willie remained alive, he got to celebrate Christmas, birthdays, and other happy events with his family. The parents of that girl spend every Christmas in a graveyard. Why should the perp have any more joy in life than the relatives of the victim? And if you reply that prison is enough, you've never been around real criminals. They don't care.

Seriously, revenge is a perfectly fine reason for punishment. The state will take revenge on behalf of the families, instead of allowing things to devolve into blood feuds. Rehabilitation isn't possible for murderers or rapists because it's not possible to return the victim back to life or make the experience of rape go away. (I don't believe in the death penalty for rapists. You have to provide whatever possible incentive is available to leave the victim alive.) Why does the Left find so much compassion and understanding for vicious thugs and none for their victims?

I respectfully disagree. (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by TChris on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 01:27:47 PM EST

First, I have spent most of my professional life "around real criminals." They are real people. The great majority of them are indistinguishable in conversation from your friends and neighbors. They often lack impulse control, but most have a conscience. Confinement is sometimes necessary to protect society, but the deprivation of dignity is not. Warehousing people in a brutal, dehumanizing environment might or might not make victims feel good, but people who need to watch others suffer in order to heal are in need of a very different kind of healing.

Second, you are confusing rehabilitation, which often is possible, with restoration or restitution, which often is not. You're correct that life imprisonment doesn't bring a murder victim back, but neither does killing the offender.

Third, as other TalkLeft posts illustrate, families of homicide victims do not inevitably favor the death penalty. Some are morally opposed to the death penalty and they do not allow tragic events to change their fundamental opposition to matching one death with another. Should they be given a veto over the death penalty to spare themselves the pain of a second wrong? Should the victim, not the state, be given the ultimate choice of punishment (reversing a bedrock foundation of modern criminal justice)?

Finally, I write for TalkLeft as a criminal defense lawyer. TalkLeft's posts about the politics of crime are almost always written from that perspective. These posts are not intended to diminish genuine pain that is honestly felt by actual victims, but this is not a victim advocacy website. Posts on those websites are not written from the accused's point of view; posts here are not written from the victim's.

Is it then fair to say (none / 0) (#14)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:38:50 PM EST

Is it then fair to say that one of the benefits to defense lawyers is that when a murderer is put to death before murdering again there is no defense work, but lifers that murder are another defense lawyer job?


No, it's not ... (none / 0) (#15)
by TChris on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:17:18 PM EST

because death sentences generate much more postconviction work than life sentences do.


: Perhaps (none / 0) (#16)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:36:13 PM EST

But that is only part of the equation. On one hand as you indicate there is more defense work in a capital case, on the other hand you have more cases due the additional crimes in addition to additional murders that lifers commit.
The other thing we don't know is that sans a death penalty, a sentence of life without parole may get the same rigorous (or more) defense that a capital case now. After all, life without parole is much the same as "death by confinement" in that there is a building where you go in alive, but come out dead.

denominator (none / 0) (#17)
by diogenes on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:04:03 PM EST

Since the late 1990's, how many rape and murder convictions have there been in Virginia (from which there were twelve wrongful ones)?