Washington Governor Suspends Death Penalty

By Jeralyn, Section Death Penalty
Posted on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 05:28:14 PM EST
Tags: death penalty (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Washington Governor Jay Inslee today suspended the use of the death penalty in the state for the duration of his term.

"There have been too many doubts raised about capital punishment, there are too many flaws in this system today," Inslee said at a news conference. "There is too much at stake to accept an imperfect system."

The decision is part of a growing trend.

Last year, Maryland abolished the death penalty, the 18th state to do so and the sixth in the last six years.

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Kudos to Jay Inslee (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by shoephone on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 05:50:37 PM EST

He hasn't done much as governor that's impressed me (he's still bending over backwards for corporations), but suspending the death penalty is a great move, one that is long overdue here in WA. From what I've read and heard today, he's getting high fives from all corners.

Callooh! Callay! (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by Peter G on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 07:24:27 PM EST

O frabjous day!

In 2011 Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber instituted a (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by caseyOR on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 07:52:02 AM EST

similar ban on executions during his term in office. That ban was later upheld by the Oregon Supreme Court.

A former Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court has called for an end to the death penalty. At some point, sooner rather than later i suspect, this issue will appear on the Oregon ballot.

Kudos to the Governor (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by Dadler on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 11:38:48 AM EST

The correct and humane decision.

Do it or don't (2.00 / 2) (#3)
by Mikado Cat on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 08:12:35 PM EST

Decades on death row seem cruel and ineffective to me, decide and either execute the worst, or stop. What does suspend mean, next governor could reinstate everyone currently on death row?

Answering your question, and (5.00 / 3) (#5)
by Peter G on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 10:16:03 AM EST

ignoring the comment in the first sentence of your post: Yes, when a governor "suspends" executions, the governor is simply announcing that s/he will not exercise whatever authority the governor has in that state which is necessary to carry out a sentence of death -- set an execution date, sign a "death warrant," staff the execution chamber, whatever that may be that is under the governor's unilateral control. Necessarily, the next governor could choose to do otherwise, unless the state legislature repeals the law, or the state supreme court (or a competent federal court) invalidates the law. This is a matter of constitutional law, separation of powers. Of course, if the governor chooses to exercise his/her power of clemency and commutes one or more death sentences to (for example) sentences of life imprisonment, then the following governor could not undo that action.


: The logical next step to Governor Inslee's (5.00 / 3) (#6)
by KeysDan on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 11:01:42 AM EST

suspension decision would seem to be the exercise of his power of clemency to commute the sentences of all those in the state's death row to life imprisonment. For as the governor states in explaining his action, "..there is too much at stake to accept an imperfect system." Unless he feels that his successor will be able to do what he feels he is unable to do--perfect an imperfect system.

"He said the system... (none / 0) (#8)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 12:32:32 PM EST

He said the system "does not deter crime."

Sure, except for imprisoned but not executed murders who kill other inmates, guards, etc..

Case in point? (none / 0) (#9)
by RonK Seattle on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 01:31:37 PM EST

One of 9 convicts on Washington's death row:

Scherf was convicted of killing correctional officer Jayme Biendl by strangling her with an amplifier cord inside a chapel at the Washington State Reformatory in Monroe in January 2011. Scherf, a convicted rapist, was in prison serving a life sentence.

Scherf freely confessed to his crime, and acknowledged that he deserved to die for it . . . but that didn't prevent him from committing it in the first place.


: I remember reading a story of a convicted (none / 0) (#10)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 02:15:37 PM EST

murderer in for life back east, NJ? PA?
Anyway, he was a big guy, like 300+ lbs, and he killed another inmate by knocking him down and then jumping off a chair onto his head until it was a flat pancake of bloody pulp.

Were there any in Washington? (none / 0) (#11)
by Yman on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 06:57:37 PM EST

The governor was obviously speaking to general deterrence, not specific deterrence.

Do you think the risk to other inmates/guards outweighs the costs associated with the death penalty (including wrongfully executed prisoners)?


No idea if any were in WA. Why do you ask? (none / 0) (#12)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 07:28:51 PM EST

Interesting question, how many wrongfully executed prisoners have there been?


Because the governor was ... (none / 0) (#13)
by Yman on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 07:40:30 PM EST

... discussing the system in WA state.

Interesting question, how many wrongfully executed prisoners have there been?

No idea, since it's an impossible question to answer. There have been at least 141 inmates on death row exonerated before they were executed - but any investigations tends to stop after execution. There were also at least 39 executed despite compelling evidence of innocence or serious doubt about their guilt.

Why do you ask? Also, why don't you answer?


I m shocked! (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by DebFrmHell on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 10:06:58 PM EST

Shocked I tell you. Texas leads the pack.

Even though my cousin was brutally murdered, I would not wish death on him. He got 32-life and I am happy with that.


39. It does seem to be a hard number (none / 0) (#17)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 01:02:30 PM EST

to pin down, even your link says:

While innocence has not been proven in any [of these 39] specific case[s], there is no reasonable doubt that some of the executed prisoners were innocent.

(My []'s)

But you brought up an interesting question regarding weighing the costs of DP vs. no DP including innocents killed.

Weighing it all out, it looks like there are more innocents killed by previously convicted but un-executed murderers than there are innocents executed.

Death Penalty Information Center says 10 or possibly a couple more innocents have been executed.

"In Spite of Innocence: Erroneous Convictions in Capital Cases," probably the most 'famous' of books published about this topic, suggests 23 innocents have been executed between 1900 and 1987.

Of course, there are many who have analyzed the above numbers and feel they are inaccurately inflated, but I'm open to either of them and/or the "somewhere between 1 & 39" your link proposed.

For some reason I tend to assume convicted murderers are either locked up for good or executed, and it always surprises me to see that many convicted murderers are released from prison.

For example, James Homer Elledge of WA was out of prison on parole for his conviction of killing a female hotel clerk with a ball peen hammer when he then fatally strangled and stabbed a woman in a church.

So un-executed convicted murderers commit additional murders not only in prison but also outside prison walls among the general public.

This website suggests there have been around 50 innocents murdered by previously convicted but un-executed murderers between 1981 and 2013.

This site lists about 65 innocents murdered by previously convicted but un-executed murderers between about 1975 and 1995.


Blackstone's Formulation (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Zorba on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 04:00:29 PM EST

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

And John Adams, defending the British soldiers accused after the Boston Massacre:

It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished.... when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, 'it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.' And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever.

Or (none / 0) (#19)
by jbindc on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 04:03:52 PM EST

The other side:

The story is told of a Chinese law professor, who was listening to a British lawyer explain that Britons were so enlightened, they believed it was better that ninety-nine guilty men go free than that one innocent man be executed. The Chinese professor thought for a second and asked, "Better for whom?"

Well, U.S. law is not based on Chinese law (5.00 / 3) (#20)
by shoephone on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 04:35:34 PM EST

And the Bill of Rights wasn't written to protect prosecutors.


For all of us (5.00 / 3) (#22)
by Yman on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 05:02:16 PM EST

The idea that governments and the courts must err on the side of innocence is better for all of us, and Volokh isn't fit to clean Blackstone's shoes.


Justice vs math (none / 0) (#29)
by Mikado Cat on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 12:53:43 AM EST

Justice demands no innocent be punished.

Math tells us that the failure to punish saves the lives of suspected criminals at the expense of the lives of actual innocents.

Think of it like cancer treatment, in chemo the harsh math is that half your patients dying from treatment vs cancer may be the optimum dosage.

I see two questions, first is the death penalty a deterrent? Second, what are the numbers, how many innocents will die if the death penalty is removed?

Bonus point, without a death penalty, how many cases will people seek revenge directly instead of through the legal system?


"Math" (5.00 / 2) (#30)
by Yman on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 07:46:49 AM EST

Justice demands no innocent be punished.
Math tells us that the failure to punish saves the lives of suspected criminals at the expense of the lives of actual innocents.

Are you just talking about simply comparing the number of wrongfully executed versus the number of victims if a murderer is set free/kills again? Two problems with that: 1) It treats murders (not within our control) the same as state-sanctioned killing, something entirely within our control, and 2) in doing so, it puts us on the same level as the murderer. We are willing to execute innocent people if the number of innocents executed is smaller than the number of murderers that kill again - the former number being inherently impossible to determine. As a society we should be better than that.

I see two questions, first is the death penalty a deterrent?

The experts agree it is not a deterrent (88% to 5%).

Second, what are the numbers, how many innocents will die if the death penalty is removed?

Impossible to know, but it is interesting that you didn't ask how many innocents are executed.

Bonus point, without a death penalty, how many cases will people seek revenge directly instead of through the legal system?

Yet another impossible-to-answer hypothetical ... starting to see a pattern here. Of course, it ignores the obvious alternative - LWOP. "Bonus point" - With the death penalty, how many people will seek revenge for their wrongfully (or rightfully) executed loved ones?

Hey ... that is easy.


Seriously (none / 0) (#31)
by jondee on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 02:25:31 PM EST

if twenty-to-life in a snake pit isn't a "deterrent", how is the death penalty going to be a deterrent?


Death penalty (none / 0) (#32)
by Mikado Cat on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 04:05:07 AM EST

is a major item on the table in plea negotiations, if it didn't matter, it wouldn't be.

I don't know about revenge killing for an execution, but wasn't it Colorado where somebody in the correctional system was killed because of a person in solitary confinement.

We, as in the collective us including government, allow millions to die that could be prevented, why the special attention on criminals? Why not start with drunk drivers and work our way down to people who may or may not have murdered a family with special circumstances? And I don't mean to ignore those alleged murders, but why make them a focus of our efforts for justice?

I see the death penalty as a grey area where best action isn't known, but I would have no real issue with ending the practice, or not.


: Plea negotiations ... (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by Yman on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 07:46:36 AM EST

... are irrelevant to deterrence since, by definition, they occur after-the-fact.

I don't know about revenge killing for an execution, but wasn't it Colorado where somebody in the correctional system was killed because of a person in solitary confinement.
No idea. Google is easy to use. So is the link button.

We, as in the collective us including government, allow millions to die that could be prevented, why the special attention on criminals? Why not start with drunk drivers and work our way down to people who may or may not have murdered a family with special circumstances? And I don't mean to ignore those alleged murders, but why make them a focus of our efforts for justice?
Not sure who those "millions" are, but we already have laws against drunk driving. Laws that have been made much stronger in the past two decades. That "focus" on people convicted of capital crimes is because we are using the power of the state to kill them. We, as a society, are killing them, a step that cannot be reversed later as it has been for the dozens who were exonerated while on death row. You can't see the difference between that an drunk driving?

"Innocence has not been proven" - heh (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by Yman on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 04:56:48 PM EST

The 1-39 number is not meant to be a definitive number of those wrongfully executed. By definition, the number is impossible to establish. Not to mention the fact that your links - as usual - don't say what you claim they do.

Uhhhmmmm, no. You should learn to read more carefully. Or maybe just not so "selectively". The DPIC does not say that 10 "or possibly a couple more" have been wrongly executed. It lists 10 people who were executed despite strong evidence of innocence, but notes -

There is no way to tell how many of the over 1,000 people executed since 1976 may also have been innocent. Courts do not generally entertain claims of innocence when the defendant is dead. Defense attorneys move on to other cases where clients' lives can still be saved. Some cases with strong evidence of innocence include ...

Is that what it "suggests"? "23 innocents have been executed between 1900 and 1987". That's such a strong, definitive "suggestion" - makes me wonder where it "suggests" that, given the fact that your link merely points to the Amazon page for the book, which merely states "The stories of some 400 innocent Americans who were falsely convicted of capital crimes." Not the number wrongfully executed, and not a "suggestion" that this list is comprehensive.

Your other links - to pro-deathpenalty.com and someone's blog - are equally impressive. A list of names compiled by someone which may/may not be accurate and which includes people: 1) not convicted of murder or even capital crimes in the first place and 2) people who (supposedly) killed not other prisoners or guards while in prison but mostly people who were released after killing someone (again, not necessarily convicted of a capital crime - i.e. legally insane, manslaughter, etc.). The vast majority of these subsequent killings would be avoided by LWOP, while still allowing for the release of those later found to be innocent.

But I understand why you'd like to minimize the number of wrongfully executed and expand the number of recidivist murderers, not matter how transparent your argument.

BTW - You still never answered the question directly - not that you ever do. And - apart from your attempt to make this a number-to-number comparison - you never addressed the fact that a wrongful execution is society's sanctioning of wrongful killing and the use of state power to do so, something far worse and entirely within our control, as opposed to the conduct of convicted murderers who could simply be kept locked up.


No, you are wrong. Both on the details (none / 0) (#23)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 05:08:49 PM EST

and on the whole.

In their recent book, In Spite of Innocence, the authors discuss over 400 cases in which the defendant was wrongly convicted of a crime punishable by death. At least 23 cases have resulted in the execution of innocent people.

But I certainly understand why you would misrepresent these things.


Pro Death Penalty People Are Blind To Injustice (5.00 / 2) (#28)
by john horse on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 09:57:59 PM EST

Re: But I certainly understand why you would misrepresent these things.

Maybe SUO understands why those who are pro death penalty misrepresent things but I do not. You would think that those who are pro death penalty would be just as concerned about the various problems that result in people being wrongfully convicted as those of us who are against the death penalty, but from my personal experience, this is not the case. You would think that those who are pro death penalty would be just as upset about discovering any systemic problems that can result in an innocent person being convicted, but I have never met one.

They say that justice is blind but being pro death penalty seems to make people blind to injustice.


Seriously - learn to read (none / 0) (#24)
by Yman on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 05:16:04 PM EST

Your original claim:

What the DPIC's summary of the book says.

I bet you can spot the difference if you try real hard ...


Now you're just embarrassing yourself. (none / 0) (#25)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 05:24:57 PM EST

Not in the least (none / 0) (#26)
by Yman on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 05:37:45 PM EST

I can read.

Re: Radelet/Bedau's book - you've lied about what their book said before and (presumably) feel the need to continue the lie. Since I have the book right here, would you like to know what they actually said in their book about the number you point to?

After noting the obvious problem in establishing innocence after execution - there is usually little motivation and resources to keep a case open - they point out that the likelihood of a wrongful execution being discovered is almost nill. For these and other reasons, they note:

There is no reason to believe that somehow, magically, on the eve of publishing this book, we have managed to produce a complete list of all the relevant cases...it is quite possible that all we have done is trace the outline of the proverbial tip of the iceberg.

Oops.


: I know we Americans like (none / 0) (#27)
by NYShooter on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 06:50:39 PM EST

to pat ourselves on the back, and, proclaim, "how far we've come," in righting past wrongs. And, yet, here we are, after decades of Jim Crow, the Ku Klux Klan, and, Lester Maddox, and, where we have political parties confident enough in their constituencies to print caricatures of a sitting President of the United States portrayed as a chimpanzee......and, worse. And, these same people sit on juries while we Liberals debate whether people have been wrongfully executed.

Moral cause (none / 0) (#14)
by gilligan on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 07:57:29 PM EST

A wrongfully convicted person on death row gets all kinds of innocence commissions and pro bono people sifting through every detail of his case because people want to prove that some persons are wrongfully convicted.
A wrongfully convicted person doing life without parole is basically stuck in prison.
Someone who is REALLY innocent is better off on death row than with LWOP because many, many people will take an interest in his case and try to reopen it. Not that many people with LWOP get six appeals to every court in the land to try to overturn their sentence.

: Thankfully, the Innocence Project (5.00 / 6) (#15)
by Peter G on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 09:29:22 PM EST

network does take an interest not only in death row cases, but also in LWOPs and term-of-years cases with compelling claims of innocence.