Should New Mexico Reinstate The Death Penalty?
In 2009 the death penalty was repealed in New Mexico. Our new Governor Susana Martinez supports reinstating the death penalty and there are attempts to reinstate it in the current legislative session. Too often the arguments on both side of the question get caught up in details and miss the bigger picture.
It took me many years to sort out how I felt about this question. Years ago I listened to both sides of the argument before finally realizing that life without parole is much preferable to the death penalty, no matter how horrible the crime. I would like to share some of the insights behind that conclusion that is even more relevant today.
- No matter how we feel about the crimes committed, it is clear that many mistakes have been made over the years where people have been sentenced for crimes that they did not commit. Not a year goes by without someone being let out of prison after evidence is uncovered that proves they really were innocent. Some have been locked away for years before being proved innocent. Although there is no way to know for sure how many, but it is obvious that some have been put to death who were innocent. Our system of justice is imperfect, no matter how many safeguards we try to put in place.
- Some will argue that the death penalty is the ultimate punishment. But this argument is usually made from the perspective of people who have never served time in a rough prison environment. Stop and think about this for a moment. If your objective is to punish the offender, what do you think is the greater punishment: being put to death or having to live in a tough prison environment without an option for parole? Wouldn’t you rather the offender have the rest of their life in a very restricted environment to think about what they have done wrong?
- I won’t try to present the numbers, but anyone paying attention will realize that the death penalty is far more expensive in terms of overall average costs than life in prison. Years of appeals are always in order and often reach the steps of the Supreme Court. Even in New Mexico with our sparse population the Public Defender Department estimates that reinstating the death penalty could cost the state millions of dollars extra in increased court costs.
- You often hear that the threat of the death penalty can deter the most violent crimes. Yet again this argument is usually made from the point of view of law abiding citizens. The criminal doesn’t expect to get caught, so this argument really doesn’t hold water.
- You also hear the argument that the death penalty brings closure for victims and their families, but this usually doesn’t turn out to be the case. I have seen enough reported evidence over the decades to realize that angry victims are still angry after the death penalty has been carried out and they still haven’t found closure.
- Although most prison systems are a harsh environment, it is important to realize that even some of the people who have committed the most horrible crimes eventually come around to realize the error of their ways and then try to do their best to make amends. Shouldn’t they have the opportunity to work out the error of their ways while they are still on this earth?
You will notice that I didn’t invoke any religious arguments. No matter which religion or which religious argument is used, there is always someone who can present a counter argument from that same set of religious beliefs.
So in the end, no system of justice on this earth can get it right every single time. Since it is obvious that mistakes have been made and innocent people put to death and supporting the death penalty is more expensive, why not settle for life in prison without parole instead? At least then we can reverse errors when they do occur, but if the innocent person has already been put to death it is too late.
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
Rebuttal, numbered in the ame order as your statements:
1)All human systems are imperfect.
Of all human endeavors that put innocents at risk, is there one with a better record of sparing innocent lives than the US death penalty? Unlikely.
a) “The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx
b) Opponents in capital punishment have blood on their hands, Dennis Prager, 11/29/05, http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2005/11/29/opponents_in_capital_punishment_have_blood_on_their_hands
c) “A Death Penalty Red Herring: The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection”, Lester Jackson Ph.D.,
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102909A
The false innocence claims by anti death penalty activists are legendary. Some examples:
d) “The Innocent Executed: Deception & Death Penalty Opponents”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/08/the-innocent-executed-deception–death-penalty-opponents–draft.aspx
e) The 130 (now 138) death row “innocents” scam
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/04/fact-checking-issues-on-innocence-and-the-death-penalty.aspx
—————————-
2) About 70% of those on death row have been to prsion, before. They much prefer life to death row.
Some death penalty opponents argue against death penalty deterrence, stating that it’s a harsher penalty to be locked up without any possibility of getting out.
Reality paints a very different picture.
First, there is always the possibility of getting out of prison.
More importantly, living murderers can harm and murder, again – executed murderers cannot. A very big deal.
Secondly, let’s look at those who actually face the death penalty and see what they choose.
What percentage of capital murderers seek a plea bargain to a death sentence? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment.
What percentage of convicted capital murderers argue for execution in the penalty phase of their capital trial? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment.
What percentage of death row inmates waive their appeals and speed up the execution process? Nearly zero. They prefer long term imprisonment.
This is not, even remotely, in dispute.
What of that more rational group, the potential murderers who choose not to murder, is it likely that they, like most of us, fear death more than life?
Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life.
No surprise.
You tried to side step my main observation that INNOCENT individuals have been put to death for crimes they did NOT commit.
This is the core of my belief that the death penalty should be replaced by life in prison without the option of parole, except when evidence comes to light that proves the person has been wrongly accused. Every year we see that people are let out of prison for crimes that they did NOT commit.
Quoting all kinds of “scholarly” studies about the effectiveness of the death penalty simply ignores the core FACT that innocent people have been put to death for crimes they did NOT commit.
3) The New Mexico Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) was, clearly, in error, with their cost evaluations in their bill analysis – a fact which I pointed out to the NM legislature. First, New Mexico used a North Carolina cost study, which had no relevance in New Mexico. Secondly, the LFC misinterpreted the study, which actually finds the death penalty to be less expensive than a true life sentence, the opposite of the LFC statement.
Can any state have a responsible death penalty protocol whereby the costs are similar or less expensive than life without parole cases?
Of course.
Virginia has executed 65% of those sent to death row in 5-7 years after sentencing, because of strict timelines for thorough appeals, a process validated through both state and federal courts.
It is crucial to check the claims and methodology of the death penalty cost studies. Often they are either very deceptive or inaccurate, just as some studies which compare the costs of the death penalty vs life without parole. Instead of an apples to apples comparison, we often find a kangaroos to apples comparison.
1) “Death Penalty Cost Studies: Saving Costs over LWOP”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2010/03/21/death-penalty-cost-studies-saving-costs-over-lwop.aspx
2) “Duke (North Carolina) Death Penalty Cost Study: Let’s be honest”
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/06/duke-north-carolina-death-penalty-cost.html
(NOTE: A 2009 study, by one of these authors, found that by ending the death penalty NC might save $11 million , or about 1 penny ever third day/person. I have not read it, yet, but based upon this professors prior study, reviewed here, the death penalty likely saves money.)
3) Cost Savings: The Death Penalty
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/05/07/cost-savings-the-death-penalty.aspx
4) See 4th comment down within comments:
The California Death Penalty Fraud:
Posted by dudleysharp on August 19, 2010 at 4:35 AM | Report this comment
Rebuttal to ACLU:
and A Rebuttal to “Cut This: The Death Penalty”(1)
Death Penalty vs Life Costs in California
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/are-capital-punishments-financial-costs-worth-it/Content?oid=2003765
More cost reviews upon request.
Again, my core argument is that the death penalty has put to death innocent people and that life in prison without a chance of parole, except when new evidence surfaces proving innocence, is a much better solution.
My auxiliary observations still stand, even though they are not the main thrust of my argument that the death penalty should be overturned.
4) Deterrence
a) Of course the death penalty deters. A review of the debate.
Dudley Sharp
1) Anti death penalty folks say that the burden of proof is on those who say that the death penalty deters. Untrue. It is a rational truism that all potential negative outcomes deter some – there is no exception. It is the burden of death penalty opponents to prove that the death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the only prospect of a negative outcome that deters none. They cannot.
2) There have been 27 recent studies finding for death penalty deterrence (See B. 1. Below). A few of those have been criticized. The criticism has, itself been rebutted and/or the criticism doesn’t negate no. 1 or nos. 3-10, herein.
3) No deterrence study finds that the death penalty deters none. They cannot.
4) About 99% of those murderers who are subject to the death penalty do everything they can to receive a lesser sentence, in pre trial, plea bargains, trial, in appeals and in clemency/commutation proceedings. Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life. No surprise. Would a more rational group, those who choose not to murder, also share in that overwhelming fear of death and be deterred by the prospects of execution? Of course.
5) There are a number of known cases of individual deterrence, those potential murderers who have stated that they were prevented from committing murder because of their fear of the death penalty. Individual deterrence exists. (See B. 4. below)
6) General deterrence exists because individual deterrence cannot exist without it.
7) Even the dean of anti death penalty academics, Hugo Adam Bedau, agrees that the death penalty deters .. . but he doesn’t believe it deters more than a life sentence. Nos. 4-6 and 10 provide anecdotal and rational evidence that the death penalty is a greater deterrent than a life sentence. In addition, the 27 studies finding for deterrence, find that the death penalty is an enhanced deterrent over a life sentence.
9) If we execute and there is no deterrence, we have justly punished a murderer and have prevented that murderer from ever harming/murdering, again. If we execute and there is deterrence, we have those benefits, plus we have spared more innocent lives. If we don’t execute and there is deterrence, we have spared murderers at the cost of more innocent deaths.
10) Overwhelmingly, people prefer life over death and fear death more than life.
“If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call.”
John McAdams – Marquette University/Department of Political Science
——————————————–
3) b) Of course the death penalty deters.
All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.
1) 27 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm
2) “Deterrence & the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx
3) “Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let’s be clear”
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html
4) This is out of date, but corrects a number of the misconceptions about deterrence.
“Death Penalty and Deterrence”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/20/the-death-penalty-as-a-deterrent–confirmed–seven-recent-studies-updated-61204.aspx
5) “The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx
If the death penalty deterred 100% of crimes then we wouldn’t have anyone in prison! So obviously, the death penalty is not a very strong deterrent.
Trying to argue that the death penalty has “some” degree of deterrence is NOT justification for the death penalty when it is obvious that innocent people have been put to death for crimes they have not committed.