Death from Cluelessness: State Killing Machines and the Penalty of Indifference

Nobody has ever shown that a lifetime in jail without parole is any less a deterrent to future crime compared with the threat of death.  As a general rule, violent crime rates in countries with no death penalty are lower than in the United States.

In supporting the death penalty, the United States is a standout in an unsavory crowd.  We associate with the likes of Sudan and Qatar rather than with Sweden and Switzerland.  Only the United States, China, Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen have executed minors since 1990.  We join this lethal group willingly, with more than 60% of Americans favoring state-sponsored death.  That broad support is in part a consequence of America’s religiosity and an affinity for the wrathful God of Abraham demanding and eye for an eye. A majority of Americans believe we have a biblical mandate to kill criminals, by numbers the same majority that believes America is a Christian nation.

The death record differs considerably among the various states, with a strong correlation to religious fervor. Texas, Virginia, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Florida have carried out 75% of all executions, with Texas executing more than the other four combined.  The next five are Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana, Alabama and Arkansas.  As are Texas and Oklahoma, all states in the second group are in the top 10 most religious (measured by polls asking respondents if religion “is an important part of your daily life”). That means that 7 of the 10 most religious states are also the country’s most prolifigate executioners.  These are the same states with the highest number of citizens claiming to be “pro life.”  Of the top 10 least religious states, Massachusetts, Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Alaska have abolished the death penalty.  Religious states kill more prisoners than the least religious.

The death penalty is supported in the United States not on the basis of facts but on assumptions, all of which are unproven.  We hear statements like “capital punishment deters murder and helps protect police” without one shred of evidence to support that conclusion.  That statement was from Charley Wilkison, a spokesman for the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas.  Strange how the same people who happily put people to death on untested assumptions with no supporting evidence are the same who demand a much higher level of proof on issues like climate change or environmental protection.  One would think killing another human, and fear of doing so wrongly, would be the issue requiring the highest level of conclusive evidence that the practice accrues some benefit to society.  Yet no data support the claim of deterrence. The murder rate in Texas is 5.9 per 100,000.  The murder rate in Maine is 1.7 per 100,000.  Maine abolished the death penalty way back in 1887. 

Let us take a closer look at Texas as the clear leader of the bunch, so enamored with both the death penalty and church.  In 2000, the state executed a record 40 prisoners.  That means the state killed on average a prisoner every 9 days, creating the equivalent of a state-sponsored death factory.  Texas has put 441 inmates to death since capital punishment was reinstated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976.  The stench of dead flesh has risen to such noxious levels that former Texas Governor Mark White has called for the state to “reconsider” the death penalty.  White concludes that the practice “no longer” deters murder, without offering any evidence it ever did or suggesting what might have changed from when he was involved with 20 executions as governor and state attorney general.

By White’s account, a murderer in the good old days would stop his knife in mid-arc fearful of being put to death if caught.  But today murders have somehow grown immune to threats of death by injection.  But the former governor’s odd conclusion about deterrence is only the appetizer to a more bizarre meal.  His cluelessness is worth exploring because his ideas are broadly representative of society’s views, hypocrisies, inconsistencies and willful blindness to the truth on this issue.  Read with awe the following statements from White (I have added the emphases): “There is a very strong case to be made for…a look at the possibility of having life without parole so we don’t look up one day and determine that we, as the State of Texas, have executed someone who in fact was innocent.”   He went on to say that the system is so unreliable that “it creates the unnecessary possibility that an innocent person would be convicted in Texas.  And I don’t think anybody in Texas wants that to happen.” 

One day, as in the future?  Really? The surrealistic implication in that statement is that Texas has not yet executed an innocent prisoner. Perhaps he has forgotten David Spence, executed in 1997.  Even the principle homicide investigator in the case believed Spence to be innocent.  A growing number of people now believe that Cameron Todd Willingham was wrongly convicted of arson and murder.  He was executed in 2004.  Current Texas Governor Rick Perry has procedurally blocked a state commission from examining the investigation and conviction.  Ruben Cantu was executed in 1993 for killing a man during a robbery.  The problem is that later independent investigations concluded that Cantu “was likely telling the truth” when proclaiming his innocence.  The key eye witness who identified Cantu recanted.  Since Willingham, Spence and Cantu are all now dead courtesy of the state, their exoneration does little good.

Former Gov. White blithely ignores the obvious fact that wrongful convictions are by no means rare in our system.  Advances in DNA testing have proved conclusively that in the last 10 years at least 180 prisoners in the United States, innocent of the crime for which they have been convicted, have been sentenced to death. Michael Blair was sent to death row for the 1993 kidnapping and killing of Ashley Estell, only to be later proven innocent by DNA. Dennis Williams and Verneal Jimerson spent 18 years on death row in Illinois for a crime they did not commit. Kirk Bloodsworth wasted nine years on death row as a child killer while the murderer roamed free. These are the "lucky" ones who were eventually freed before execution.  And White worries that “one day” Texas will execute an innocent man!  What colossal indifference to reality.

We know for a fact that innocent people have been put on death row, and that innocent people have been executed.  That is an undeniable truth.  Whether one opposes or supports the death penalty, that innocent people have been killed by the state cannot be refuted.

The penalty of death is too permanent to account for inevitable errors or willful misconduct on the part of police, judges, or prosecutors. Our justice system is rife with false eyewitness identification, fraudulent testimony, sloppy forensics and corrupt evidence gathering.  The danger of executing an innocent person is far greater than the societal benefit derived from putting a guilty prisoner to death, particularly when reasonable alternatives exist such as life in prison with no possibility of parole, so recently discovered by former Gov. White.

The rationale for imprisoning a convicted criminal is threefold: to protect society from future harm, to deter other would-be criminals, and to punish the offender. Given these societal objectives, no circumstances warrant use of the death penalty because none of the three legitimate purposes of incarceration is clearly advanced by state-sanctioned death. 

The fact of wrongful conviction should alone be enough to abolish the death penalty.  Lack of any convincing evidence that society benefits from the practice provides additional weight to opponents.  The primary claim of proponents that the death penalty deters criminals has never been substantiated; much evidence hints at the opposite conclusion.  Statistics by state comparing crime rates and executions offer no solace to those in favor of the ultimate penalty.

Carl Sagan famously said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  The claim that killing prisoners acts as a deterrent or keeps police safe is indeed extraordinary; but the claim is not supported by anything close to extraordinary evidence.

Here is what we know.  Innocent people have been executed; and the death penalty has no proven benefit to society. 

We have sacrificed our morality for so little. The death penalty diminishes us.  Just as we now look back on slavery with shame, so too will future generations judge us harshly.  Our children will wonder how we could possibly condone such barbarism.  Are we really no better than the medieval societies lingering today on the fringes of human history?  The time has come for the United States to leave behind a primitive practice more appropriate to the 16^th century than the 21^st; We have no business being in the same death business as China and Chad.

 

Follow Jeff Schweitzer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JeffSchweitzer

Comments

[Jeff Schweitzer - Huffpost Blogger]

All the oppostion to my position is based on the idea that my statistic are flawed, in turned based on the idea that correlation does not imply causation. I could not agree more, but that works both ways. And those who wish to kill people have a higher standard of proof than I need to provide; and my correlations are every big as strong as those who support the death penalty; I agree that such correlation does not mean causation -- but the opposite is equally true.

[guitargeorge1964]

I don't have a problem with your research or statistics. I do think you are basing a lot of your opinion on stereotypes. I'm an Atheist Texas Democrat who does believe that there is a place for the Death Penalty. I would like to see tighter restrictions on what evidence is necessary to sentence someone to Death. And I know you probably won't like this, but I don't care if it's a deterrent, I view it as punishment. And that has nothing to do with religion. I think about the victims and the suffering inflicted on them and the people who love them.
The case on Willingham is far from conclusive. It appears to me that a pro death penalty fire marshall reviewed it and said "Arson". A anti-death penalty investigater looked at the same evidence 15 years later and said "Not arson", then attacked the credibility of the first guy. That makes both of them not credible in my eyes.
Mark White is a typical lawyer, politician hypocrite. The man allowed all those executions to take place because he knew it would affect his career, nothing else. Changing your tune late in life is nothing new, look at George Wallace.

[guitargeorge1964]

Just a side note.
2 days ago the Houston Chronicle posted an article on-line saying that we, in Houston, had gone 10 days without a homicide. That was broken a few hours later when a 20 year old guy shot his 16 year old girlfriend in the face. He was arrested the following day, and hopefully he will be sentenced to death for murdering this young girl, depriving her, and her family, of all her life dreams, hopes and ambitions.
I have lived in California, Oregon, Arizona, and have spent a lot of time in New York. Everywhere I go I like to read local newspapers. I have yet to find this utopia that exist in anti-death penalty states. I don't think you will find another city our size, or even close to our size, anywhere in this country that can claim to have gone that long without a homicide.
I have seen deep divisions everywhere in our country that I have never seen here in Houston in the past 25 years. Take a look at the circumstances of that baby who was shotgunned in it's mother's arms in California. All for the crime of being born to a woman in another neighborhood.

[dudleysharp]

Based upon Texas and Maine, and other states and countries, it could hardly be less illustrative of the connection between murder rates and the death penalty.

Please review:

"Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html

[dudleysharp]

Deterrence: Yes

The potential for negative consequences deters some behavior. The most severe criminal sanction -- execution -- does not contradict that finding. Reason, common sense, history and the weight of the studies support the deterrent effect of the death penalty. The death penalty protects innocent lives. The absence of the death penalty sacrifices innocent lives.

Is there any group, be they criminologists, historians, psychologists, economists, philosophers, physicians, journalists or criminals that does not recognize that the prospect of negative consequences constrains or deters the behavior of some? Of course not -- not even fiction writers so speculate. Even irrational people wear seat belts, choose not to smoke and do not rob police stations because of the potential for negative consequences.

[dudleysharp]

There is much evidence that the death penalty is a greater protector of innocents.

"The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

In additon, there are not just many shreds of evidence that the death penalty deters, but floods of it.

16 recent deterrence studies, inclusive of their defenses
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm

"Deterrence and 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

[Jeff Schweitzer - Huffpost Blogger]

There is much evidence it does not. Crime rates among them.

[dudleysharp]

Mr. Scweitzer:

You are inaccurate on your statements regarding death penalty, deterrence and murder rates.

"Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html

[Jeff Schweitzer - Huffpost Blogger]

Actually, no I am not. I don't need to prove that the death penalty does not act as a deterent; proponents have to prove it does. And that does not.

[dudleysharp]

Yes, you were inaccurate.

I thought it was obvious I was correcting your comments on measuring deterrence by by the death penalty and murder rates.

That was an error on your part.

I wasn't trying to prove deterrence, although that is not hard to do.

[J G H]

1. I regard a life term without parole, especially for a young defendant, to be harsher than death. There have been prisoners who have opposed appeals on their behalf who demonstrate that I am not unrealistic in this view.

2. I have no confidence in the "without parole" part of the equation. I suspect, as with some of the Manson family, that we will see agitation for release of lifers as they age. The no parole concept will be the next target if the death penalty is repealed.

3. I agree that the sloppiness of some prosecutors is appalling, reinforced by the underreported statement of Scalia in a recent case that the Constitution does not require protection of a person from execution if evidence arises that he was wrongly convicted. That statement by itself destroys Scalia's moral authority. However, this problem needs to be resolved by tougher standards all around, with stiff consequences for a prosecutor who cuts corners in a capital case.

4. Some prisoners remain a threat to guards and other inmates while imprisoned. They are strong and ruthless. Nothing will deter them. How many prison guards do you know? How many of their family members. You ask an awful lot to expect them to treat prisoners within strict procedures at the risk of their own lives.

[tabaqui]

I am 100 percent for the death penalty...­if we execute the right person 100 percent of the time. However, our current justice system is unfortunately skewed in such a way that that is not possible.

I do not believe that if a person, with malice aforethought and in no danger of harm or death, arbitrarily kills another human, that they have forfeited their right to life. And in particular, when it comes to such people as Ted Bundy or the Oklahoma bomber - I do not want to pay for them to live until their ninety. Or even fifty.

They deserve a swift and public execution for their grotesque crimes.

B

[deezus]

Totally agree. Prisoners that should be executed, and aren't, are a financial burden on everyone.

[Jeff Schweitzer - Huffpost Blogger]

So you are not apparently bothered by the fact that we kill innocent people.

[Stirner]

Yeh, get rid of the death penalty and provide killers with free room and board (t.v., movies, balanced diet, exercise, medical care, etc. ) paid for by the victims. Now that's justice.

[Jeff Schweitzer - Huffpost Blogger]

So you justify killing people because it is cheaper. So why stop with prisoners? Why not sick people? Old people? Mentally retarded people? Killing all of them would be cheaper, and just as justified if you use cost savings as a reason to support the practice.

If you think the free room and board is so great, would you volunteer to take advantage of that?

[deezus]

The sick people, old people, and mentally retarded people were not convicted of a capital crime. That is the difference, a very important difference.

[dudleysharp]

Mr. Schweitzer, why do you think we have criminal sanctions? Please explain.

Are criminal sanctions integral with the social contract? Why or why not?

Do any criminal sanctions deter? If we did away with all criminal sanctions for a year, what would happen?

Why do capital murderers, overwhelmingly, prefer a life sentence over a death sentence?

I think that the general support for all criminal sanctions, is based upon folks finding them being just and appropriate for the crime, the same as the support for the death penalty.

I believe all of the other reasons are secondary.

[Jeff Schweitzer - Huffpost Blogger]

Of course in offering someone a choice of life or prison most would choose life in prison. But that in no way implies that the threat of death deters anybody from crime. Most murders are done in the heat of angry passion, with no thought to future consequences.

I intended to answer your questions about "sanctions" in listing the 3 legitimate reasons society places criminals in prison.

[dudleysharp]

We disagree. It is unchallenged that murderers prefer a life sentence over a death sentence. That implies a greater deterrent. All sanctions deter some. That is uncontested. If one sanction- life - is, overwhelmingly, desired over another - death - there is an enhanced deterrent effect with the sanction less preferred.

Now, if 50% of capital murderers sought a life sentence and 50% sought a death sentence, I would agree that we could not weigh one as a greater deterrent than another. But, as over 99% purse a life sentence, it's a sure bet which is a greater deterrent to those who don't commit capital murder.

[Ben Dixon]

The death penalty may or may not deter crime, but it is a way for the convicted to pay back society. What we should really do is take a person who is to be put to death and harvest all of thier blood and organs and give them to people who need them. In that way a criminal who has taken from society can now give back to society.

[Jeff Schweitzer - Huffpost Blogger]

It is not clear how society gets paid back by killing a prisoner, and we have the problem of wrongful convictions.

If your goal is revenge, handing down a sentence of life in prison wtih no possibility of parole should satisfy that urge as well as the legitimate need for society to punish crime. Proponents of the death penalty have a high bar to cross: they have to show unambiguously that putting someone to death has substantially greater benefits to society than life without parole. And I belive that cannot be done.

Harvesting organs involuntarily has no place in a civilized society, no matter what practical benefits might be proposed.

[deezus]

Society gets paid back by not having to pay to keep the prisoner alive for the rest of their life.

[dudleysharp]

There is a significant difference between revenge and a just and appropriate sanction within a criminal justice system, such as the US.

The basis of support for all criminal sanctions in the US is that we find them to be just and appropriate. It's the same foundation for probation, fines, time in jail, prison or the death penalty.

The greatest pay back that society can get from criminal sanctions is justice. It is significant.

[Patrick Garies]

I would really hate to be one of the people that gets an organ from a person later determined to be innocent..­.

[octavia1]

Great post. I'd like to know your opinion whether the death penalty should be forced IF there is irrefutable evidence, beyond any shadow of a doubt. Would then the death penalty be justified? I think I know the answer, but I'm playing devil's advocate. In my humble opinion, the death penalty stains the entire society that allows it. Granted, some people deserved to be killed and worse, but a country or state that allows such (let me paraphrase you) barbarian acts becomes tainted.

Another point is religion, I think you got that wrong. Most Christians are very much against the death penalty. I'm not defending Christians, I'm just trying to establish a fact. What has happened to evangelicals here in the United States is a very unique thing: rejoicing with the murdering of doctors who practice abortion, denying facts like evolution, seeing science as evil and and overall blind disdain towards anything intellectual (case in point, Sarah Palin could've won). That doesn't happen anywhere else in the world, at least not with such force. Catholics and Orthodox Christians are much less fundamentalist, but even those who are, are against the death penalty. It seems to me that religion and death penalty might be two consequences of the same problem, whatever that is.

[Jeff Schweitzer - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for your thoughtful response and questions. Even with irrefutable proof of guilt, the dealth penalty would be difficult to justify becasue there is no evidence it serves any purpose other than revenge. No evidence suggests it deters crime or makes police safer. Given the high threshold for taking another life, I have a hard time imagining a circumstance in which the death penatly should be applied. No doubt some people deserve to die, but given the reality of flawed procedures and human frailties, we are all better off if we abolished the practice of state-sponsored death.

Concerning religion. Western Europe, some of the most secular societies on earth, all oppose the death penalty. The U.S. is one of the most religious countries, and we support it. I agree that many Christians globally oppose the death penalty, but not in the United States. There are enough Evangelicals that even if that perspective is unique to here, it is significant.

[jules23]

Yes, it is frustrating and strange that evangelicals, can whole heartedly embrace religion, but somehow forget about the "Though Shalt Not Kill" part of the bible. I guess they have a high capacity for hypocrisy.

I think the argument against the death penalty, is much the same as the argument against torture. Whether or not they are effective is highly suspect. What is more certain, is that the countries that employ them, lack moral credibility. Moral credibility in the USA in general, is in very short supply.

[dudleysharp]

All human endeavors are flawed.

The death penalty provides more protections for the innocent than does a life sentence.

"The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

A majority of the population in Western Europe supported the execution of Saddam Hussein.

Western Europe is part of the European Union. It is a requirement of EU membership that the country does not have the death penalty. The primary reasons to join the EU are financial. Some countries abandon the justice of the death penalty for financial reasons.
Some would have abandoned it, anyway.

I think you can come up with a lot of reasons why the US has the death penalty and Western Europe does not. There have been quite afew essays on the religious vs the secular, on this topic.

Here is one: http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2008/01/religion-and-th.html

[COPerez]

The statistical differences between Texas and Maine could not be more illustrative.

The death sentence, health care outcomes, religiosity; we are a 16th century holdover in the 21st century.