UPDATE: I was told that my second sentence, the one about Japan, implied that prisoners don’t know they are to be executed at all until the day it’s done. I was obviously unclear in what I said, so let me explain: prisoners in Japan slated for capital punishment do of course know that they will be executed well in advance, but they don’t know exactly when until the day it happens. The statement about others being informed only post-execution is correct.
_________
The U.S. is one of the few “advanced” nations to retain the death penalty; the other notable one is Japan. (Japan has a bizarre system: prisoners aren’t told they’re going to be hanged until the day they’re executed, and nobody else, including relatives, is informed until the sentence has been carried out. Japan has executed 67 people since 2000.)
Here’s a map from Wikipedia showing which countries use capital punishment.
Turquoise: no death penalty for any crime
Lime green: death penalty only for exceptional crimes (treason, etc.)
Tan: death penalty not used in practice; no executions for at least ten years
Red: death penalty imposed
In the U.S., capital punishment has aways been deemed Constitutionally legal, though opponents have argued that it violates the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
In the case of Furman vs. Georgia in 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court suspended the death penalty not because it constituted a “cruel and unusual punishment,” but because it was being applied capriciously and inconsistently. In 1977 states again began executing people after a Court decision that implicitly allowed it for cases of murder. Later decisions outlawed application of capital punishment to those deemed mentally retarded or who were under 18 at the time of their crime. The first person executed after that suspension was Gary Gilmore in Utah.
Now only 19 of 50 states in the U.S. (plus the District of Columbia) outlaw capital punishment; those are shown in green below (map from Wikipedia). All the enlightened states save New Mexico are in the North, and east of the Rockies.
You may not realize that 35 people were executed last year in the U.S. My own opposition to capital punishment has been unwavering: it doesn’t serve as a deterrent, eliminates the possibility of reversing a false conviction, is based solely on the unproductive desire of humans to exact retribution, and is more expensive and cumbersome than life in prison without parole. It’s time that my country fell in line with our peers and abolished it.
And that, curiously, is what conservative Justice Antonin Scalia signaled last week in a speech at Rhodes College reported by the American Bar Association Journal:
Justice Antonin Scalia delivered his standard defense of originalism in a speech on Tuesday that included an unusual observation about the justices’ stance on capital punishment: Scalia said he “wouldn’t be surprised” if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the death penalty.
Scalia told students at Rhodes College he has four colleagues who believe the death penalty is unconstitutional, reports the Memphis Commercial Appeal. The Associated Press also covered the speech, but did not include Scalia’s death-penalty remarks.
In a June dissent by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, he called for a briefing on whether the death penalty is constitutional. “I believe it highly likely that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment,” Breyer said in the dissent.
Now I’m not sure why Scalia said he “wouldn’t be surprised” given that only four colleagues see the death penalty as unconstitutional (it takes five to affirm that), and, as an “originalist” who believes that we should adhere to the intent and letter of the original Constitution, it’s not clear that Scalia would be that fifth vote. As the Journal added:
Scalia said in his speech that justices on the current Supreme Court are “terribly unrepresentative of our country” and noted the only justice from the South is Clarence Thomas. The other justices are from California, New York and New Jersey. “Do you really want your judges to rewrite the Constitution?” he asked.
Since capital punishment is not per se unconstitutional, this seems to signal that Scalia isn’t opposed to it. The justices that I count as ruling against capital punishement are Breyer and Ginsburg, as noted above, as well as Kagan and Sotomayor. That makes only four. Does Scalia knows something we don’t—perhaps about Justice Anthony Kennedy?
h/t: Ben Goren
Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts, and Kennedy are Catholics. The Catholic church opposes the death penalty.
As is Justice Sotomayor,who is at least nominally Catholic.
The Pope mentioned the issue in his address to congress.
Perhaps more than any other religion, all Catholics are cafeteria Catholics.
Far more serious IMHO is the fact that all nine justices are law graduates of either Harvard or Yale law schools.
The only media outlet I know in the US that provides live coverage of executions is Execution Watch. They have live coverage on Houston-based KPFT. I recommend listening to the program online if you can. It’s disturbing, but very informative.
So why is it that the only live coverage of executions is provided by anti-death penalty activists? It’s because mainstream news outlets know the same thing they do, that the death penalty is shameful.
And of course if people really thought it was a deterrent then they’d probably show LIVE execcutions.
Hangings, of course, used to be public. Which made me wonder when the last public one was. Or did they end by default as the methods turned indoors? Answer (I just learned): 1936, in Kentucky, before a crowd of ~20,000.
Somehow, this link was left out.
“…before a crowd of ~20,000.”
That is just sickening!
‘Cruel and unusual’. The term is entirely subjective and on its face shows Scalia’s originalism for the farse that it is. Has the definition of cruelty not changed in the past two centuries? I’d wager the definition of cruelty has changed substantially in our own life times and for the better. The word unusual has no meaning outside its comparison to something else. Premeditated murder by the State is certainly unusual within Americas peer group, but Scalia and his conservative cohort won’t look beyond Americas borders for guidance. That leaves only a comparison between the fifty states as a guide. Once a majority of states, either by number or population, outlaw the death penalty, it will by definition be unusual. The more liberal members of the court do look at case law from other countries and that would likely guide them towards abolition.
Cruel & unusual: At the time the Constitution was framed, I suspect they were thinking of things like drawing and quartering, breaking on the wheel, impalement, and that sort of thing.
Times have changed a lot. And now cruel and unusual punishment means listening to a Republican Congressperson speak.
Why not just say “barbaric?” Even executing a barbaric person doesn’t make execution not barbaric.
So there are people who think the death penalty isn’t cruel?
Isn’t rest-of-life imprisonment, with no prospect of parole, also rather cruel?
Yes. But it’s (generally) much preferable to state-sanctioned murder…and, while those serving life sentences might not have hope for their own case, they can still retain hope for societal reform.
Plus, once the death penalty is banned, that itself will serve as leverage for further reform of the should-be-criminal nature of our criminal (in)justice system.
b&
Sure, I even think it’s even cruel to imprison people for things like possessing drugs and but that’s only just my opinion.
Especially for judges it is important to take impartiality seriously, part of that is that they at least must be able to make objective judgements.
I think some state cruelty and violence is necessary and therefore maybe the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution should be changed for being unrealistic or too vague. They probably meant punishment should be proportional.
Wow. A nice and thoughtful comment. Such is really appreciated. Yes, it is cruel to lock people “away.”
How can any of us not regret that we do that to other human beings? Having done so, they “go away” only in our minds…we barbarians!
Imagine being in confinement with two breaks a day. After 10 or 20 years of reading many us might ask for the “purple cool aid”…two cups full please!
Even as I read Dylan Thomas…”don’t go into that dark night!”
I dismiss everything Scalia says. In my opinion, he is mentally deranged.
That doesn’t mean he has no influence on the legal system.
True, but he has a decent record of telegraphing future Court direction. He made plain that the Court was going to legalize gay marriage long before they actually did.
Even though he’s likely going to vote to preserve the death penalty, there’s good reason to think that he’s just told us that that won’t be enough to stop the Court.
b&
He’s likely warning those who agree with him to start their political campaign to retain it now, and giving them some tactics. For example, insisting the next appointee comes from the South.
I’m sure President Sanders won’t pay him any heed.
Example: Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) said legal gay marriage was a logical future decision.
Interesting how the red part of the world map sweeps right through the Holy Book Belt – and parts of the state-as-religion zone.
A big red exception being China. But yes, otherwise.
Abolishing the death penalty in the U.S.? Maybe Scalia will be ok with that? Well, knock me over with a feather. Flabber my ghast. Watch my eyeballs pop out of my head: Aooooga. Aooooga.
+ 1
😀
I’m surprised to see Switzerland in tan (dead penalty not used since at least 10 years) in the map. Actually, death sentence was suppressed for civilian crimes in 1942, and for high treason in 1992 (it was never used since WW2, during which 17 people, mostly military, were shot).
Just to say.
Thank you, Pope Francis.
I notice that the countries that still have C. P. are also the ones that are more religiously or politically extreme, with a couple of exceptions.
Showing off for the Pope? He would. I always wonder what we might have learned from a blabber mouth like Ted Bundy if we hadn’t murdered him.
The state has always been the most efficient and prolific murderer. Favoring the end of capital punishment is a mere matter of favoring self-preservation.
There’s also the weirdness that so many of those who support the death penalty are also anti-choice, considering abortion (and sometimes even contraception) murder.
It seems clear to me that the reason for the retention of the death penalty in the US is the dominance of Protestant fundamentalism in politics. But I’m probably prejudiced.
Brazil shouldn´t be colored gren in the map, our Constitution does estabilish death penalty for military criminals in war times, but the last war we were involved in was WWII, and I don´t think there was any execution even then!
U.S. Army Private Eddie Slovik was executed by firing squad, in 1945, for desertion.
Huh??
Marcello was talking about Brazil. What’s the relevance?
cr
I didn’t know about the system in Japan. It reminds me of The Paradox of the Unexpected Hanging.
Well, that’s interesting to know about. Seems to me like just another case of philosophers making a huge hairy case about something very simple.
I *like* that paradox. It appeals to my perverse sense of irony.
cr
Is there anyone who really believes there are no crimes or series of crimes, having committed them, a person does not deserve to die?
It is a terrible outcome. It is a terrible punishment to exact. A mistake can be made!
But let us hear of the most horrible, horrible crimes that have been committed for which a person should NOT forfeit his life?
At life’s end, we will all be separated permanently from human company.
Of course, the death penalty is a deterrent for the specific person upon which it is exacted.
To argue there is no act, no crime, no behavior for which one should not forfeit his or her life is logically absurd.
Call it state murder. Label it retribution. Quarrel as to who should carry out the sentence or if the condemned suffer.
Now read about horrific crimes or imagine terrible murderous acts done many times and explain fully a sentence of death is unjust and inhuman.
There are simply conscious acts that each of us can perform that make our lives forfeit!
Who benefits from executing criminals? If someone does benefit, how exactly do they benefit? It seems to me there is no rational utility that can be sighted for it. The down side is very serious indeed – the accidental conviction and execution of someone who is in fact innocent. In such cases, execution can not be undone. And, of course, such cases are really quite common.
The question I asked was:
Is there anyone who really believes there are no crimes or series of crimes, having committed them, a person does not deserve to die?
Have you actually read of any of such crimes?
An answer, Yes or No will be appreciated.
I do not believe that there are crimes which deserve execution. Neither does the vast majority of the Western World. And how can the death penalty be a “deterrent” if the person is either put away for life without parole or, as in Norway, released after rehabilitation? And yes, Norway has a much lower rate of recidivism than the death-penalty nation of the United States.
“Is there anyone who really believes there are no crimes or series of crimes, having committed them, a person does not deserve to die?”
It has nothing to do with “deserving to die.” It’s all about what it says about us.
You are not privileged to say what it is all about. That is a matter of ideology or religious conviction.
Changing the terms as to how I framed the issue is an old and tiresome technique. It says I do not choose to enter the discussion…I have a fixed and non discussable point of view.
But thank you anyway.
It also suggests that you have not read of or seen depicted the horrors human can inflict upon one another…even those who take themselves outside of human society by those acts.
You need to read more and avoid reflex responses if you wish to discuss the matter as opposed to saying “Here I Stand!”.
I would invite you…again…to answer the question and elaborate on your answer!
And, yet, here you are, urging us to ourselves join you in perpetuating these horrors.
Clearly, you don’t give a damn about the horror. You just want your pound of flesh, and are more than happy to manipulate the fears and emotions of others to satiate your bloodlust. Fortunately for you, we don’t share your barbarianism and wouldn’t sacrifice you at your own altar, even though, by your own arguments, you’re clearly deserving of such.
b&
Please sir…calm down. Return to you meds. Do not operate farm machinery or drive on interstates.If not you may not be able to enter in discussions with such intelligent remarks…otherwise atrributable to barbarians.
It is satisfying to learn that your ancestors as well as mine had knuckles that were dragging the sidewalks.
This started out with a question and now as a first class ignoramus you hurl invective and start cursing…AND calling others barbarians.
But let me suggest how intelligent people…one or more…might have responded: yes, there are truly those whose crimes incontrovertibly indicate they deserve to die…BUT, here are the reasons not to execute them (Speck, Daumer, Hitler et al)…among us rational, non barbarians…we DO NOT wish to do so!
Remember the meds…double the pills at 1 p.m. today…just to be sure.
Make up your mind. If there’s no good reason to execute them, they don’t deserve to die. If they deserve to die, then you’ve got good reasons to execute them.
The fact of the matter is that the only reasons for execution ever offered are farcically invalid and are always transparent excuses for satiating bloodlust.
And no more reason is necessary to not kill somebody whom you have in secure custody than the simple fact that rational moral people don’t murder in cold blood. If you murder a prisoner, no matter your excuses, you’re a cold-blooded murderer, exactly the sort of person who belongs in custody to prevent cold-blooded murder.
b&
I can only think of one reason for killing a murderous prisoner, Ben. If they are about to escape (e.g. the police station / army unit is surrounded by the enemy – I’m sure that’s been in many movie plots) and we’re certain that the prisoner, once rescued, will commit many more deadly crimes.
Under those circumstances, yes I would certainly shoot him. But I wouldn’t be happy to have to be the one who did it.
cr
Even then, if the enemy is there to rescue that prisoner, it’s likely to be in your personal best interests to not kill him. Such a scenario implies you’re on the losing side of the battle if not the war, and victors tend to take an especially dim view of the guards who kill prisoners at the last minute….
b&
I notice that you said *secure* custody, in which case my hypothetical above doesn’t apply.
cr
“Even then, if the enemy is there to rescue that prisoner, it’s likely to be in your personal best interests to not kill him.”
Yes that did cross my mind. But morally it should count for nothing either way, since (a) the enemy might well kill me anyway and (b) my personal interests are small compared with his potentially thousands of future victims.
In reality of course, it might but different – but (c), this being hypothetical, I can afford to act morally without risking my (actual) neck 😉
cr
If you remember your history…when the prisons have been stormed, it’s nearly always been the good guys storming them to liberate the good guys unjustly imprisoned by the bad guys. People don’t attack prisons to free Hannibal Lecter; they storm the Bastille to liberate their fellow Revolutionaries.
b&
“it’s nearly always been the good guys storming them to liberate the good guys unjustly imprisoned by the bad guys.”
In fiction, maybe. But I think we’re getting way off topic…
Proctor, there are rules for commenting here. One of them is not to insult other readers. By suggesting that another reader “take his meds,” you’ve violated that rule. You will not be allowed to post further until you apologize. Got it?
As a matter of fact, I used to have an appetite for reading the goriest true crime books I could find.
“I would invite you…again…to answer the question…”
Well, aren’t you magnanimous? Sorry, I don’t feed trolls.
If you already have the person securely in custody, there cannot even in principle be any justification for murder. Anything else is naked barbaric bloodlust taking the guise of revenge.
Even if the person in question really is really evil and nasty and horrible and has done terrifying deeds and would eagerly do so again given the chance.
Indeed…those calling for the murder of criminals are themselves demonstrating the exact same coldblooded thirst for death that they use to justify the death of criminals.
b&
“All the enlightened states save New Mexico, Alaska, and Hawaii…”
FTFY 😉
That world map is a bit more nuanced than the one on blasphemy that we saw a few weeks back.
Also interesting is how civilised South America is and how much of Africa is tan-coloured.
cr
South Africa has not had the death penalty since its post apartheid constitution was brought in. Nearly 20 years. Wikipedia does not always get it right.
Well, tan is not bad.
I note also that _all_** of central and South America, from Mexico on, is turquoise/green/tan. That’s good! (Contra Hollywood’s usual portrayal of ‘banana republics’…)
(**Okay, with the exception of Puerto Rico – what a surprise – and – impossible to tell at that resolution but could be US Virgin Islands or St Kitts and Nevis, I know which one I’d bet on)
cr
The relevance (or not) of international practice to U S law is the subject of a new book by Justice Stephen Beyer, obviously relevant to this discussion
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/20/books/review/stephen-breyers-the-court-and-the-world.html
Also a handy promer from The Atlantic
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/07/constitutional-myth-10-international-law-is-a-threat-to-the-constitution/242683/
Sorry Stephen Breyer
Again, answer the question please.
But here is inadvertently revealed the core of this response: the person commenting is more interested in judging others as “cold-blooded.”
Surely it can be seen that you are assuming a position of superiority…one of a non’coldblooded’ species. Congratulations.
One has to assume all such answers are from 1. vegetarians and 2. persons with holding taxes to state and federal governments using those monies for military efforts.
Are there no rules here? Do not reasonable…non reflexive thinkers…have to answer the question(s)?
Can’t wait to graduate to the 5th grade…then we can really debate!
I answered the damn question above. And yes, there are rules, one of which is not to insult other readers. You’ve violated that and I await your apology before you can resume posting.
My personal answer is that your question is moot. The real question is whether, once we find crimes that deserve death, we can trust the government to carry out that punishment fairly and accurately.
Since our government officials are human and make mistakes (to say nothing of intentionally lying to/misleading juries), I do not believe our government should be carrying out the death sentence, regardless of crime or series of crimes.
I am all for abolishing the death penalty, but unfortunately for some of the Court members it is entirely Constitutional.
Both the 5th and 14th amendments clearly state that the death penalty can be imposed so long as there is “due process”. Though it hurts to say this, I agree with Scalia’s past reasonings concerning the death penalty.
That is not to say, however, that due process has been followed in every death penalty case. My only point is that the death penalty is not in itself unconstitutional.
I more or less agree – but I have read in secondary reports (e.g., Bunge’s _Social Science Under Debate_) that it is worse than not a deterrent, that it happens to be an *antideterrent*. Any sociologists of crime or what not up on the latest here?
You mean, something like “suicide by death penalty?” Or just warped minds craving the risk and/or the notoriety?
Maybe this has already been addressed in the comments, apologies for that. In any case, I would be grateful if you could ammend the start of your post, as it has mislead (at least some) people into thinking that death sentences in Japan are not communicated to the prisoner, their relatives and lawyers until they are hanged. That would not make sense from a legislative point of view, and it is, in fact, not true. Prisoners who are sentenced to death know it (when they are sentenced), but are not told when they will be hanged in advance, only on the morning of their hanging. Their relatives are only told afterwards. Note that I’m not justifying the system, only clarifying it. It may seem an inane point when compared with the debate on capital punishment, but it seems to have gained a lot of weight among your readers. Thanks in advance!
Yes, I knew that but clearly did not convey that information clearly. I’ll changed the post to reflect it, as I had no idea that it had confused people. Thanks for the clarification!