Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
So some dude in the PNW pled guilty today to 48 murders in exchange for the prosecutor's promise to forego the death penalty. I repeat: forty-eight murders. All women.
Maybe this is for the PB,* but does anyone else wonder about the dubious morality of vowing to seek the death penalty up to the moment the defendant pleads guilty?
Doesn't it create a troubling incentive for you to waive your right to a jury trial on innocence or guilt in order to save your life?
And doesn't it cheapen the profound difference between death and LWOP if the state's willing to waive death in order to avoid the expense of a trial?
*This is the kind of legal policy discussion we used to have on the Big Board, FWIW.
|
Expense shouldn't have anything to do with it. A trial has to be cheaper than housing an inmate for the 30 extra years your average serial killer would live getting LWOP than death penalty. (30 years = totally random guess unsupported by any research). But because the people who set and administer the State Attorney's office are different from the people who oversee the corrections budget, there probably is some inefficiency going on.
The risk factor of going to trial has to be pretty negligible, huh? Not much chance of the bad guy walking free. But there probably is an insurance-mentality into the state taking the plea. A not-guilty verdict would be a disaster beyond disasters, and would scuttle the political future of everyone involved. So take the plea.
I fully recognize that nothing in this answer is directly responsive to the moral quandry posed by AG. Sorry. My bad.
