| Jack Manfred |
11-05-2003 03:05 PM |
Death Without Parole
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.
|
It might trouble me if "vows" to seek the death penalty were commonplace. In the cases I've seen, such vows are usually reserved for notorious cases where the DA is vowing to do something that everyone who is not opposed to the death penalty sees as a no-brainer. "Hey, this guy killed 48 people. He seems like a good candidate for the death penalty."
Some serial killers are able to make the offer "Don't put me to death, and I'll tell you all of the people I've killed." That puts DA's in a tough position because they (1) are bargaining with a psychopath, (2) might have dozens of cases where the family can at least learn the truth (especially if they are holding out hope), and (3) have to deal with some families who believe justice = vengance.
Death penalty issues are primarily state specific. In California, the fact that an LWOP inmate might serve 30 years doesn't make much of a difference when it takes 20 years to get off of death row because of appeals. Other states, such as Texas, have the opposite problem. The speed with which Texas executes criminals (and with which GWB considered pardons and commutations) should raise questions even among conservatives, given Texas' history with incompetent appointed defense attorneys.
There might be an appropriate balance between the two extremes, or it might be that a just system simply requires more money than citizens are willing to pay. I think the abolitionist movement should turn away from morality and look to economics for traction.
Just to turn the conversation toward typical FB topics...
If the suit is too big in the shoulders, you would have to get it recut. Only a good tailor could do this properly, and most good tailors would advise against it. |
