In today's column, he wrote:
On paper anyway, the case against the death penalty is a no-brainer.
It's often unfairly applied. It fails to deter serious crime.
Unless you consider murder a serious crime.
Apparently, Westneat is unfamiliar with the many academic studies on the effect of the death penalty, for example, this one:
Recent evidence suggests that capital punishment may have a significant deterrent effect, preventing as many as eighteen or more murders for each execution. This evidence greatly unsettles moral objections to the death penalty, because it suggests that a refusal to impose that penalty condemns numerous innocent people to death. Capital punishment thus presents a life-life tradeoff, and a serious commitment to the sanctity of human life may well compel, rather than forbid, that form of punishment. Moral objections to the death penalty frequently depend on a distinction between acts and omissions, but that distinction is misleading in this context, because government is a special kind of moral agent. The familiar problems with capital punishment — potential error, irreversibility, arbitrariness, and racial skew — do not argue in favor of abolition, because the world of homicide suffers from those same problems in even more acute form. The widespread failure to appreciate the life-life tradeoffs involved in capital punishment may depend on cognitive processes that fail to treat "statistical lives" with the seriousness that they deserve.
Here's a suggestion for Westneat: Commit journalism. Call up some of the authors of those studies and ask them what they concluded, how they came to their conclusions, and how certain they are of their results. (And call a few of the academics on the other side, too.) Then come back and correct that column.
And here's a general point that Westneat — and others at our local papers — should think about: Westneat would know about these studies if he read a conservative magazine or web site regularly. (Even my modest site.) Westneat — and others at our local papers — would be better informed if their sources of information were more diverse.
Posted by Jim Miller at July 25, 2007 01:01 PM | Email ThisIdentity theft, dui, extortion, corporate fraud, etc, all need to be dealt with by public hangings.
Once you remove the criminal, the crimes stop.
Posted by: John Galt on July 25, 2007 01:19 PMMurder is murder and because it's mistakenly done by the government in the name of "justice" doees not make it right.
And the sacrifice of an innocent person's life to deter imaginary crimes of the furture is a preposterous argument.
As long as there is any potential for error, the death penalty is unacceptable.
Just look at how many wrongly convicted individuals are killed in the name of justice in the State of Texas alone on an annual basis - easily two - four completely innocent souls die in that state by the state's hands each and every year.
Posted by: Kristian on July 25, 2007 01:27 PM"Just look at how many wrongly convicted individuals are killed in the name of justice in the State of Texas alone on an annual basis - easily two - four completely innocent souls die in that state by the state's hands each and every year."
Since I reside in Texas, I am unaware of the innocent being executed. Would you be so kind as to provide some evidence to back up your statement. Thank you.
Ken
Dallas
The victims of the death penalty are not just the rare instances of innocent people being wrongly convicted, but we're living the consequences of not having an enforced death penalty with the numbers of lives lost after conviction to murderers who are being incarcerated and have nothing more to lose. And with DNA testing that works now in many cases to bring the right person to justice or free the wrongly convicted (OJ Simpson the notable exception), fewer and fewer wrongful convictions will occur in the future while deaths at the hands of convicted murderers will likely only increase if they are allowed to live within prison populations outside of isolation.
And don't tell me the death penalty is not a deterrent. People living a life miserable enough or selfish enough to premeditate murder certainly imagine the consequences of that act before carrying it out. And ending one's life at the end of a rope, fried in the electric chair, or poisoned to death cannot look very attractive compared to 3 square meals for the rest of their lives in one of our prisons with free cable. Having a real death penalty is very different than having a constantly opposed system that has so many opportunities to be overturned or that can be delayed through appeals for years and years and years.
Posted by: MJC on July 25, 2007 01:38 PMIn the meantime, the blood of innocents is, in Reality, on your hands.
Posted by: TB on July 25, 2007 01:50 PMKristian, prove it your claim. Show us the evidence.
This state needs more DP eliglbe crimes such as rape of a child under the age of 15, Death by abuse (child and adult), possion/manufacture of illegal drugs, and so on. Unfortunately Olympia lacks the intestinal fortitude to stand up to criminals. They live under this mistaken belief that offenders want to be rehabilitated or re-educated.
This state needs to apply the DP and exercise it much more often. The law is way to soft and cuddly here.
Posted by: Iso on July 25, 2007 01:53 PMThe DP is also more expensive then life in prison mostly due to the safeguards we put in place to ensure guilt. This includes more defense work, appeals, etc. We could get rid of those, but that would up the number of innocents executed.
Personally I think the DP should remain available. It is vital in cases like Ridgeway's were it can be used as leverage to get further confessions. However its application should be restricted only to the most heinous of crimes were proof is near absolute.
Posted by: Giffy on July 25, 2007 02:18 PMGermany x1 - Pop: 82 million, Murders: 908
England x1 - Pop: 60 million, Murders: 765
Canada x1 - Pop: 33 million, Murders: 658
--------------------------------------------------
Detroit pop. x4 = 3.7 million, Murders: 1334
Dallas pop. x5 = 6 million, Murders: 1130
Seattle pop. x40 = 23 million, Murders: 1360
Portland pop. x50 = 27 million, Murders: 1350
Statistically it seems a whole lot safer to live in a western country with gun control and no death penalty than it is to live in your average American city.
Posted by: Cato on July 25, 2007 02:55 PMThe death penalty is wrong because the taking of human life is wrong. Period.
Lock them away in a dark cold cell and throw away the key. No television, good food, or any of the other "basic living essentials" that so many liberals demand that prisoners receive. Study these monsters and maybe learn something that will prevent a future crime. But murdering another human does nothing for the actual victim in the crime...or thier family in my opinion.
Posted by: Splinter on July 25, 2007 03:05 PMFinally, the NRA membership variable has positive and significant estimated coefficients in all cases, suggesting a higher murder rate in counties with a strong NRA presence.If we're going to use econometric analysis, we'd better understand (and acknowledge) all the implications. That's "committing journalism." Posted by: Jim Anderson on July 25, 2007 03:19 PM
No concrete way of knowing? I can pretty well guarantee you that Ted Bundy will never kill anybody again. I can't guarantee you that of Gary Ridgeway. Without a valid threat of a death penalty what eles has he to lose by killing other inmates or a prison guard while trying to excape?
And Giffy,
It's not the government that convicts people, it's a jury of peers.
Posted by: RBW on July 25, 2007 03:29 PMThe flaw in your attempt at logic is not the least that you are comparing countries and cities. Too inconvenient for you to compare countries? From some of your posts I get the impression that you are capable of understanding that point; what, do you think we're not smart enough to notice your logical flaw?
How about this statistic?
Bellevue, WA pop. x1000 = 114,056,000, Murders: 0
Guess it's safe to live in a city that allows citizens to carry concealed weapons in a state that has the death penalty.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on July 25, 2007 03:39 PMUhhh, that was the number from 1938. The number in 2005 was 2,396.
Posted by: Palouse on July 25, 2007 03:54 PMHmmm, these cities seem pretty safe too:
Pullman, WA pop. x2000 = 50 million, Murders: 0
Olympia, WA pop. x1000 = 44 million, Murders: 0
Doesn't really matter, the logical flaw has already been exposed. =)
In the USA there are around 20,000 justice system determined murders. There are from 30 to 50 executions for the same. The conviction rate for murders is under 40%. As a murderer your odds of living after your murder are thousands to one.
Good odds. How could the death penalty serve as a deterrant under that math? Well, surprisingly, it does, according to a recent study published in the Seattle Times.
Think about this. Most murders are committed by repeat violent offenders who some judge has released among us. This judge is conducting a social science experiment which almost always costs the life of an innocent victim. Isn't that the same as state sanctioned murder?
There is not one example of an innocent being executed by the U.S. justice system, but there are thousands of examples of innocents being killed by the decisions of criminal sympathetic judges. Since these sub-humans are released due to the soft headed decisions of these judges.
I believe those judges are accessories to murder.
But we don't even have the right to directly express our opinions about their decisions to those judges.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on July 25, 2007 04:30 PMBut the death penalty should be used early and often.
Thanks to Gerry Horne, unless Adhahn is convicted of another murder, we will pay for the scumbag to sit in prison for life. And if that's cheaper than the lengthy appeals process, then so be it, but the guy deserves death. And that's the real justice that is not served. And the resultant deterence that is not conveyed to the rest of society.
Meant to indicate that my murder stats are for annual totals.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on July 25, 2007 04:47 PMAnd to enhance the deterrent effect, it should be carried out in the public arena. It should be broadcast on national TV and it should be mandatory viewing played on a continuous loop in every cell of every prison, jail and juvenile facility.
I remember when they hung that guy at Walla Walla (gosh I can't remember his name)... it was massively disturbing and gut wrenching just to see the reactions playing out on Kathi Goertzens face after she witnessed it. I will never forget it and I was only witness to her emotions.
I believe that every person convicted of murder and given the death penalty should have ONE appeal at his/her disposal and a severely limited time in which to have it argued and decided. If that appeal is denied, then the sentence should be carried out within 30 days time. This nonsense of housing these thugs for decades while their victims lie dead in the ground is disgusting.
In full dislcosure, my son and I have argued endlessly about this. He believes that if one is pro-life, one must BE pro-life in every circumstance.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 25, 2007 05:42 PM1. Th death penalty we can have is one that requires deacdes of appeals and defense lawye fees. Decades of attention focused on the bad guy. It's a government employment program for liberal defense lawyers! It fits right into the usually conservative view that goverment programs don't work, are inefficient, and only serve to create government employment and WASTE.
2. We all know that no matter how you play with statistics the countries of Europe
that do not have the death penalty are far safer than our own nation.
3. Danny's column pointed to the tragedies created by this eveil dude from Tacoma. Yes. But no one is talking about how the State knows that there are lots of sex offenders who donot register and the cops basically don't have the resources to look for them and the penalty for not registering is only a month in jail.
Why not ramp that up to a year ...or 5.....or life? What's the point of registering if we don't enforce that requirement in any meaningful way? why don't we focus on the hard work of making the government we have work better instead of demanding that it do more and more (extend the death penalty to every crime) while failing to consider whether this even works or can be funded?
Oh yes it is more fun to fantasize about vigourous torture and execution of all bad guys including dui.....and rail against the experience of nearly every othr industrialized nation....
Posted by: Seattle Democrat on July 25, 2007 05:57 PMJohn McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 25, 2007 05:58 PMScroll down to "Who speaks for the victims of those we execute?"
Go on over to RESOURCES and scroll down to "How can deterrence statistics be skewed?" then further down to "Policy Debate: Is the death penalty an efficient crime deterrent?"
Go over to DEATH PENALTY ISSUES and scroll to find "Deterrence" and "Recidivism"
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 25, 2007 06:08 PMIt's always someone elses fault.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on July 25, 2007 07:12 PMOK, that settles that. Whew -- good job -- this means there will be no more arguing.
Praise the Lord and Bill O'Reilly!
erroneously yours,
Posted by: Seattle Democrat on July 25, 2007 09:19 PMhttp://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/2007/05/deviants-walking-free-and-murder-rate.html
I was cheating in spirit on my stats.
We know that most murders are committed by someone the victim knows. Often a spouse.
And usuallly a spouse with a domestic violence rap sheet.
But you know that, "in spirit" my comment rings true.
Most cold blooded murder is committed by a person with a long history of violent crime.
Why are those people still behind us in line at the QFC?
Could we just re-think capital punishment as very late term abortion?
Posted by: Bart Cannon on July 25, 2007 10:08 PMFirst of all, Norm Maleng and Dave Reichert did more to destroy the death penalty in this state (and this country) than Westneat could ever do, by botching the Ridgeway case and ending up with a weak pleabargain. When you don't execute Ridgeway, who do you execute?
This is a subject on which Seattle Democrat is making more pure conservative sense than the conservative bloggers.
Look at who executes a person: The judge, jury, investigating police, prosecuting attorney and even often the defense attorney are being paid basically by the same government agency.
Giving a government bureaucracy a power that can only be exercised perfectly (thus a power that should only be given to God, whether or not God exists) is obviously a liberal idea.
Shame on conservatives for not really being conservative.
Cheers and best wishes to you all, and may you never be unfairly accused of a capitol crime like the 4 Michigan bikers that were accused of murdering a woman by Albuquerque District Attorney Jim Brandenburg in 1975, in a case that could have gone on to execution had not it begun to unwind. The lab recanted and the eyewitness admitted she'd been told what to say by Brandenburg, who was forced out of office.
The next Jim Brandenburg could be a smarter guy.
--newleftconservative#1
Posted by: newleftconservative#1 on July 25, 2007 10:09 PMYou wrote:
"Cheers and best wishes to you all, and may you never be unfairly accused of a capitol crime like the 4 Michigan bikers that were accused of murdering a woman by Albuquerque District Attorney Jim Brandenburg in 1975, in a case that could have gone on to execution had not it begun to unwind. The lab recanted and the eyewitness admitted she'd been told what to say by Brandenburg, who was forced out of office."
So what you're saying is, the system worked.
Posted by: ewaggin on July 25, 2007 10:42 PMIt is an affront to justice when a murderer (even if jailed without possibility of parole) continues to draw breath and enjoy life, when his victim has been deprived of same.
Posted by: ewaggin on July 25, 2007 10:50 PMThe proper way to compare crime statistics is to report them in terms of X number of victims per Y unit of population, e.g., 3 murders per 100,000 population.
Only then can one make a meaningful comparison.
Ragnar@22 said, In full dislcosure, [sic] my son and I have argued endlessly about this. He believes that if one is pro-life, one must BE pro-life in every circumstance.
I'm sure you told your son this concept, but I'll repeat it for the edification of the liberals that read this site.
There is a very distinct difference between putting to death someone who has killed another, and terminating a pregnancy or destroying an embryo.
The murderer who is put to death was born, raised, and had a chance at life. He (and it's usually a he) chose to take the life of another.
Everyone agrees that the murderer should be punished. The question is what is the correct punishment.
It's not the same issue regarding abortion or embryonic stem cell research. In those cases there is an innocent, immature human being that is destroyed. It's the taking of an innocent human life who did not kill another.
There's a vast difference between the just punishment of a killer who took the life of another and the taking of the life of an unborn innocent.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on July 26, 2007 03:25 AMEwaggin says the only point I successfully made about the Albq case was that the system worked, and that is true in the sense that it hopped over a very low bar (Do you want to spend a couple years in prison and then be found innocent?--the system worked!).
The system worked because a woman fell madly in love with one of the bikers who was in jail. She then went and constantly pestered an underground newspaper, practically throwing tantrums proclaiming these guys' innocence. No one on the paper really believed her. They thought she was pathetic and were embarassed to give the time of day to a woman who had fallen for an ax-murderer. But they finally relented and ran some stories raising some of the questions she wanted raised, and the case began to unravel, with the real killer ultimately coming forward--all after all four of these guys had been convicted by a jury and were serving sentences.
You don't realize how much credibility labs and prosecutors have with the public and how people assume they are on the up and up. If someone says "DNA tests prove you are the murderer." the public is going to believe it and want to see you terminated.
Even though I take "left wing positions" most of the time, I really am a conservative. I could really enjoy the thought of seeing Ridgeway and several others fried. It's just a joy we must deny ourselves because we can't put that much faith in bureaucracies.
Thanks all, newleftconservative#1
PS and by the same token, the system completely failed with Ridgeway. Not only did it let him commit the 70 murders, but after all of those they didn't have enough evidence to go for the death penalty, or they didn't want to let the public scrutinize the way they handled the case, so they peed down their collective legs.
Thanks all, newleftconservative#1
If so, then capitol punishment is a just endeavor.
Maybe the question should be: How can we ensure the system only produces accurate executions.
Oh, and the side question of: How much public funds would gladiators fighting in Safeco field generate?
If so, then capitol punishment is a just endeavor.
Maybe the question should be: How can we ensure the system only produces accurate executions.
Oh, and the side question of: How much public funds would gladiators fighting in Safeco field generate?
Suppose that several people are captured in the act of bombing a building which in part contains a nursery. Should society execute those people?
Suppose that society captures a person that confesses to the murder of 70 lawyers. Should society execute that person?
Are there any acts so heinous that execution be demanded by society? Surely their must be such acts? Or does society turn a blind eye?
Posted by: Snuffy on July 27, 2007 08:06 AMYes
No, they should be given a ticker-tape parade down Western Ave.
Yes, yes, no.
Posted by: Dave Lincoln on July 28, 2007 08:34 PM