WHY AMERICANS STILL SUPPORT THE DEATH PENALTY

[roo_ster]

Radley "CSD Nemesis" Balko article on the why he thinks the DP still get overwhelming support from Americans:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/death-penalty-support-america_b_984931.html?page=1

Balko goes on about Cameron Todd Willingham in Texas and Troy Davis in Georgia.  Like the other anti-DP folks, Balko goes on about the arson analysis, how it has changed over time, etc.  What he misses is all the other evidence, to include a confession to his ex-wife.  IMO, arson analysis has more in common with voodoo than science.  CTW can reasonably be adjudged guilty as hell without any of the pseudo-science that passes as criminal forensic "science."

Much is made about the "7 witnesses who recanted" about seeing Davis kill the off-duty cop in the parking lot.  Never mind that 7 is quickly reduced to 2 after sifting through the defense lawyers inkcloud.  Also forget the other 24 or so witnesses to the murder...'cause it is all about the 7 2 who recanted (if you are willing to deceive others about the true nature and number of eye witnesses).

I note that Balko did not mention another recently executed man, Lawrence Russell Brewer.  He would still be alive if the anti-DP folks got their way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Byrd,_Jr.#Lawrence_Russell_Brewer

Instapundit comment that closely mirrors my take:
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/128767/
"I think it’s because tedious liberals self-righteously oppose it, while showing an appalling insensitivity to the lives (and deaths) of ordinary non-criminal Americans. Though I should note that European citizens also support the death penalty in large numbers — they’re just ignored by their leaders. The best argument against the death penalty, of course, is what Charles Black called “the inevitability of caprice and mistake.” But that argument, taken seriously, is an indictment of the entire criminal-justice system, not just the death penalty. It may be a valid indictment, but few are willing to go that far.

The worst argument against the death penalty, of course, is that it’s somehow awful for the state to kill people. Nation-states are all about killing people. They exist solely because they’re better at that, on a large scale, than any other form of human organization. Everything else is superstructure, and if they lose that edge it will fade away."

I sign on to Black's thesis.

IMO, the criminal justice system is a crap shoot where you can have some effect on the odds if you have a lot of money.  Given the lack of scientific rigor most "forensic science" brings to the table, along with the usual problems of non-scientific evidence, and toss in human nature too, I have little faith that any particular proceeding will find anything close to the truth.  I think we can only hope to make it loose enough that regular folks falsely accused can shake loose while "frequent customers" finally get the hammer, after several run-ins.  That seemed to happen before felonies started breeding like rabbits.


From a utilitarian perspective, the DP is certainly the way to go.  Zero proved innocents killed by gov't applied DP since the last recored lynching versus how many murderers who DIDN'T get the DP who went on to murder again?  Heck, grant the "Innocence Project" credit for every single exoneration as an innocent man killed by the state, and the math still favors the DP.


 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

balko is a soap selling "journalist"

[Ned Hamford]

If you are factually innocent pray they are going for the death penalty. 

Far fewer people care if you spend your entire life rotting in jail and are having less than cordial relations against your will every day in the shower. 

[MechAg94]

If you are factually innocent pray they are going for the death penalty. 

Far fewer people care if you spend your entire life rotting in jail and are having less than cordial relations against your will every day in the shower. 

That to me is the biggest problem I have with a lot of the anti-death penalty advocates. 

[Iain]

That to me is the biggest problem I have with a lot of the anti-death penalty advocates.

Whilst I find it weird that you wouldn't recognise prioritising principled opposition to the death penalty over non-capital convictions, because uh, someone is going to die. It's called picking battles. There's a lot of attention paid to what is happening to Amanda Knox, and she isn't facing an Italian firing squad. Same for the Birmingham Six, the Bridgewater Four, Stefan Kiszko, Angela Canning. Lots of attention is paid to miscarriages of justice, hardly surprising that particular attention is focussed on those awaiting a neck stretching.

I equally find it weird that support for the death penalty could come about because those liberal are perceived to be insensitive about the non-criminals. Actually, I don't find that weird at all, inevitable actually, depressingly. When a life is at stake, and there is apparent evidence that a conviction is shaky, I'm sorry that the family of the original crime feel put out by those trying to see that, you know uh, another crime isn't committed. Far too easy to paint those people are being lily-livered liberals who only care about poor widdle criminals, almost irresistible in fact.

[Balog]

There's a bit of a difference between "This person may not be guilty" and "No one should ever be put to death ever" isn't there?