Passion, And Prejudice; Vengeance, And Justice

Top 12. Jan 8, 2002 5:10 AM

» animalspirit - deterrence

The whole notion that without Capital punishment we (meaning law biding) will stand above the criminals as civilized, is irrational. You can’t run a society on such simplicity. That’s why cities without the death penalty have a higher murder, and rape, rate than those with. Criminals do not care! They take advantage of those who do! This is a fact that can never be erased.

Except by reality. As Robert Sherill notes in Death Trip: The American Way of Execution:

The Long, Long Wait for Revenge
Again, the question: What's the profit from pumping so much money into this strange punishment? Deterrence? Since the 1970s, the South has carried out 80 percent of the executions, and its murderers are still the busiest in the nation. On May 25, 1979, guards at the Florida penitentiary dragged John Spenkelink, gagged and struggling, into the execution chamber, strapped him into the chair and threw the switch. Surely that made would-be murderers think twice, didn't it? No. In the three years before his execution, Florida averaged 904 murders annually; in the three years after, the number averaged 1,440--a 59 percent increase.
Better than statistics in this debate are the instincts of those who have spent their lives trying to control violence. The nation's police chiefs certainly don't seem to have much confidence in the death penalty as a deterrent. Responding to a 1995 Hart Research Poll, only 1 percent said expanding the death penalty would help reduce violent crime.

And as the Death Penalty Information Center's state-by-state murder rate page shows:

Average of murder rates among death penalty states: 5.5
Average of murder rates among non-death penalty states: 3.6

And even though white-collar crime cost white collars independently more, poverty-stricken criminals tend to be more brutal and generally larger on the scale.

What’s “brutal?” Are the effects of a blown tire any less "brutal" than that of a knifing? Absence of action to correct known product flaws is just as much “malice aforethought” as premeditated murder; any bogus, off-the-cuff, on-the-run "malice crime" construct notwithstanding.

We can infer from this "logic" that those who commit "corporate crimes" should be only subject to "civil" financial penalties, so they can get back to their jobs, their jury summonses, their "death-qualified" verdicts upon those on the wrong side of the tracks.

The minorities (i.e. non-whites) in this nation make up the majority of the indigent, because they rely more on government assistance (i.e. welfare, unemployment, and the public education system [i.e. government schools]).

Which nation? As anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of social issues knows, whites make up the "majority of the indigent."

A cursory glance at the Statistical Abstract of the United States (p.29) shows, in 1998, out of 34 million in poverty, 23 million were white, 9 million black.

I see Capital punishment as a deterrent. Capital punishment will not get rid of malice crimes.

Make up your mind.

However, in America Capital punishment has shown to reduce (deter) to a degree the acts.

Actually, as the following epistles from the DPIC Deterrence page indicate, the postulated "brutalization effect" persuasively suggests that in America capital punishment has been shown to increase (aggravate) to a degree the acts:

Capital Punishment and Deterrence: Examining the Effect of Executions on Murder in Texas. Authors John Sorenson, Robert Wrinkle, Victoria Brewer, and James Marquart examined executions in Texas between 1984 and 1997. They speculated that if a deterrent effect were to exist, it would be found in Texas because of the high number of death sentences and executions within the state. Using patterns in executions across the study period and the relatively steady rate of murders in Texas, the authors found no evidence of a deterrent effect. The study concluded that the number of executions was unrelated to murder rates in general, and that the number of executions was unrelated to felony rates. (45 Crime and Delinquency 481-93 (1999)).
Deterrence, Brutalization, and the Death Penalty: Another Examination of Oklahoma's Return to Capital Punishment. In this study, author William Bailey speculated that if executions had a deterrent effect in Oklahoma, it would be observable by comparing murder rates and rates of sub-types of murder, such as felony-murder, stranger robbery-related killings, stranger non-felony murder, and argument-related killings, before and after the resumption of executions. Bailey examined the period between 1989 and 1991 for total killings and sub-types of killing. After controlling for a number of variables, Bailey found that there was no evidence for a deterrent effect. He did, however, find that there was a significant increase in stranger killings and non-felony stranger killings after Oklahoma resumed executions after a 25-year moratorium. (36 Criminology 711-33 (1998)).
Effects of an Execution on Homicides in California. Author Ernie Thompson examined criminal homicides in Los Angeles before and after California's execution of Robert Harris in 1992, the state's first execution after a 25-year moratorium. Thompson found slight increases in homicides during the eight months following the execution. (3 Homicide Studies 129-150 (1999)).

The Geography of Execution: The Capital Punishment Quagmire in America. Keith Harries and Derral Cheatwood studied differences in homicides and violent crime in 293 pairs of counties. Counties were matched in pairs based on geographic location, regional context, historical development, demographic and economic variables. The pairs shared a contiguous border, but differed on use of capital punishment. The authors found no support for a deterrent effect of capital punishment at the county level comparing matched counties inside and outside states with capital punishment, with and without a death row population, and with and without executions. The authors did find higher violent crime rates in death penalty counties. (Rowman and Littlefiled Publishers, Lanham, MD (1997))

The society as a whole supports it, because it is instinctive to do so.

The world as a whole rejects it, because it is civilized to do so.

Hugo Adam Bedau, The Case Against the Death Penalty:

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IS LESS POPULAR THAN THE ALTERNATIVES

It is commonly reported that the American public overwhelmingly approves of the death penalty. More careful analysis of public attitudes, however, reveals that most Americans prefer an alternative; they would oppose the death penalty if convicted murderers were sentenced to life without parole and were required to make some form of financial restitution. A 1993 nationwide survey revealed that although 77% of the public approves of the death penalty, support drops to 56% if the alternative is punishment with no parole eligibility until 25 years in prison. Support drops even further, to 49%, if the alternative is no parole under any conditions. And if the alternative is no parole plus restitution, it drops still further, to 41%.66 Only a minority of the American public would favor the death penalty if offered such alternatives.

And as the hot-off-the-press DPIC 2001 Year End Report notes:

Public Opinion
In addition to a decline in the number of executions, 2001 also found public support for capital punishment dropping. A May 2001 Gallup Poll found that nation-wide support for the death penalty had fallen to 65%, a significant 15 percentage point decline from 1994 findings, and the lowest level of support in 23 years. In a USA Today survey the same month,many of those who voiced opposition to the death penalty noted that they were recent converts to an anti-death penalty position -- persuaded by the belief that some innocent people have been wrongly convicted.
Polls conducted earlier in the year reported a similar steady decline in support. An ABC News poll completed in April revealed a decline in support for the death penalty and a majority of Americans in favor of moratorium on executions.The poll found that 51%of Americans support a nationwide moratorium while a commission studies whether the death penalty is applied fairly.
Peter D. Hart Research Associates, in a March 2001 poll, found that only 60% of Americans favored the death penalty, and that:
72% favored suspension of the death penalty until questions about its fairness can be studied, up from 64%in August 2000
91% favored requiring courts to allow death row inmates access to DNA tests that could prove their innocence
84% favored requiring court-appointed attorneys in death penalty cases to have prior experience in such cases and to be certified to handle them by the local bar association.
An October Gallup Poll following the September 11th terrorist attacks on the United States found that, within the margin of error of the poll, support for the death penalty (68%)had not measurably increased.

Support is declining.

Because our current system of capital punishment is - like most of the arguments in its defense - a joke.

We can achieve justice without the gratuitous self-inflicted wounds incurred by America's death penalty.

The tide turns to abolition.

Its that "evolution of mankind" kind of thing.

Russ Hicks

-- posted by animalspirit

Top 13. Jan 11, 2002 5:56 PM

» tyrtaeus - Re: deterrence

In response to message posted by RussHicks:

There is an old political saying, "to rely on statistics, one simply becomes a statistic." Statistics are nothing more than political tools to provide an overcast... to cloud... an argument. It allows the user of statistics to promote a supplementary scientific view on behalf of the arguer. Statistics can be set in a manner that benefits one side or the other.

"In pursuing their ideology at the expense of honest reporting, many journalists and political
activists have perpetuated a number of myths about the death penalty, riddling the debate with
shoddy statistics." -- Jamie Sneider, Columbia University Daily Spectator

Take what you stated from Hugo Adam Bedu, The Case Against the Death Penalty:

"Americans prefer an alternative; they would oppose the death penalty if convicted murderers
were sentenced to life without parole and were required to make some form of financial
restitution. A 1993 nationwide survey revealed that although 77% of the public approves of the
death penalty, support drops to 56% if the alternative is punishment with no parole eligibility until 25 years in prison. Support drops even further, to 49%, if the alternative is no parole under any conditions."

The quote is full of "IF's!" "IF’s" are not reality. Except this: If our Justice system was able to guaranty that convicted murderers were punished harshly enough (i.e. no parole, or some financial restitution) then it would be a clear and just alternative. But, as you point out there is a fear of possible innocence being executed, that in itself solidifies the argument against a total stop in capital punishment. By the way, where would the "financial restitution" come from? Since the murderer is in prison at the expense of the tax payer, would it not be the tax payer, paying to themselves restitution?

G. Edward Griffin once wrote:

"If we design a legal system that will be so generous to the suspect that there is absolutely no possibility of unjustly convicting that one out of ten thousand defendants who, in spite of
overwhelming evidence, is really innocent, then we have also designed a legal system that is
utterly incapable of convicting the other 9999 about whose guilt there is no mistake."

Plus, more and more today we see murderers capitalizing on the media to gain financial means
through their crimes. So, who today truly benefits from a murder!

"Opponents of capital punishment...ignore victims and make martyrs of murderers. They sabotage the system at taxpayer expense, then say executions are too costly. Defense lawyers salt the record with deliberate mistakes, then say the killer had a lousy defense." Peter Bronson -
Cincinnati Enquirer

Your statistics still do not get to the heart of the issue. That human nature does not flow in-between numbers, and opinion polls. If there is one thing I have learned in my study of human
nature, society is fickle in accordance with unexpected incidences.

Murderers are not mentally on the level as ordinary, every day, innocent people. They have
crossed the line of humanity. Their humanitarian conscience (something law bidding people share)
is corrupted. They no longer co-exist on this plane.

"When murderers aren't executed, innocents suffer. Odds are a killer will be released at some
point. And there's a fair chance that he or she will kill again. In fact, there's a far greater likelihood of this then of an innocent man taking that long walk." Don Feder - Boston Herald

I only stand in the realization of human nature. forget God. He does not avenge the innocent. And
forget the government. Their only concern is to please the fickled majority. The true wounding is
from the illusion that some how we can better a justice system by eliminating our most concrete
means of punishment.

Who will be our judge in the end? The ones who spared no humane treatment of their victims? Or
the ones we tried to give justice to in the best means we can muster?

I'm not going to change your mind. Nor, do I wish to. I'm just pointing out the nature we all
harbor. Vengeance is our need to gain comfort for our fears. This we will never be overcome.

-- posted by tyrtaeus

Top 14. Jan 17, 2002 5:49 PM

» appljoos - thanks for reminding me of why i do not enjoy so much of convent

thanks for reminding me of why i do not enjoy so much of conventional philosophy discussion. as soon as any actual feeling for actual human beings is brought in, it is dismissed as an "emotional swamp" by those in the ivory tower. i apologise for not pointing out examples, and here i will show a few strongest. (many thanks to ACLU.org, from which i quote)

In 1992, Roger Keith Coleman was executed in Virginia despite widely publicized doubts surrounding his guilt and evidence that pointed to another person as the murderer – evidence that was never submitted at his trial. Not until late in the appeal process did anyone take seriously the possibility that the state was about to kill an innocent man, and then efforts to delay or nullify his execution failed. Coleman's case was marked with many of the circumstances found in other cases where the defendant was eventually cleared. Were Coleman still incarcerated, his friends and attorneys would have a strong incentive to resolve these questions. But because Coleman is dead, further inquiry into the crime for which he was convicted is extremely unlikely.

In 1990, Jesse Tafero was executed in Florida. He had been convicted in 1976 along with his wife, Sonia Jacobs, for murdering a state trooper. In 1981 Jacobs' death sentence was reduced on appeal to life imprisonment, and 11 years later her conviction was vacated by a federal court. The evidence on which Tafero and Jacobs had been convicted and sentenced was identical; it consisted mainly of the perjured testimony of an ex-convict who turned state's witness in order to avoid a death sentence. Had Tafero been alive in 1992, he no doubt would have been released along with Jacobs.41 Tafero's death is probably the clearest case in recent years of the execution of an innocent person.

these are not cases that can be put clearly beyond a doubt that they are completly innocent. but saying that i am blinded by emotion is an utter falacy. you partially take into account that we are not an all knowing higher power, but it is only a side note. therefore who gives the state the right to act as an all knowing higher power? the disgusting things america in particular has done to keep its people afraid and subserviant in the name of justice, ranging from the McCarthyism of the fifties, to the new McCarthyism executed by our attorney general John Ashcroft, which allows harassment and defamation under the guise of quieting "unamerican activities," all fuel an amazing distrust in this system ( i have examples of the "New McCarthyism," but do not want to waste space here covering them, anyone can mail me for them, very disturbing) . with this factored in, i would not trust the gov't to deliver milk, let alone decide the ultimate fate of someone who is possibly innocent.

why did these cases slip under your radar? they slipped under mine and many others for quite some time. this is simply because the american legal system is now dependent on high priced attourneys to have an edge into the legal system thousands of inmates do not. to a degree you touched on this in your essay, but, it is a larger part of the issue than given credit.

when you look on death row and see faces of minorities that you do not deal with, it is an utterly pedestrian veiw to say

"It is unfortunate that the majority of convicted criminals on "death row" in the United States are minorities (greater part of which are blacks). However, it is more of a testament towards the sad fact, most of the crimes in this nation are committed by minorities. "

this implies that all sent before the courts are given a fair and honest shake and those responsible for the crime are labeled guilty. it is obvious they are not. they are separated from the resources they neeed to clear their name. they are given unskilled representation. are you supposed to care about some unsavory person, who looks different from you, is accused of a dispicable crime, and could not care less about you or any of your ideas? yes you are, but many do not. they are intitled to a fair trial as much as a rich, white defendent who is comforting to the eyes. thus, saying race is only an issue simply because minorities cause many crimes is a fallacy. unless every executed person can be shown as utterly guilty, why would we risk it? the sadder truth is that in this time in America, it is not a case of who actually commits the crimes, it is who has the power to get away with them.

as civilized as we think we are, we are depndent on basic emotions. watching the evening news, or stories from friends, or even witnessing crimes leads to tremendous rage in us. once again, i believe in the better parts of this country, the search for freedom and justice being one of them. that freedom and justice is above basic emotions, and that is why the idea, although deteriorating in present time, has served us and helped us thrive. there have been many examples of why capital punishment is a waste stated by people in this discussion, ranging from how costly it is to it not actually being a crime deterrant. therefore, the only reason we continue it is this rage inside us, and it is a rage that takes very little into account other than the pain we feel for those close to us. thus, we see the act of capital punishment is actually more based in emotion than any of my swampyness could be.

ive learned to accept the veiwpoints of those who are far different from me, some i would not regularly be able to associate with due to circumstances such as race, wealth and other separations set up by culture. but, none the lesser, if we are looking to inflict suffering, there are few places full of more suffering than Americas penal system. the government is obviously more committed to incarceration to re-education, and this is seen in the pain that millions of inmates suffer from. they are degraded by fellow inmates and those in law enforcement every day in ways more barbaric than anything seen outside of thse jails. that is a far better way to deal with this problem if we are looking for them to have any idea of what there actions have caused. when we lose someone we love or suffer due to the acts of few, we live with that pain every day of our lives. this allows them to feel that pain, and truly realize that they do not deserve the rights of those who follow basic codes of humanity. that is the basic lesson we are supposed to learn by being policed by the state and having laws. in many ways justice works the same way as God does . despite its message being convoluted by mortals, and having no concrete proof of its actual existance, it is something we can all believe in that will guide us. and often, we get more out of keeping it this way than destroying the ideals completly. we need to see that we are not subject to the distortion of the true message educated men laid forth for us, and i can only hope we all learn from this and truly rise above the awful crimes of those who cannot learn to live in society without abiding by its simple rules.

-- posted by appljoos

Top 15. Jan 17, 2002 5:54 PM

» appljoos - Re: Re: deterrence

In response to message posted by tyrtaeus:

by the way, it is not a good thing to look to Don Feder as a bastion of sane thought. Anyone with half a mind that has read his rants in the Right-Wing rag The Boston Herald realizes what a xenaphobic and simply idiotic human being he is. i do not need to cite examples, looking at any of his writings is like a tour of neanderthal thought. just a side note.

-- posted by appljoos

Top 16. Jan 18, 2002 1:27 PM

» tyrtaeus - Re: Re: Re: deterrence

In response to message posted by appljoos:

You asked, 'Who is it that gives the state the right' (even though there are no such things as "rights") to conduct executions? We do! The public of a Republic, that's who. These are elected officials representing a Constitution governing a people.

As for this (Ashcroft) conspiracy theory, or what I call irrational political hatred, you are spouting does not help your case much here. However, the only reasonable point you make is "not trusting the government." Yet, you falter here by siding with political machines such as the ACLU - a, so-called, Civil Rights organization. If it is an organization it has created political rules that violate true civil rights. This is what organizations do!

I don't trust the government to decide the fate of criminals. I do trust the justice system. Which... by the way... are you and I and every other respondent to this article. Remember? "Trial by Jury of one's peers!"

It is because America has allowed forces like the ACLU, Green Peace, National Organization of Women, and all these other politically ideological special interest groups to slowly maneuver their funds into the pockets of left leaning politicians and lawyers. Who then turn and create laws on false words such as: equality, diversity, innocence, and rights. There are no simple rules anymore!

We are not supposed to be policed by the state – unless the socialist took over already and I'm committing a crime by speaking out against them? We are governed by our belief in a Constitution based on the simple realization that human need for independence is essential, but not without consequences. The law is simply suppose to punish those who violate the Constitution. But, I do agree the process has gotten far beyond the necessary means of creative law. The law now stands against basic natural rights and wrongs.

Yes. I accept as true that the majority of minorities that go before a court are guilty, because the majority of them do not get publicity from the nightly news. Only those that politically benefit one of these "organizations" do. Not all "white judges" are racial bigots from the back woods of Mississippi. If you believe this you need to lay of the TV. It is the biggest myth that most criminally accused in this nation (especially minorities) are given little to completely inadequate representation. That is a media focused issue that is politically motivated, and nation wide it is false. More guilty today go free than innocent get executed.

I would say I'm sorry for not caring about someone who has taken the life, dignity, and liberty of a brother or sister for the sole purpose of their foul passions. But, I wont! For I'm not ashamed one bit for my distaste of them. I'm not looking for them to realize what they have done is wrong. Any human being with a smidgen of logic knows what they did was wrong. I'm looking for them to pay for it. I care not that they emotionally suffer. If it is true, it is a bonus to the issue. If you want some poor bastard to sit in a cell and rot, emotionally distressed for his crimes, basically tortured every day with thoughts of what he has done, who here is truly being merciful?

Basically what you are saying is that the only civilized manner a person can be expected to adhere to is the Left-wing rag rants of the New York Times, or the Washington Post? That anyone who looks at the world realistically, without emotional dominance is a Neanderthal? Anyone who is Constitutionally Conservative is an idiot, xenophobic, racist, cold hearted... let's see... greedy capitalist, environmentally destructive... and on, and on.

For someone who is concerned for the well being of humanity, the justice of the world, and the soulful advancement of mankind, you sure are strangely stereotypic, very closed minded?

-- posted by tyrtaeus

Top 17. Jan 18, 2002 7:20 PM

» appljoos - Re: Re: Re: Re: deterrence

In response to message posted by tyrtaeus:

i site don feder because he is a prime example of idiocy, beyond any party lines. i have seen his speechs on CSPAN arguing that it is just to be homohpobic to keep homosexuals in their place, and this was at a confrence for fairness in the media.

by those statements, i see your ignorance and its the Ivory Tower syndrome all over again. i have voted independent since i was given the right, as i believe that their are quality ideas at both sides of the political gamut. the ACLU in that case merely stated facts that completly destroyed your illogical statement that "no innocent man has ever been put to death."

There is nothing irrational in the McCarthyism mr. Ashcroft conducts. they are based in fact, i never said anything against "white judges," and i did not reinforce any stereotypes. you sidestep issues inciting such crazy ideas as "equality" as being manefested by "so-called, Civil Rights organization"s. you blame them without looking at the true problems of inequality in this country.

you know why you do not care about equality? because so many positive things you had going for you out of the gate. a grandpa with a copy of the Illiad is not the situation the MAJORITY of people in this REPUBLIC face. you dont have to care about them, because your mind is full of things that seperate them from you. as long as that is present, there is no use arguing to an amazingly blind man, who cannot understand anything beyond his limited world. i lay universal themes that are not heavily tied to this time and place, and you scurry to put them in context of today.

your ignorance is prevalent in these statements, and, i refuse to aknowledge it as philosophy. i have fundamental problems with people that take the bible literally and live by its codes like "an eye for an eye", when it is merely a bunch of stories laid forth. the fundamentalists in this country have the same mindstate as fundamentalists in countries that hate the US: it is based in laws long out dated. if you are looking only for vengance, then you should have simply stated it instead of beating aroung the issue completly, and trying to seem intellectual. i will accept this idiotic tirade from you as i would ranting from a confused person: nonsensical and useless. if you would ever like to deal with the specifics i laid down, feel free.

-- posted by appljoos

Top 18. Jan 19, 2002 12:11 PM

» tyrtaeus - RE: ....

In response to message posted by appljoos:

You do not have to say anything directly about "white judges." You implied it. I was revealing what you really meant when you said, "This implies that all sent before the courts are given a fair and honest shake and those responsible for the crime are labeled guilty. It is obvious they are not. They are separated from the resources they need to clear their name. They are given unskilled representation."

I don't care about, nor do I ride on, the entirety of Don Feder. I quoted this particular piece because it sums up (indirectly)the natural logic of why humans want this form of punishment. It does not throw shoddy, politicized, statistics in one's face with an authoritarian, "you better accept my view or else!"

Besides, such terms as homophobia are stereotypically false. Now if you called him a sexuality hater then I could agree. But, to give his hatred for homosexuals as some uncontrollable disease, sets to the point towards capital punishment. A way to relieve blame from the criminal mind and place it on some untangible politically correct scientific hogwash. (I've never understood the use of "Homo" in this matter, when it is Latin for human being, having no connection with sexuality?)

Side note: A phobia is, 'an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation' - Webster's Dictionary. You can't clump - say my personal disapproval of homosexuality - in with an uncontrollable fear of spiders, or heights. I don't care what people do in their bedrooms, just don't flash it in my face as if I'm supposed to accept public sexuality. I don't with heterosexuality, why should I with homosexuality? It's not that important to me, and I wont be forced to see it as so.

(Perhaps we should not call a white supremacist such? Perhaps we should call him genusphobic. Allowing him to not be directly blamed for his hatred?)

Back to point: The ACLU has never supported facts, or they would have sided with Clarence Thomas in the sexual harassment suit. Instead they sided with false accusations, simply because he was self-independent and a Constitutionist. Equality is a reasonable course for any person of intelligence to acquire. However, it is not a means of "equality" with organizations like the ACLU. When they only preach it to benefit a political agenda (i.e. California education systems forcing seventh graders to practice Islam in the name of understanding and equality, and then teaching Christianity as the greatest evil ever devised by mankind). 'The separation of church and state' only by their definition.

As for Ashcroft, you consider him McCarthy-like because he does something the previous Attorney General did not do... enforce the law. He's not out there ripping children from homes, burning down religious establishments, and shooting his political opponents in the back, so that makes him McCarthy? Don't tell me about McCarhyism as if it was a right-wing only thing. When left-wingers in this nation burnt photo copies of the Constitution at the World Trade Agreement in Seattle, while reading Marx's as though they were in Sunday school.

It is because I had access to the 'Illiad' that I know what true equality is! The reason such books
are not accessible to children all over this nation is do to continuous attacks by such organizations as the ACLU. It teaches values, and principles. The 'Illiad' shows what strengths the human being can possess in the nature of righting wrongs. This kind of intelligence threatens the
non-judgementalism the ACLU preaches. The 'Illiad' is band from public schools. So are many books that would increase the horizons of public school children, for the books teach honor, and individuality. A clear opposite of the ACLU.

And so what should I do? As for what you state, "you don't have to care about them, because
your mind is full of things that separate them from you. as long as that is present, there is no use arguing to an amazingly blind man, who cannot understand anything beyond his limited world."
Bring my self down? Better yet, dumb myself down to make them feel better... make you feel better? Why can't we bring them up? Raise their curiosity, their intelligence. Your equality seems
to state, 'everyone should be equally ignorant.'

"Universal Statements?" No you don't. You spew the same illogical rhetoric as most university
professors, leftist politicians, and media premadonnas. Socrates spoke universal statements.
Senica spoke universal statements, Sun Tzu spoke universal statements. Nietzsche spoke universal
statements. Kant, Loke, Luther, Budda, Muhammad, and Jesus, spoke universal statements. And I
agree with (and disagree with) many of these philosophers. But, I have never heard a modern day
- so-called - liberal make sense. I would have to say that the worst, most ignorant philosophy I
have ever read was Marx. And that is all I hear coming from the left... Marxism.

I do not live by bible codes. Religious doctrine is nothing less than an opposite illusion of the
anti-capital punishment preachers. Vengeance is not a God thing, but a human thing. And, if you
would read my other articles you'd know what I think of religion. I don't want hands chopped
off, or eyes put out. I merely require a life for a life. Any crime below that proper imprisonment. If I wasn't honest would I state such a politically incorrect thing?

You have laid out a lyrical (clearly understood) stereotype towards me. I'm for capital punishment, so therefore I have to be some right-wing-white-supremacist with a hatred for all
living things. The issues you presented are not facts, but single sided circumstantial possibilities. Nothing in the "evidence" presents a clear innocence on these individual cases. You stare long enough at a star you can convince yourself it is a UFO. That is all these things you've presented are... UFOs.

My world is only limited by the obstacles put in my way by those who do not want my curiosity
for human nature spreading. It threatens this illusional hope of utopian ignorance. "The world
would be a better place if we all could just get along." Well, my friend, the world will never get
along. Star Trek will never exist. Mankind, will always be limited by his emotions and fears. The
weak (or meek) will never inherit the Earth. The only turn we can take at this point is backwards,
with these notions of nonjudgements, criminal tolerance, and equal fearfulness.

The one thing I've never heard come from your finger tips, as well as the other respondent, is the passionate concern for the victims. The true victims. The murdered! They reach out with dire
straits and a cry for your consultation, and you decide that their killer deserve more humanity than they did. Why is that?

-- posted by tyrtaeus

Top 19. Dec 15, 2003 12:03 PM

» animalspirit - Re: deterrence

In response to message posted by tyrtaeus:

Statistics are nothing more than political tools to provide an overcast... to cloud... an argument.

False.

Statistics can very usefully make points along with the use of links, quotes, assertions, examples, arguments or any other debating technique.

Here they were used to refute your false assertions.

Statistics, like any such tool can be used to "cloud the issue." Your suggestion that I'm clouding the issue without showing how or why belies the fact that your assertion is an attempt to cloud the issue.

In pursuing their ideology at the expense of honest reporting, many journalists and political
activists have perpetuated a number of myths about the death penalty, riddling the debate with
shoddy statistics." -- Jamie Sneider, Columbia University Daily Spectator

Empty claims - notice no examples - to cloud the issues surrounding America's Joke Death Penalty.

The quote is full of "IF's!" "IF’s" are not reality.

Lots of polls are based on IFs.

Except this: If our Justice system was able to guaranty that convicted murderers were punished harshly enough (i.e. no parole, or some financial restitution) then it would be a clear and just alternative.

That's my point about LWOP.

But, as you point out there is a fear of possible innocence being executed, that in itself solidifies the argument against a total stop in capital punishment.

Logic so airtight no one can find it.

By the way, where would the "financial restitution" come from? Since the murderer is in prison at the expense of the tax payer, would it not be the tax payer, paying to themselves restitution?

Restitution provided by the perp's assets, labor, resources in the context of any LWOP regime which by definition would be FAR cheaper than the death penalty.

G. Edward Griffin once wrote:

Yet another excellent argument for LWOP in lieu of a death penalty.

Plus, more and more today we see murderers capitalizing on the media to gain financial means
through their crimes. So, who today truly benefits from a murder!

As I've twice responded, it's the death penalty that brings the perpetrator to center stage.

Opponents of capital punishment...ignore victims and make martyrs of murderers. They sabotage the system at taxpayer expense, then say executions are too costly. Defense lawyers salt the record with deliberate mistakes, then say the killer had a lousy defense." Peter Bronson -
Cincinnati Enquirer

More empty, unsupported claims to cloud the issue.

As if any supporter of the subsidized stupidity that is the death penalty could possibly claim concern for "taxpayer expense."

As if the instances of court-appointed defense lawyers over the years competent - much less sober - enough to actually "salt the record with deliberate mistakes" rise to an even mentionable number compared to the massive, manifest incompetence and resourcelessness of capital defense teams.

Murderers are not mentally on the level as ordinary, every day, innocent people. They have crossed the line of humanity. Their humanitarian conscience (something law bidding people share)
is corrupted. They no longer co-exist on this plane.

Oh, I see. "Attempted murderers" are different, just like you and me.

"When murderers aren't executed, innocents suffer. Odds are a killer will be released at some
point. And there's a fair chance that he or she will kill again. In fact, there's a far greater likelihood of this then of an innocent man taking that long walk." Don Feder - Boston Herald

Not under a true LWOP parole regime.

The true wounding is
from the illusion that some how we can better a justice system by eliminating our most concrete
means of punishment.

Nobody's proposing abolishing our most concrete form of punishment - Life without parole. (Death by incarceration.)

This only serves to show how the facts of capital punishment's heavy financial and societal costs amid rampant discriminatory practices at the federal and state levels over the years cannot be engaged except by sweeping, empty, claims from the fringe.

All to justify a starkly selective, color-coded mode of useless, empty vengeance.

-- posted by animalspirit

Top 20. Dec 15, 2003 12:14 PM

» animalspirit - retentionist misrepresentations

In response to message posted by tyrtaeus:

You know, I would imagine that even large percentages of the Klan are cognizant of the preponderance of whites among the poor, precisely because they are drawn from such ranks.

Yet here we have someone, for whom donning a white sheet would seemingly - if not seamingly - represent an erudition upgrade, who continues, without shame, to lecture on issues about which he has already been demonstrated and has confessed to knowing nothing about.

Of course most of tyrtaeus' drivelous rantings don't deserve the time of day it would take to refute, but let's examine - and, of course, properly root out and crush - this latest empty, slimey claim amidst his court-appointed quality defense of capital punishment:

It is the biggest myth that most criminally accused in this nation (especially minorities) are given little to completely inadequate representation. That is a media focused issue that is politically motivated, and nation wide it is false. More guilty today go free than innocent get executed

The rights of the accused in capital cases - indigent almost by definition since almost no one with a decent lawyer will get a capital case (unless perhaps the government has previously stashed fertilizer in their flatbed) - are actually woefully unprotected currently and that any proper much-needed reform of these manifest deficiencies will actually increase, not decrease, the delays retentionists decry.

Thus once again those who argue for capital punishment within a context of a constitutional framework which values justice are faced with insurmountable logical hurdles.

In capital cases many retentionist states have both the local District Attorney and state Attorneys General staffed with experienced capital case specialists playing tag team with the aide of local, state and if necessary federal law enforcement agencies against an underfunded, undermanned defense effort.

The prosecutorial effort is further backed by a bevy of professional witnesses and experts.

In another advocacy piece, "Counsel for the Poor: The Death Sentence Not for the Worst Crime but for the Worst Lawyer"[PDF] Stephen Bright notes:

No one seriously contends that these professional witnesses are objective. They routinely testify for the prosecution as part of their work, and prosecutors enjoy long-standing working relationships with them.

Here are highlights from Bright's piece, which surveys the pervasiveness of deficient representation, examines the reasons for it, and considers the likelihood of improvement:

I. The Difference a Competent Lawyer Makes In a Capital Case

Arbitrary results which are all too common in death penalty cases, frequently stem from inadequacy of counsel. The process of sorting out who is most deserving of society's ultimate punishment short does not work when the most fundamental component of the adversary system, competent representation by council, is missing.

In consequence, a large part of the death row population is made up of people who are distinguished by neither their records nor the circumstances of their crimes, but by their abject poverty, debilitating mental impairments, minimal intelligence, and the poor legal representation they received.

A member of the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles has said that if the files of 100 cases punished by death and 100 punished by life were shuffled, it would be impossible to sort them out by sentence based on information in the files about the crime and offender. A justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court made the same observation about the imposition of death sentences in his state in testimony before the U. S. Senate Judiciary Committee:

I dare say I could take every death sentence case that we have had where we have affirmed, give you the facts and not tell you the outcome, and then pull an equal number of murder cases that have been in our system, give you the facts and not tell you the outcome, and challenge you to pick which ones got the death sentence and which ones did not, and you couldn't do it.

Athough it has long been fashionable to recite the disgusting facts of murder cases to show how deserving of death particular defendants may be, such renditions fail to answer whether the selection process is a principled one based on neutral, objective factors that provide a 'meaningful basis for distinguishing the few cases in which the death penalty is imposed from the many cases in which it is not.' Virtually all murders involve tragic and gruesome facts. However, the death penalty is imposed, on average, in only 250 cases of the approximately 20,000 homicides that occur each year in the United States. Whether death is imposed frequently turns on the quality of counsel assigned to the accused."

II. The Pervasive Inadequacy of Counsel for the Poor and the Reasons for it.

Inadequate legal representation does not occur in just a few captital cases. It is pervasive in those jurisdictions which account for most of the death sentences. The American Bar Association concluded after an exhaustive study of the issues that 'the inadequacy and inadequate compensation of counsel at trial' was one of the 'principal failings of the capital pun-ishment systems in the states today.' Justice Thurgood Marshall observed that 'capital defendants frequently suffer the consequences of having trial counsel who are ill-equipped to handle capital cases.'

The National Law Journal, after an extensive study of capital cases in six Southern states, found that capital trials are 'more like a random flip of the coin than a delicate balancing of the scales ' because the defense lawyer is too often "ill-trained, unprepared ...and grossly underpaid.' Many observers from a variety of perspectives and from different states have found the same scandalous quality of legal representation.

These assessments are supported by numerous cases in which the poor were defended by lawyers who lacked even the most rudimentary knowledge, resources, and capabilities needed....

Appellate courts often review and decide capital cases on the basis of appellate briefs that would be rejected in a first-year legal writing course in law school.

There are several interrelated reasons for the poor quality of rep-resentation in these important cases. Most fundamental is the wholly inadequate funding for the defense of indigents. As a result, there is simply no functioning adversary system in many states. Public defender programs have never been created or properly funded in many jurisdictions.

The compensation provided to individual court-appointed lawyers is so minimal that few accomplished lawyers can be enticed to defend capital cases. Those who do take a capital case cannot afford to devote the time required to defend it properly. As a result, the accused are usually represented by lawyers who lack the experience, expertise, and resources of their adversaries on the prosecution side.

Many state court judges, instead of correcting this imbalance, foster it by intentionally appointing inexperienced and incapable lawyers to defend capital cases, and denying funding for essential expert and investigative needs of the defense. The minimal standard of legal representation in the defense of poor people, as currently interpreted by the Supreme Court, offers little protection to the poor person stuck with a bad lawyer.

This sad state of affairs is tolerated in our nation's courts in part because the United States Supreme Court has said that the Constitution requires no more. Instead of actually requiring effective representation to fulfill the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel, the Court has brought the standard down to the level of ineffective practice. Stating that "the purpose of the effective assistance guarantee of the Sixth Amendment is not to improve the quality of legal rep-resentation," the Court in Strickland v. Washington adopted a standard that is "highly deferential" to the performance of counsel.

To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must overcome 'a strong presumption that counsels' conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance,' show that the attorney's representation 'fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,' and establish 'prejudice,' which is defined as a reasonable probability that counsel's errors affected the outcome. As Judge Alvin Rubin of the Fifth Circuit concluded:

The Constitution, as interpreted by the courts, does not require that the accused, even in a capital case, be represented by able or effective counsel....Consequently, accused persons who are represented by "not-legally-ineffective" lawyers may be condemned to die when the same accused, if represented by effective counsel, would receive at least clemency of a life sentence.

Much less than mediocre assistance passes muster under the Strickland standard. Errors in judgment and other mistakes may readily be characterized as "strategy" or "tactics" and thus are beyond review. Indeed, courts employ a lesser standard for judging the competence of lawyers in a capital case than the standard for malpractice for doctors, accountants, and architects."

III. The Failure to Keep the Promise of Gideon.

"The right to counsel is essential to protect all other rights of the criminally accused. Yet this most fundamental right has received the least protection. Nevertheless, many members of the judiciary and the bar--who have a special responsibility to uphold the rule of law in the face of public outrage and revulsion--stand by year after year, case after case, looking the other way, pretending nothing is amiss, or calling upon
someone else to solve the problem, but never engaging in a concerted and effective to change the situation. The United States Department of Justice, the state District Attorneys, the state Attorneys General, all of whom should have some concern about the fairness and integrity of the judicial process, use their power and influence to make the situation even worse. As a result, although some solutions to the problem are apparent, the situation continues to deteriorate and, tragically, to be increasingly accepted as the inevitable lot of the poor."

A. Minimal Reforms in Response to Major Crisis

"Over ten years ago, the ABA and the National Legal Aid and Defender Association found the funding for indigent defense inadequate and deemed the promise of Gideon v. Wainwright unrealized, stating: 'we must be willing to put our money where our mouth is; we must be willing to make the constitutional mandate a reality.' However, despite many reports with similar warnings, another ABA report in 1993 still found that 'long-term neglect and underfunding of indigent defense has created a crisis of extraordinary proportions in many states throughout the country.'

"Despite abundant documentation of the enormity of the need for substantive changes, some continue to suggest that the burden of providing counsel to the poor--even in capital cases--may be satisfied by the conscription of members of the legal profession. However, it is the constitutional duty of the state, not of members of the legal profession, to provide indigent dedfendants with counsel. Responses to the problems posed by ineffective assistance of counsel should be conceived in a way that gives effect to this principle. Georgia, a state in which there have been numerous egregious examples of deficient representation, has no difficulty coming up with local, state, and federal money to prepare for the Olympic Games, but it does not secure or appropriate funding to assure competent representation and equal justice in its courts.

"Georgia Chief Justice Harold Clarke's description of Georgia's response to the need for indigent defense applies to most other states as well: "We set our sights on the embarrassing target of mediocrity. I guess that means about halfway. And that raises a question. Are we willing to put up with halfway justice? To my way of thinking, one-half justice must mean one-half injustice, and one-half injustice is no justice at all."

B. The Politics of Crime and the Lack of Leadership to Remedy the Situation

"At this time, there appears to be little prospect of achieving even the level of mediocrity that Chief Justice Clarke described. What is needed to provide competent legal representation to any litigant, rich or poor, is no secret. But significant improvement in the quality of representation for the poor is unlikely because of the unpopularity of those accused and the lack of leadership and commitment to fairness of those entrusted with responsibility for the justice system. "A properly working adversary system will never be achieved unless defender organizations are established and properly funded to employ lawyers at wages and benefits equal to what is spent on prosecution, to retain expert and investigative assistance, to assign lawyers to capital cases, to recruit and support local lawyers, and to supervise the performance of counsel defending capital cases. Judges are not equipped to do this. Management of the defense is not a proper judicial function. And, as previously described, all too often political and other improper considerations influence elected state court judges in their appointment of lawyers to defend those facing the death penalty. "What is needed is a system in which defense counsel's loyalty is to the client and not the judge; and in which defense counsel, as well as the prosecutor, understands the scientific and legal issues in the case and has access to the investigative and expert assistance needed to prepare and present the case. The ABA has promulgated standards for the appointment and performance of counsel in capital cases, which are seldom followed today, but standards mean nothing without capable attorneys and well-funded defender organizations to implement them.

"But the leadership needed to bring about justice is missing. There was a time when the Attorney General of the United States and attorneys general in many of the states were concerned not just with getting convictions, but also with fairness, integrity and the proper functioning of the adversary system.

"In that spirit, Attorneys General Walter F. Mondale of Minnesota and Edward J. McCormick, Jr. of Massachusetts, and twenty-one of their fellow attorneys general filed a brief in support of Clarence Earl Gideon's right to counsel in Gideon v. Wainwright. It was out of the same concern that Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy helped secure passage of the federal Criminal Justice Act in 1963. But those days are gone.

"Today, the United States Department of Justice, state district attorneys, and state attorneys general use their power and influence to make this shameful situation even worse. They take every advantage of the ignorant, incompetent lawyers foisted upon the poor. They have defended in the courts even the most outrageous instances of incompetence on the part of defense counsel previously described and used the ineptness of counsel as a barrier to prevent courts from addressing constitutional violations in capital cases.

"Despite abundant evidence of poor lawyering and egregious constitutional violations in capital cases, the Justice Department and many prosecutors have proposed shortcuts and procedural traps to paper over the problems and speed up the process of sending those sentenced to death at unconstitutional trials to their executions. In response to findings by federal courts of constitutional violations in state capital cases, prosecutors have urged stricter enforcement of procedural default rules to avoid dealing with the violations, not better counsel to avoid those unconstitutional trials in the first place. Justice James Robertson of the Mississippi Supreme Court described as 'unseemly' the arguments of that state's attorney general that the court 'should hold [the defendant's] claims procedurally barred, not because such would promote the interests of justice, but rather that such would pull the rug out from under [him] when he ultimately seeks federal review of his case.' An accommodating Supreme Court as been willing to cut back drastically on the availability of the once great writ of habeas corpus, and prosecutors have supported even more drastic legislative proposals to restrict it further.

"Many prosecutors have been unwillling to agree to even the most minor reforms to improve the quality of legal representation received by the poor. Federal legislation was proposed in 1990 that would have restricted imposition of the procedural default doctrines unless states improved the quality of defense counsel. One proposal would have required the establishment of an appointing authority for counsel in capital cases composed either of a statewide defender organization or of a death penalty resource center. The appointing authority would have been responsible for securing qualified counsel and engaging in periodic review to ensure the competence of representation. The legislation would also have set standards for counsel and required payment for counsel 'at a reasonable rate in light of the attorney's qualifications and experience and the local market for legal representation in cases reflecting the complexity and res-ponsibility of capital cases.

"This modest proposal evoked vehement opposition from the U.S. Department of Justice and state prosecutors. William P. Barr, then-Deputy Attorney General and later Attorney General, characterized the counsel provisions as 'an elaborate and expensive system for appointing counsel' that were 'inimical to the principles of federalism inherent in our constitutional system, and to the need for reasonable finality of state criminal judgments.' A letter signed by the attorneys general of twenty-three states which have the death penalty described the provisions as 'so extreme as to be absurd.' The twenty-three attorneys general asserted: 'The current problems which beset capital cases are not caused by the quality of representation they receive' and that ' the focus in capital cases should be on the guilt or innocence of the defendant and the sentence he should receive' and not 'how many seminars a defense attorney has attended, how well he is paid, and other collateral matters.' The National Association of District Attorneys adopted a resolution opposing the legislation, reiterating its support for the procedural default doctrines and 'strongly opposing any legislation' which would 'create new requirements concerning the experience, competency, or performance of counsel' beyond Strickland v. Washington.

"A bill introduced in 1993 would have required only a 'certifying' authority to identify lawyers to defend capital cases, allowing judges to continue to appoint counsel and setting only minimal standards measured in terms of years of practice and number of cases with no inquiry into quality of work. Although representatives of the states attorneys general and district attorneys associations were involved in drafting the legislation, which would, in fact, do little to improve the quality of representation and could even worsen the situation, it was opposed by many prosecutors. One letter circulated among Senators criticized its 'expansive and costly appointment of counsel provisions' and quoted the Attorney General of Georgia as saying that, if enacted, the bill would 'effectively repeal the death penalty.'

"Such hyperbolic statements have repeatedly greeted other efforts to improve the quality of legal representation in capital cases. When the Georgia legislature, after years of refusing to appropriate any funds for indigent defense, finally responded to the eloquent appeals of the chief justice of the state's supreme court by creating in 1992 a small capital defender that employed only four attorneys, one district attorney criticized it as a step towars abolishing the death penalty in Georgia.

When a report to the Texas Bar described the serious deficiencies of the representation in capital cases in that state, the district attorney in Houston dismissed it as an argument against the death penalty.

"The enthusiasm of prosecutors to continue to take every advantage has not been tempered by the poverty and powerlessness of those accused of capital crimes. Nor has the situation motivated an new presidential administration or a new Attorney General to rein in the assaults on the Bill of Rights and habeas corpus or question the power that state courts should be allowed to exercise over the lives of persons who are not provided adequate representation. Instead, the country is engaged in a crime debate in which politicians try to outdo one another in proposing crime bills which simultaneously expand the use of the death penalty and other severe penalties while restricting or eliminating procedural protections.

Those who are supposedly leaders dismiss the Bill of Rights as a mere collection of technicalities. The debate is exceptionally one-sided. For, as Robert F. Kennedy said long ago, the poor person accused of a crime has no lobby.

No member of Congress or a state legislature is likely to receive complaints about the quality of counsel for poor people accused of crimes. But lost in the effort to get tough on crime is concern about the fairness and integrity of the criminal judicial system.

"Completely missing from the crime debate and from the courts is the notion that if it is too expensive or impractical for some jurisdictions to provide competent counsel and the fairness and reliability that should accompany a judicial decision to take a human life, their power should be limited. If a local trial court cannot comply with the most fundamental safeguard of the Constitution by providing a capable attorney to one whose life is at stake, it should not be authorized to extinguish life. The solution is not to depreciate human life and the Bill of Rights by accepting what is available. Many small communities do not have surgeons, yet they do not rely on chiropractors to perform heart surgery.

"Pronouncements about the importance of and the need for counsel do not make quality representation a reality. It has become apparant that the legislatures of most states, particularly those where the death penalty is frequently imposed, are not going to discharge their constitutional duty to appropriate funds and provide competent legal assistance for poor persons in criminal cases. It is also unlikely that the judiciary and bar, after years of neglect, punctuated by occasional moments of hand wringing, will respond effectively to this worsening situation."

IV. The Need for Individual Responses and Limits on the Power of the Courts

"The quality of legal representation in capital cases may states is a scandal. However, almost no one cares. Those facing the death penalty are generally poor, often members of racial minorities, often afflicted with substantial mental impairment, and always accused of serious, terrible crimes. The crimes of which they are accused bring out anger, hatred, and a quest for vengeance on the part of most people, including judges, prosecutors, and, quite often, even those appointed to represent those accused. All of this leads to, at best, indifference, and, more often, hostility toward the plight of those accused. And many outside the criminal justice system are indifferent because they are unaware of what passes for justice in the courts. There is a growing cynicism about the importance of due process and the protections of the Bill of Rights.

Many of those who aspire to public office find it impossible to resist the temptation to resort to demagoguery to exploit these sentiments.

"But this reality does not excuse the constitutional responsibility of the judiciary and members of the legal profession to ensure that even the most despised defendants still receive the highest quality legal representation in proceedings that will determine whether they live or die. Justice William Brennan, with his usual eloquence, once observed in another context, It is tempting to pretend that [those] on death row share a fate in no way connected to our own, that our treatment of them sounds no echoes beyond the chambers in which they die. Such an illusion is ultimately corrosive, for the reverberations of injustice are noit so easily confined...The way in which we choose those who will die reveals the depth of moral commitment among the living.

"Unfortunately, what has been revealed about the depth of moral commitment among legislators, members of the bar, and the judiciary is very discouraging. It is unlikely that the promise of Powell and Gideon will ever be fulfilled for most of those accused of criminal violations.

Legislatures are unwilling to pay the price for adequate representation, most courts are unwilling to order it, and most members of the bar are unwilling or unable to take on the awesome responsibility of providing a vigorous defense without adequate compensation."

"The uninformed and the indifferent must be educated and reminded of what is passing for justice in the courts. The substandard quality of counsel for the poor and the lack of a structure and funding for indigent defense must become part of the debate on crime. "

"It is only by the witness of those who observe the injustices in capital cases firsthand that others in society can be accurately informed. This knowledge may prompt questions about the system and its limits such as: whether the quest for vengeance receives too high a priority over the pursuit of justice in the courts; whether criminal courts should be allowed to dispatch people to their deaths without providing capable lawyers or even one penny for the investigators and experts necessary to present evidence that is constitutionally indispensable to the punishment decision; whether indigent and often mentally limited persons accused of crimes should continue to be denied the protections of the Bill of Rights under the procedural default doctrines because of the ineptness of lawyers they had no voice in choosing; whether the assignment of lawyers to defend the poor should be made by judges who must keep one eye on the next election and, with the other, often wink at the Constitution; and whether courts should continue to demean the Sixth Amendment by employing the Strickland v. Washington standard for 'legally effective counsel.'

"These questions must be raised vigorously until courts and leaders of the bar realize that the judgments of the criminal courts cannot be seen as legitimate and entitled to respect so long as such poor quality of representation is tolerated. It is only by dealing squarely with these questions that there is hope that the courts will face reality and deliver on the promise of Powell and Gideon instead of indulging in wishful thinking and hollow pronouncements about the right to counsel. One must hope that a frank discussion of the deficiencies of the system will prompt courts to take their eyes off the embarrassing target of mediocrity and take aim at a full measure of justice for all citizens, especially those whose lives and freedom hang in the balance. One must also hope that some prosecutors, who recognize a higher calling in seeing that justice is done and making the adversary system work than in simply getting convictions and death sentences against inept lawyers, will add their voices regarding the need for adequate representation and limits on the power of the courts. And finally, some law schools must respond and prepare students better for defending criminal cases."

"The death penalty will continue to be imposed and new capital statutes enacted with the continuing promise that efforts will be made to improve the quality of counsel in the future. But this is surely backwards. A very high quality of counsel--instead of minimal representation--should not only be the goal, but the reality before a jurisdiction is authorized to take life. Moreover, the promise of adequate counsel is continually broken. It has been over sixty years since the Supreme Court held in Powell v. Alabama that those accused in Scottsboro and all poor people were entitled to a highr level of representation in capital cases than merely being accompanied to their trials by a member of the bar. Yet the representation in many trials today is no better than that provided to the accused in Scottsboro in 1931. This longstanding lack of commitment to counsel for the poor is one of the many reasons that the effort to achieve fairness and consistency in the administration of the death penalty is 'doomed to failure.'"

-- posted by animalspirit