Man avoids death penalty because jury wasn't black enough

Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?

 

That doesn't show killing is wrong. The law that says killing someone is a crime, a felony usually, says it's wrong.

 

I think there's something instinctive in all of us that says that it's the only appropriate response to such a despicable crime.
You're not human if you don't want some of these murders to die and suffer while dying.
Even so, I still oppose the death penalty.

 

I have said all along a life of man-love in prison gen-pop is a much more harsh penalty than coddling a murderer for 15 years and then putting him to sleep to kill him.

 

So a couple of things here ...

(1) We don't kill people to show that killing people is wrong. Not exactly. There are two purposes for any punishment: (1) Deterrence; (2) Punishment. That said, I agree with you that it sends a very mixed message.

(2) As bad as prison conditions can be in this country, life in prison is probably not as harsh of a punishment as you think it is. Studies show that people adjust. Like they say on "The Wire," you do two days. The day you go in. And the day you leave. I imagine that you otherwise just kind of settle in and make the best of it. Human nature.

 

The death penalty isn't a deterrent.

 

The evidence is inconclusive, but there are certainly studies that indicate that it is a deterrent. Some indicate that it is an enormous deterrent - something along the lines of each execution saving eight lives. Now I am skeptical about that, but at the same time I fail to see how it couldn't be a small deterrent. The question, to me, is one of degree.

If it is a deterrent, the question becomes whether it also has the opposite effect in some situations, i.e. people killing witnesses to avoid the death penalty. I'd have to see data on how frequently that occurs, though.

EDIT: One academic study I found has this to say: "(C)riminals are more likely to kill police officers when the death penalty is in place." http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.albanylawreview.org%2Farchives%2F65%2F4%2FTheEconomicsofShootouts.pdf&ei=xcOST9HXJIWjgwfT2ui2BA&usg=AFQjCNG2othdt0mLiD-qJ9sfxCYy6ebrkg&sig2=Q4STbn7PyMaMqkpYqp0ZMA

 

The jury has to be unanimous on the question of life or death following a sentencing hearing.

 

If whites make up 55% of the population, a randomly chosen jury of 12 will have 9 (or more) whites about 13.5% of the time. I don't know that this jury smacks of race-picking enough to justify overturning its deliberations.

 

The idea that prison in this country is not harsh is ludicrous. It is a horrible experience for the vast majority of prisoners, most of whom deserve that horrible experience. Do people adjust to survive? Of course. But that doesn't mean it's not bad.

 

It's not just about the straight numbers and probabilities.

They held an evidentiary hearing to determine how the jury ended up with the racial composition it did. The prosecutor who handled the case -- now a judge himself -- could not in any satisfactory way explain why he used so many of his peremptory challenges to remove blacks from the jury. That prosecutor-turned-judge announced his retirement shortly after being forced to answer questions about racial prejudice on the stand in this case.

For a better write-up than what's in the originally linked AP story, I suggest the Fayetteville Observer's coverage

http://www.fayobserver.com/articles/2012/04/20/1172520?sac=fo.home

 

Objectively? Yes.

Subjectively? Maybe not.