52 Pro Death Penalty Quotes by University Lecturers II
Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? The Relevance of Life-Life Tradeoffs - Recent evidence suggests that capital punishment may have a significant deterrent effect, preventing as many 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. “The evidence on whether it has a significant deterrent effect seems sufficiently plausible that the moral issue becomes a difficult one,” said Cass R. Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago who has frequently taken liberal positions. “I did shift from being against the death penalty to thinking that if it has a significant deterrent effect it’s probably justified.” |
|
“If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call.” “All over the country news stories bemoan and hype the countdown to execution number 1000, but where are the stories regarding the ripple effect of the heinous crimes that these murderers were executed for committing?” Sunday 17 July 2011 - Marquette University Professor John McAdams, who supports the death penalty, said the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 was passed to limit the number of appeals death row inmates can make to the U.S. Supreme Court. Delays at this point, he said, might be traced to state Supreme Court justices not in favor of the death penalty. "The average time spent on death row is about 11 years," McAdams said. "Judges that are opposed to the death penalty know how to (play) the system. They can sit on appeals for a very long time." John McAdams, a political science professor at Marquette University, who writes regularly in support of the death penalty, argues that it is unrealistic to say penalties for lawbreaking need to be consistent. “All punishments are somewhat arbitrary, especially when you consider that most of this is decided at the county level. Because some people get off with less punishment does not mean we should ratchet down all punishments. It is impossible to deliver equal justice in every case,” he said. |
|
Cass R. Sunstein & Adrian Vermeule Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? The Relevance of Life-Life Trade-offs 58 Stan. L. Rev. 703 (Jan. 2006) – Many people believe that the death penalty should be abolished even if, as recent evidence seems to suggest, it has a significant deterrent effect. But if such an effect can be established, capital punishment requires a life-life trade-off, and a serious commitment to the sanctity of human life may well compel, rather than forbid, that form of punishment. The familiar problems with capital punishment— potential error, irreversibility, arbitrariness, and racial skew—do not require abolition because the realm of homicide suffers from those same problems in even more acute form. Moral objections to the death penalty frequently depend on a sharp distinction between acts and omissions, but that distinction is misleading in this context because government is a special kind of moral agent. The widespread failure to appreciate the life-life trade-offs potentially involved in capital punishment may depend in part on cognitive processes that fail to treat “statistical lives” with the seriousness that they deserve. The objection to the act/omission distinction, as applied to government, has implications for many questions in civil and criminal law. Professor Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule, a law professor at Harvard, wrote in their own Stanford Law Review article that “the recent evidence of a deterrent effect from capital punishment seems impressive, especially in light of its ‘apparent power and unanimity,’ ” quoting a conclusion of a separate overview of the evidence in 2005 by Robert Weisberg, a law professor at Stanford, in the Annual Review of Law and Social Science. “Capital punishment may well save lives,” the two professors continued. “Those who object to capital punishment, and who do so in the name of protecting life, must come to terms with the possibility that the failure to inflict capital punishment will fail to protect life.” |
|
We owe it to Dr. Petit and other relatives of murder victims to review the facts. If the death penalty saves lives, then execute people like Joshua Komisarjevsky. Don't just convict them. Most people weigh the costs and benefits of their actions and, for murder, the cost should be as great as possible. [Executing Murderers Saves Lives By CHRIS DESANCTIS in The Hartford Courant on Monday 17 October 2011] |
|
“In executing murderers, we
declare that deliberate murder is absolutely evil and absolutely intolerable.” "What do Murderers Deserve?". commentarymagazine.com.
March/April 1999 "Opponents of capital punishment describe it as a surrender to emotions--to grief, rage, fear, blood lust. For most supporters of the death penalty, this is false. Even when we resolve in principle to go ahead, we have to steel ourselves. Many of us would find it hard to kill a dog, much less a man. Endorsing capital punishment means not that we yield to our emotions but that we overcome them. If we favor executing murderers, it is not because we want to but because, however much we do not want to, we consider ourselves obliged to." "We execute murderers in order to make a communal proclamation: that murder is intolerable," writes David Gelernter - a Yale professor who was wounded when he opened a package mailed by the Unabomer - in the April issue of Commentary. "A deliberate murderer embodies evil so terrible that it defiles the community." |
|
Life v. Death: Who Should Capital Punishment
Marginally Deter? Abstract: Econometric
measures of the effect of capital punishment have increasingly provided
evidence that it deters homicides. However, most researchers on both sides of
the death penalty debate continue to rely on rather simple assumptions about
criminal behavior. I attempt to provide a more nuanced and predictive rational
choice model of the incentives and disincentives to kill, with the aim of
assessing to what extent the statistical findings of deterrence are in line
with theoretical expectations. In particular, I examine whether it is plausible
to suppose there is a marginal increase in deterrence created by increasing the
penalty from life imprisonment without parole to capital punishment. The
marginal deterrence effect is shown to be a direct negative function of prison
conditions as they are anticipated by the potential offender – the more
tolerable someone perceives imprisonment to be, the less deterrent effect
prison will have, and the greater the amount of marginal deterrence the threat
of capital punishment will add. I then examine the empirical basis for
believing there to be a subset of killers who are relatively unafraid of the
prison environment, and who therefore may be deterred effectively only by the
death penalty. Criminals, empirically, appear to fear a capital sentence, and
are willing to sacrifice important procedural rights during plea bargaining to
avoid this risk. This has the additional effect of increasing the mean expected
term of years attached to a murder conviction, and may generate a secondary
deterrent effect of capital punishment. At least for some offenders, the death
penalty should induce greater caution in their use of lethal violence, and the
deterrent effect seen statistically is possibly derived from the change in the
behavior of these individuals. This identification of a particular group on
whom the death penalty has the greatest marginal effect naturally suggests
reforms in sentencing (and plea bargaining) which focus expensive capital
prosecutions on those most insensitive to alternative criminal sanctions. |
|
Consistent regular capital punishment for murder will reduce the murder rate. [Op-Ed: The Death Penalty in Jamaica April 17, 2012 12:06 am] Until each prospective murderer knows that they are facing the noose of retribution, I believe that mayhem will be the rule rather than the exception. [Op-Ed: The Death Penalty in Jamaica April 17, 2012 12:06 am] |
|
Tuesday 29 March 2011 - Joining the debate, Bilkent University Professor Ergun Özbudun said capital punishment was abolished in the 47 member states of the Council of Europe as well as in Turkey with a constitutional amendment in 2001. Turkey would move away from the European standards with its possible return, he said. “If you ask about my opinion as an individual, not as a legal expert, I don’t find it unjust for the execution of those who violently committed murder. These people don’t have the right to live.” |
|
The Anti-DP Movement Has Failed - As a social policy, the death penalty now enjoys unprecedented
popularity among Americans. There is no longer any major demographic subgroup
of Americans that, as a whole, opposes the death penalty. As the Sourcebook of
Criminal Justice Statistics shows, it is gaining in popularity among groups,
such as Jews (72%) and Democrats (67%), which used to lag significantly behind
the population as a whole in terms of support for capital punishment. The Anti-DP Movement
Has Failed – Here are
two stark, unpleasant facts. The Anti-DP Movement Has Failed - Cases of death row "inmates, whose supporters earnestly proclaim their innocence, but who are later shown to have been guilty all along, do astounding damage to the credibility of death penalty opponents. The Anti-DP Movement Has Failed - The results of a 1995 poll demonstrated that, nationwide, 74 % of Americans who favored the death penalty would still favor it even when told to assume that 1 of 100 death row inmates is actually innocent. The Anti-DP Movement Has Failed - I think part of the explanation for those results is public weariness toward the repeated bogus claims of innocence that some death penalty opponents have put forward. The Anti-DP Movement Has Failed – People in the anti-death penalty movement must begin to realize that many of the innocence claims of people on death row are false. The Anti-DP Movement Has Failed - A majority of the of populations in many European countries and American States, which have abolished the death penalty, favor the death penalty. |
|
On Wednesday 6 April 2011, A political science
professor, a minister, a philosophy professor and a lawyer gathered in Lumpkin
Hall to discuss the controversial issue of capital punishment after Gov. Pat
Quinn signed legislation March 9 abolishing the death penalty in Illinois - Swenson
said two amendments focus on the death penalty issue; the 8th and 14th
amendments. The 8th Amendment states excessive bail shall not be required, nor
excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted. Also the
14th Amendment forbids states from denying any person "life, liberty or
property, without due process of law."
"The Supreme Court has never taken the viewpoint that capital punishment is, in and of itself cruel and unusual punishment," Swenson said. "There have been four justices over the years that individually have taken that view but never the court majority." Swenson said the court polices the issue by sorting
through fairness procedures; holding themselves to a standard and
proportionality reviews. |
|
On Wednesday 6 April 2011, A political science
professor, a minister, a philosophy professor and a lawyer gathered in Lumpkin
Hall to discuss the controversial issue of capital punishment after Gov. Pat
Quinn signed legislation March 9 abolishing the death penalty in Illinois - Grant Sterling, a philosophy professor,
discussed how capital punishment can be justified on reasonable grounds.
Sterling said if someone decides to take away the liberties and freedoms of another, you have ultimately forfeited your freedoms and liberties. "Capital punishment is not only morally acceptable, it is indeed morally required in some cases," Sterling said. "It requires that the state construct a reasonable and consistent method of executing the most heinous criminals." Sterling said the state has an obligation not to abolish the death penalty, but rather reform the system to correct its injustices. |
|
The
advantage of this argument is that it completely sidesteps the normative
question. It doesn’t matter whether you think the death penalty is right or
wrong. Everyone should support fairness and attempts to minimize wrongful
execution. This can be used in support of significant reforms. For example, one
can say that because of problems with local courts (e.g. corruption, lack of
proper training), the SPC review process is necessary to ensure fairness in
capital cases. This reform measure can be supported entirely on rule of
law/procedural grounds without any invocation of fundamental rights, good and
evil, or any other moral framework one wishes to drag into the discussion. [Capital Punishment in China: Ditch
the Moral Argument
Stan Abrams, China Hearsay | May 28, 2012, 6:13 AM] So,
you want capital punishment? That’s fine, as long as it’s carried out properly.
And by the way, once those reforms kick in, the number of cases will shrink
dramatically. Everyone’s happy short term: advocates for reform see a drop in
executions, while folks who support the death penalty can sleep better at night
knowing that fewer innocents are being executed. [Capital Punishment in China: Ditch the Moral Argument Stan Abrams, China Hearsay | May 28, 2012, 6:13 AM] |
|
On Wednesday 6 April
2011, A political science professor, a minister, a philosophy professor and a
lawyer gathered in Lumpkin Hall to discuss the controversial issue of capital
punishment after Gov. Pat Quinn signed legislation March 9 abolishing the death
penalty in Illinois - Roy Lanham, the director of the Newman
Catholic Center, took a religious view of the issue. Lanham discussed a
sanctity and quality of life view rather than "an eye for an eye." |
|
Hashem
Dezhbakhsh (Emory University Law Professor) and Joan M Shepard Shepherd
(Assistant Professor at Emory School of Law). "The Deterrent Effect of
Capital Punishment: Evidence from a 'Judicial Experiment'". January 11th,
2006 - We use panel data for 50 states during the
1960-2000 period to examine the deterrent effect of capital punishment, using
the moratorium as a 'judicial experiment.' We compare murder rates immediately
before and after changes in states' death penalty laws, drawing on cross-state
variations in the timing and duration of the moratorium. The regression
analysis supplementing the before-and-after comparisons disentangles the effect
of lifting the moratorium on murder from the effect of actual executions on
murder. Results suggest that capital punishment has a deterrent effect, and
that executions have a distinct effect which compounds the deterrent effect of
merely (re)instating the death penalty. The finding is robust across 96 regression
models. "Does Capital Punishment
Have a Deterrent Effect? New Evidence from Postmoratorium Panel Data".
2003 - Our results suggest that capital punishment has
a strong deterrent effect; each execution results, on average, in eighteen
fewer murders—with a margin of error of plus or minus ten. |
|
Emory University Law Professor. "Capital
Punishment and the Deterrence of Crime", written testimony for the House
Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
21 Apr. 2004 - "Recent research on the
relationship between capital punishment and crime has created a strong
consensus among economists that capital punishment deters crime. Early studies
from the 1970s and 1980s reached conflicting results. However, recent studies
have exploited better data and more sophisticated statistical techniques. The
modern studies have consistently shown that capital punishment has a strong
deterrent effect, with each execution deterring between 3 and 18 murders. This
is true even for crimes that might seem not to be deterrable, such as crimes of
passion." "DETERRENCE
VERSUS BRUTALIZATION:CAPITAL PUNISHMENT’S DIFFERING IMPACTS AMONG STATES"
Joanna M. Shepherd - "if policymakers in the
no-deterrence states have goals other than deterrence, such as retribution,
then they might continue capital punishment,despite the absence of deterrence.
In the many states, however,where executions not only fail to deter but also
cause additional murders of innocent people, policymakers might think twice
before permitting statesponsored revenge that, in effect, kills innocent
bystanders." |
|
Regarding "The Monitor's View" of April 23 2012, "Death penalty's fatal flaw": As a punishment more punitive than preventive, more costly than compassionate, the death penalty harks back to a different time in our nation. Yet we should pause before we assign a simplistic "cost-benefit" analysis to those who still support it: lawmakers, police, and, yes, victims. For some individuals whose lives have been touched by violence, the death penalty is justice even as it might be vengeance. Empathizing with those individuals who have suffered may, in the long term, reduce further suffering. |
|
Huang Juei-min, a law professor at Taichung's Providence University, is among several scholars who opposes abolition. "Those who are placed on death row have committed cruel crimes. They should face the consequences," Huang said. "When human rights organizations are
calling for protecting the rights of murderers, who cares about the families of
their victims?" |
|
Monday 18 April 2011 - According to Professor Kayhan Mutlu from Middle East Technical University, the EU should not have an effect on Turkish decision-making when it comes to changing criminal laws. "Every country has its own social, economic and political structure," he explained. "Therefore, criminal law should be independent, unless it is ignoring basic human rights and democratic principles." |
|
Injustice to civilians could be deemed as
the highest level of violence and extraordinary crime. [Prosecution of petty criminal cases: The death of civilian justice
The Jakarta Post | Fri, 01/13/2012 5:17 PM | Opinion] A serious lack of justice really shocks
our human consciousness since a great deal of people lose their basic right to
peace and security. [Prosecution of petty criminal
cases: The death of civilian justice The Jakarta Post | Fri,
01/13/2012 5:17 PM | Opinion] |
|
According to a Gallup Poll survey of one year ago, 64 percent of Americans favor the death penalty. This is down from 20 years ago when the number was 76 percent. It is still a majority, but shrinking. Although the arguments for the cessation of the death penalty have merit — that it is racially biased, unfairly administered, does not reduce crime and does not allow for a do-over for the innocent once the execution is carried out — I still believe the death penalty should remain on the books. [People Who Murder Should Be Put To Death By FRANK HARRIS III Posted: The Hartford Courant on Sunday October 16, 2011]
I believe people who murder should be put to death. [People Who Murder Should Be Put To Death By FRANK HARRIS III Posted: The Hartford Courant on Sunday October 16, 2011] |
|
"If no crime deserves the death penalty, then it is hard to see
why it was fitting that Christ be put to death for our sins and crucified among
thieves. St. Thomas Aquinas quotes a gloss of St. Jerome on Matthew 27: ‘As
Christ became accursed of the cross for us, for our salvation He was crucified
as a guilty one among the guilty.’ That Christ be put to death as a guilty
person, presupposes that death is a fitting punishment for those who are
guilty."
Prof. Michael Pakaluk, The Death Penalty: An Opposing Viewpoints Series Book,
Greenhaven Press, (hereafter TDP:OVS), 1991 |
|
What Professor Robinson does not report is that the abolitionist movement is the sole reason for the higher-than-expected expense and lower-than-expected deterrent value of capital punishment. The death penalty is expensive because abolitionists level costly appeals – even in cases where they know the condemned is guilty and has had a fair trial. Put simply, the abolitionist wants to get rid of the death penalty regardless of guilt and regardless of process. And the impact of these endless appeals is predicable: It undermines the deterrent capacity of the death penalty. - The Death Penalty Does Not Deter Liberals 2 May 2011 |