DPIC Releases Year End Report: Historic Declines in Death Penalty Use Continue
Posted: December 21, 2016
Death sentences, executions, and public support for the death penalty continued their historic declines in 2016, according to DPIC's annual report, 'The Death Penalty in 2016: Year End Report,' released on December 21.
The 30 death sentences imposed this year are the fewest in the modern era of capital punishment in the U.S.—since the Supreme Court declared all existing death penalty statutes unconstitutional in 1972—and declined 39% from 2015's already 40-year low.
Just 20 people were executed in 2016, the fewest executions since 1991. Both death sentences and executions were increasingly geographically isolated. Two states—Georgia and Texas—accounted for 80% of executions, and more than half of all death sentences were imposed in just three states—California, Ohio, and Texas.
Election results reflected America's deep divisions about the death penalty, as voters in three states decided to retain the death penalty or add it to the state constitution, while voters in five of the highest-use death penalty counties replaced prosecutors who strongly supported the death penalty with candidates who promised reform and reductions in capital prosecutions.
Courts struck down practices in Arizona, Delaware, Florida, and Oklahoma that had contributed to disproportionately high numbers of death sentences.
'America is in the midst of a major climate change concerning capital punishment. While there may be fits and starts and occasional steps backward, the long-term trend remains clear,' said Robert Dunham, DPIC’s Executive Director and the author of the report. 'Whether it’s concerns about innocence, costs, and discrimination, availability of life without parole as a safe alternative, or the questionable way in which states are attempting to carry out executions, the public grows increasingly uncomfortable with the death penalty each year.'”
And:
Federal Jury Awards Illinois Death Row Exoneree $22 Million in Damages
Posted: December 20, 2016
A federal jury awarded $22 million in damages to Nathson Fields, who was wrongfully convicted of a gang-related murder and sentenced to death in 1986. Fields was exonerated in 2009.
The jury found that two Chicago police detectives violated Fields' civil rights by hiding critical evidence that suggested he did not commit the crime of which he was convicted.
For many years, the Chicago police department maintained a practice of keeping secret 'street files' on potential suspects. That policy was officially terminated in 1983, after exposure by a whistleblower. The secret files were hidden in a storage basement where they would not be subject to subpoena.
Despite the department's claims that it was no longer keeping such files, the jury found that at the time Fields was arrested and charged, the city had a pattern and practice of keeping the secret street files in homicide investigations even though it had officially disavowed the practice.
Hundreds of street files were discovered in 2011, including one relating to Fields. Fields' file contained handwritten notes on alternate suspects and lineup cards that had been withheld from his attorneys at his trial.
In addition to the $22 million award for which the city of Chicago is liable, the jury also assessed a total of $40,000 in punitive damages against Sgt. David O'Callaghan and Lt. Joseph Murphy personally, which the men may be required to pay themselves.
At a press conference after the ruling, Fields described the despair he had felt during his time on death row, especially as he saw other prisoners taken to their executions. 'I had times that I was under so much stress I didn't think I could take any more, so this day is very humbling, and I'm so happy,' he said."
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
reply share
i think we need to heavily reduce what constitutes a capital crime, 1 rule would need to be irrefutable DNA evidence, way beyond reasonable double, i mean people who rape and murder children don't deserve to live full stop,
but to outright support capital punishment is too much of a black and white issue(no race intended), to many cases get overturned, and i am glad they do,
over at the georgia innocence project i was reading their successful exonerates and nearly everyone was black,
ted bundy, john wanye gacy, definately needed the death penalty, waste of space, waste of breath, waste of money
i am really surprised that Dahmer didn't get scentenced to death, do necrophiles really belong on this planet? Karma came back to hit him with a broomstick, or a barbell depending on who telling the story
if you could pull the trigger would you shoot hitler? in the face? or in the foot first to make him suffer a little, instead of the cowardly way he took out when his methamphetamine brain realized he was going to lose
Soon as you say death-penalty-for-some, you run the risk of killing an innocent person. Exoneration means nothing once they're dead. That's apart from the other considerations involved with the practice.
Making suffer. Thinking the same the way the bad guy thought. Hmm.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
Soon as you say death-penalty-for-some, you run the risk of killing an innocent person. Exoneration means nothing once they're dead. That's apart from the other considerations involved with the practice.
that is why i indicated truly irrefutable evidence
lets take a look at the dahmer case, he wasn't valid for the death penalty because capital punishment in the late 1800's in Wisconsin when they came into his place they found several shrines built from the corpses of his victims, he tried to lobotomize people so they could be his sex slaves(although it never worked), 17 victims over several years some of them us young as 14, i think there might have even been a 12 year old,
compared to Daniel, even if the rape and murder under totally different and non malicious intent didn't deserve the harsh death penalty,
Making suffer. Thinking the same the way the bad guy thought. Hmm.
i'll admit to a certain level of pathological sadism, that doesn't make someone a "bad guy" it is the intent behind it, and the actions one takes their vegeful sadism to, if someone rapes a family member of mine, id let the courts do their job, but if they wouldn't/couldn't i would take the law into my own hands, maybe i am just a psychopathic narcissist, but i am pretty sure lots of people if asked would want to make hitler suffer, so thinking that isn't so cut and dry reply share
But as soon as you say truly irrefutable evidence, you have to consider all those cases where the prosecution, the victims' families, everyone, thought they had truly irrefutable evidence. Until they didn't. For every X cases with truly irrefutable evidence that is truly irrefutable, you have Y percentage that look just that way too, and later are discovered to be otherwise.
Point being, any justice system will be imperfect. Death, however, doesn't have that impediment. You risk killing innocent people no matter what.
that doesn't make someone a "bad guy"
Some bad guys get off on their victims' helplessness and pain. Many also believe their victims deserve it. Sometimes both. If you get off on the pain of your victim and justify killing and suffering because you believe they deserve it, how are you now not a bad guy too? And how do you contain that? Because not everyone is going to target the same kind of bad guys as you. So then you have a whole lot of different targets for killing and suffering. Hmm.
There are no shortage of atrocities where one side slaughters the other on the grounds that the other side slaughtered them some earlier time.
DANIEL What would happen next, Amantha? I mean, Bobby would go to prison, his mother would go to visit, and then after that, and -- and -- and after that. When would it ever end?
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
reply share
Morality in the ever changing world is such a grey world, i woke up today read my google news as see trump wants to increase nukes,
i don't think i would actually take pleasure in the revenge because it would never Rectify the original crime, although it would be both for me, and for them, what drives each of us is different, that being said i don't think our science is up to snuff to truly prove anything irrefutably, unless caught red handed, by reliable sources,
this is why sometimes i think, in pursuit of true freedom we need possibly implement an extensive CCTV campaign world wide, only accessible under warrant,
although this opens things up to hackers, and people would be screaming "BIG BROTHER BIG BROTHER 1984", but once things settled murder trials would be alot shorter, what is truly free? the freedom to do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt someone else, but always being surveilled, only to be accessed at the report of a crime, or to live without monitoring, with the posibility of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and possibly losing your life to a crime(that might not have been committed if the perpetrator knew they were being watched) or possibly spend all your life in jail for something you didn't commit, but because you were without alibi, and have an anxiety disorder the cops think you are hiding something, they get tunnel vision and in a moment of weakness you cave, just wanting it to be over, just wanting to see your dad,
its difficult being a libertarian and a Socialist at the same time, it is like your mind fighting over itself
its difficult being a libertarian and a Socialist at the same time, it is like your mind fighting over itself
Your difficulty can be relieved! The source of the discomfort is that the US brand of libertarianism means the opposite of it's historical meaning in modern European history, where it meant socialist-anarchist, the anti-state part of the Workers and Socialist movement. It split into two general factions, statist and anti-statist. The former gave rise to Bolshevism (Lenin, Trotsky, etc).
The latter ended up flowing into a mixture with a major branch of anarchism. That was centered on democratic ideals: democratic management of community and workplace, democratic control of federal organization, all founded on voluntary association, and so on. So you got "libertarian socialism." Historically, libertarianism in Europe was equated with socialism. No problem with dissonance!
(Btw, "anarchism" historically has had zero to do with chaos, the quality typically misassociated with it.)
However, the US brand of libertarianism actually means extreme conservative. It's essentially a doctrine of private tyranny that encourages people to turn into psychopaths: look out for yourself and forget about anyone else.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
essentially a doctrine of private tyranny that encourages people to turn into psychopaths: look out for yourself and forget about anyone else.
Yes. My quick take on the matter is that in grade school we were all US libertarians. Kids tend to hate rules, often indiscriminately. As we mature, most become discriminating as to which rules we embrace, reject or wish to modify. The elitism of US libertarianism is self-serving and anti-intellectual. We won't have to strain to hear their cries of joy as the minimum wage is kept low, the retirement age is raised, medicare is privatized and collective bargaining outlawed. They'd bring back the poorhouse and child labor if they could.
'Tis the season to read a little Dickens and view A Christmas Carol (1951) with Alastair Sim.
"Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were all my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!"
reply share
Oh, I love that quote. Yes, some Dickens, stat! And Alistair Sims! When he wakes up and sets about rectifying, I can't help myself. It's so joyous and I can't help tearing up.
And this slays me every year, too:
GEORGE Do you know how long it takes a working man to save five thousand dollars? Just remember this, Mr. Potter, that this rabble you're talking about, they do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this community. Well is it too much to have them work and pay and live and die in a couple of decent rooms and a bath? Anyway, my father didn't think so. People were human beings to him. But to you, a warped, frustrated old man, they're cattle. Well, in my book, he died a much richer man than you'll ever be.
This year, more than ever.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
reply share
It's never been proven to be a deterrent. People generally kill out of anger or insanity; the consequences do not enter their mind.
Most importantly, it's not a punishment, it's an escape from any punishment.
When we euthanize a pet or person with a painful terminal illness, we don't do it to punish them, we do it out of compassion. Why would I show compassion to someone who murdered my kid, friend, wife etc.
I'm saying this as someone who's had a personal reflection on this subject. My father was murdered by a man who then faced the death penalty. Luckily, he plea bargained for life in prison.
The idea that he would be switched off without any real punishment did not sit well with me. No matter how good a day he's having in prison right now, I'm sure it sucks more than not existing to feel any negative feelings at all.
It's not legal in most places. Currently, it's legal in California, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Montana and Vermont in the U.S., and in Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Germany, and Colombia.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
Also, I should add, there are companies you can hire in places where euthanasia is illegal that help you to kill yourself.
They give you all the info/tools you need to do it painlessly and quickly without making themselves liable. Most commonly, death by helium mask. Your body thinks it's breathing oxygen until you get sleepy and never wake up.
Well, that doesn't diminish the value of your thoughts, at least. (Not that you were implying it.) Keeping the influence of emotion from determining life or death is part of the argument against the DP, and for the value of a "theoretical" perspective. Legal protections can be bulldozed by intense emotion, and juries can be influenced by emotion rather than facts.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson