Good post Carla. I've been saying this for years. Take away all of the moral and eye-for-an-eye arguments and the death penalty as it stands in the US is just too expensive to carry out. Rather life in prison without parole and without endless appeals.

For those who argue against the death penalty on moral and religious grounds there is this answer to stopping it. For those who would rather see quicker "justice" and retribution, life behind bars without parole is a far greater punishment than ending the convicted person's life.

I'm now a retired Catholic, but as a child Sister Mary Catherine taught me in catechism class that Christ is the Lord of forgiveness and mercy. Therefore, retribution and eye for eye arguments always astound me. I don't believe fiscal pragmatic arguments will work because as Lakoff points out it's the authoritarian mind at work here. Those who favor the death penalty will never be able to wrap their mind around eliminating it. It's the way their minds are hard wired. Our only hope is there's overwhelming more of us who favor eliminating the death penalty than those that favor retaining it.

I would like to see passage of the "Life for a life" measure that Mark Hatfield, the Catholic Church, and a number of other organizations were promoting a few years back. I believe that Oregonians reversed course and passed the death penalty because they saw the courts and correctional system not protecting them from killers. If there were surefire legal guarantees that a killer is going to be locked up for life, then many Oregonians would vote for an end to the death penalty.

County governments cannot afford NOT to have the death penalty on the books. Most defendant's agree to a true life sentence in exchange for the State taking the dp off the table. Without the dp as a part of the plea negotiation process then the options for a county are 1) try an expensive multiweek case or 2) offer less than true life.

You think the dp is expensive for the State? Try multiple counties trying to litigate defendant's into true life sentences.

To Chung-Su's point, have we ever heard from DA's as to the value of the DP as a tool for them. Even though I am becoming more anti-DP as time passes, I wouldn't want to strip the DA's of a valuable tool.

I agree with Bill R. I recall a time when "pro-life" meant being against the death penalty and not just against abortion.

And Rob Kremer, not only are you off topic, but did you really mean to imply that OEA makes decisions for COSA which stands for Confederation of School Administrators?

"I am interested in the opinion of BlueOregon folks on the attempt by the OEA and the rest of the education establishment to shut down Oregon's virtual charter schools.

The bill is SB 767, sponsored by OEA, COSA, AFT, OSEA and a slew of Democratic legislators. "

Is COSA allowed to express their concerns or is anyone on the opposite side from you in a debate a dupe of the big bad teachers union?

What is it you do for a living these days? Why should we take your side in a debate if we didn't vote for you when you ran for office? Because you say so?

To say that anyone who supports or even wants an open discussion of SB 767 is doing the bidding of the OEA when COSA is also a sponsor of the bill would strike some people as the same level of intellectual dishonesty as "A truly prolife person believes in the death penalty as well as being an abortion opponent".

Folks, whatever your point of view, some knowledge of what makes a good sales person might be in order. Is your goal just to verbally hit people over the head (like a TV informercial does), or is your goal to actually "sell" your idea?

Death penalty debates are not likely to change minds of people who have strong religous or other beliefs.

What we need is an atmosphere (on this issue, Kremer's issue, or any other issue) where people can ask questions and look at facts without being called names.

And at the risk of being called off topic myself, I suggest those interested in Kremer's issue read this (warning, it may take a while to load).

http://www.ode.state.or.us/stateboard/2009feb19onlinelearningsubcommitteeproposal.doc

And please, whatever the issue, check your facts before spouting off! Hovde had a column awhile back on Kremer's issue which included a statement "we voted for..." by Rep. Thatcher. It turned out she had voted against the bill in question from a previous session. Please, if you wish to be believed, check out such statements of fact and don't believe that being on the "good " side excuses you from making mistakes of fact

Some of us who wonder about the death penalty from both moral and practical grounds (incl. cost, whether some criminals would rather be executed then spend a life term in jail, what happens if the court makes a mistake, etc. )have been called "soft on crime" because supposedly all "tough on crime" individuals believe in capital punishment with limited appeals and if a person is wrongly executed, tough luck.

Is that kind of bullying really going to win votes? Or is the verbal attack against all opponents the point of it all, "agree with us or we will make your life miserable"?

I believe we would all be better off if we debated based on facts and logic rather than on bullying, half truths, and sound bites.

If the death penalty were an effective deterrent - as in upon conviction and subsequent review by a three judge "appellate" court the mangy dog will be taken out back of the barn and shot in the back of the head... I'd go for it.

Right now, the bozos got three hots and a warm cot, free clothes, medical care, entertainment, education... doin' better than me right now.

Carla - what do you have to say about Chung su's observation? If the DP provides the high point anchor - what might be the unintended economic costs to replace dp with true life?

Kurt Chapman:

Take away all of the moral and eye-for-an-eye arguments and the death penalty as it stands in the US is just too expensive to carry out. Rather life in prison without parole and without endless appeals.

Bob T:

Why would there be "endless appeals" over the death penalty but not life imprisonment? Something doesn't make sense there.

I've no problem with ending the death penalty (which needs to be put in the US Constitution rather than be obtained by a new re-re-interpretation), so long as the government makes sure that lifers stay in there, and that all murderers are given so many years behind bars that they are harmles when released. No more of this early release garbage (followed by them killing again), because that will only keep support high for the death penalty.

This is one of the few things government needs to be doing (keeping these people away from us), but doesn't do well due to the fact that it's doing so many other things. The more it does, the fewer things it does well.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Chung-Su is wrong about costs for true life. Courts treat capital punishment as something different from all other sentencing (as well they should). You get to litigate capital cases to a much, much larger degree, in a way that you are simply not allowed to do with a life sentence. Close to half the states now have no real death penalty and none of them saw an increase in life sentence related litigation. There is no reason to think Oregon would be different.

If you're opposed to the death penalty, get an initiative petition going to abolish it. It'll get enough signatures to make the ballot, then lose 40/60. Regardless of the arguments against it, the death penalty remains popular with the people.

Unless, of course, your argument is that the people are too stupid to be allowed to decide these moral issues for themselves...but that's another argument.

In response to Bill R.:

I hear you brother! I personally have no taste for the death penalty, given that we have a little something in this state called Measure 11. Under this statute, convicted murderers are given mandatory minimums, and a life term can really mean a life in prison for criminals. However, I just happened to to have read in Willamette Week that Chip Shields intends to introduce legislation in the state legislature that would weaken Measure 11 and give some of Oregon's most serious offenders a shot at parole. Under no circumstances do I want some of these guys back out on the street. Which makes giving them a death sentence look pretty attractive by comparison...

Rab, I would be interested to see your sources:

1) AS far as costs did it include the cost of appellate review for cases in which murder was tried as opposed to pled.

2) In terms of outcome, did the costs not go up because prosecutors cut deals for less than TRUE life sentences? Note: "life" in most cases generally does not mean true life, it means life subject to parole. This is true in Oregon for Murder as opposed to Agg Murder and even on Agg Murder in Oregon one can get less than a true life sentence.

I don't think we can afford the death penalty in any state or at the federal level, and it has nothing to do with money.

The government should not kill its citizens until all three of the following problems are resolved:

Class: Rich people no longer can pay for better lawyers and better justice than poor people.

Errors: The justice system, managed by human beings with all their frailties, never mistakenly convicts an innocent defendant.

Philosophy: We adjust the philosophical underpinning of our social contract to explicitly include the concept of the state killing it's own citizens for any reason.

Solving three out of three will never happen.

Carla, I know quoting from a newspaper article and linking to it are acceptable blog moves but is it right to give your post the same title as the other writer's work? I know it makes sense if you want anyone searching for their article by name to have Blue Oregonian waved in front of them, but doesn't this take the parasitic relationship of blogs to news media too far? They came up with that title. It's the title of their piece. Now it's the title of your post. Are you comfortable with that?

The best part of the O piece was the prosecutor who said that cost should play no part in the decision about using death penalty because if the costs for death were lower than life imprisonment that would not be a good rationale for using the death penalty.

He continued by trying to assert, without proof, that death IS cheaper than life imprisonment, because you won't have geriatric cases.

In other words, after saying cost should not be a factor when it cuts against his preference, this prosecutor in the same breath tries to create the impression that cost actually justifies death.

I wonder what this prosecutor would say about removing judicial and prosecutorial immunity for misconduct in death cases -- should we charge prosecutors who lie, who suborn perjured testimony, or who refuse to hand over exculpatory evidence with attempted murder? When a death conviction is reversed with evidence showing not just an error but that the convicted person is actually innocent, what should happen to the trial judge?

The brand new book "The Top Ten Death Penalty Myths: The politics of crime control" is outstanding and really should be read by anyone who cares about this issue. http://www.powells.com/biblio/71-9780275997809-0

County governments cannot afford NOT to have the death penalty on the books. Most defendant's agree to a true life sentence in exchange for the State taking the dp off the table. Without the dp as a part of the plea negotiation process then the options for a county are 1) try an expensive multiweek case or 2) offer less than true life.

If that's the goal, then why not make the death penalty available for prosecutors in ALL crimes, not just murder? I'll bet DAs could get a lot more of those pesky defendants to shut up and pay their jaywalking fines if going to trial involved the risk of capital punishment!

In repsonse to Wandering Cloud:

Towards the end of the article, Willamette Week clarifies:

"What Shields and his allies have introduced so far falls short of that (weakening Measure 11). They’re sponsoring bills, all opposed by the DAs, that would:

Make courts inform juries of mandatory minimums. (That's SB 296, which was discussed at Blue Oregon here.

Reduce sentences for some crimes such as second-degree assault and second-degree robbery, but increase sentences for more serious offenses like first-degree rape. (That's HB 2355, which increases the sentence for first-degree rape from 100 months to 120 months, and decreases the still mandatory sentences for the lesser Measure 11 offenses from 5 yrs. 10 months to 4 years 10 months. This decrease was proposed by the Oregon District Attorneys Association in 2007.)

Give judges power to release juvenile offenders who were tried as adults after they complete half their sentence. (That's SB 682, the "second look" for juveniles bill, which is fully supported by the youth correctional officers of SEIU Local 503.)

None of these address murder, and I fully support replacing the death penalty with absolute mandatory life imprisonment with no chance of parole.

For more information about the idea of the court informing the jury of the likely sentence in mandatory sentencing cases, check out the bill's hearing in Senate Judiciary by clicking here. It's worth a listen.

I just want to "amen" Tom Carter's points. Whenever I am discussing the death penalty with "friends," I make two of the points he brings out: (1) if you are not bothered by an innocent person being executed every now and then, and (2) if you don't mind the death penalty never being applied to rich white guys; if you admit or agree to both of these givens and you still favor the death penalty, SO BE IT!

I rarely gets "friends" who admit to both. They want to argue that that's not the way it is, nor should be, and it need not be.

RIIIIGHT!

Hey, if you want to tell juries about what the sentences are going to be, you should give them more of a say in the outcome. Having practiced in two other systems where juries do the sentencing, I can tell you with absolute certainty that juries are tougher in sentencing criminals in violent or repeat offender cases than judges are. Informing juries solely about minimums is a cop out - it's a way to reduce sentence lengths without giving the juries a substantial say in increasing sentences in appropriate cases.

I find the whole argument absurd. The OCDLA and their cronies only want juries to nullify laws legitimately passed by the people, like Measure 11. They have zero interest in giving juries a greater say in sentencing proceedings. Where is the truly courageous legislator who will stand up to eliminate all minimums and the guidelines that set the effective maximums? If we really care about democracy and think juries should have a say in this, then let them have a say in ALL of this.

Rep Shields: I am sure most prosecutors would love juries hearing that a defendant only gets 10-30 days for Identity Theft or stealing a car? 30-90 days for dealing meth, heroin or cocaine for profit or 20-60 days for manufacturing less than 10 grams of meth? But this bill seems to hide "the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth" from juries in only telling them the penalty for M11 offenses and neglecting to tell them others. Our criminal justice system needs to be transparent. I support telling juries penalties but not in censoring which penalties they know about.

Here's my thoughts on the death penalty: Life involves a continuous struggle with the State over power and the older I get the more I see how fragile it all is. That's why okaying torture for example is such a dangerous thing. You have to assume that any power granted will lead to abuse so why start with something morally reprehensible to begin with? We have to draw the line as strongly as we can towards limiting the power of the State to harm an individual. If you feel good about America I would avoid reading the Bush torture memos. Very disturbing and truly sick. We cannot afford to grant the State the right to do things psychos do. It looks very much like we tortured children by putting them in dark confined spaces and letting insects crawl on them. That's a long way from Mom and apple pie.

There was one short time when I felt my attitudes about the death penalty had changed. I am writing this within blocks of where a very twisted man named Wesley Dodd kidnaped a child whom he later killed. Without getting too graphic, he kept pictures of the poor kid at the crime scene because they aroused him sexually. The night they hanged him - and yes, they actually hanged him - I felt very unsettled about it. The act of the State taking someone's life especially by hanging really creeped me out. But I will say that once it was done, I felt a very strong relief that Wesley was no longer with us. If anybody ever deserved to die, it was this man. So I confess that night, I was glad the State of Washington had acted, although I wouldn't do it myself. I wouldn't have okayed it as governor, etc.. Who really knows how you'd react? I don't think I would have okayed it as governor but if I ever could do it, it would be for a man like Wesley Dodd. Wesley could bring out a barbarian reaction from Mother Theresa - he was not humanity at its best. I've since returned to believing that the State should not have this right...period. The one thing I would change if Wesley were still alive, would be to deny him access to the press. He would appear on TV from time to time, and I worried that he would inspire other sickos. Give them life behind bars with visits by representatives of the Red Cross or whatever to make sure he is not tortured. The economic reasons in this argument don't move me one way or another. I just don't want the State to be able to kill anyone. The sanctity of human life should be paramount. Once it's cheapened we have unnecessary wars, and we torture people to death. In short we have the Bush administration.

Chung-Su and MLW:

On the tape, constitutional lawyer Roy Pulvers discusses why this information is most useful for mandatory sentencing cases, as opposed to others. I'd be interested in your response to his arguments.

"Most useful" for jury nullification that is.

Tom Carter:

The government should not kill its citizens until all three of the following problems are resolved:

Class: Rich people no longer can pay for better lawyers and better justice than poor people.

Bob T:

Sometimes that goes beyond "better justice" to plain buying yourself out of a no-brainer guilty verdict. Despite your claim of little guy vs. rich guy, it's still sick that all these years later a large majority of blacks have no problem with OJ getting off for the murder of two people, even if they eventual admit that maybe he did do it after all -- it's "fair", after all.

I'm sorry, but Nicole Simpson and Mr. Goldman didn't need to be sacrificed in order for others to feel good about themselves in the rich man vs. little guy issue.

Bob Tiernan Portland

After witnessing the death of scores of individuals as a Nurse it is my position that capital punishment is completely about societal revenge and very little about punishment.

The convicted gets to leave this earthly plane after execution and is therefore relived of any future guilt or pain, either emotional or physical as a result of the aging process or the personal suffering of having to spend the rest of their miserable existence behind bars.

In short, death by capital punishment. is the easier way out for someone versus spending the rest of their lives in jail until the day they die.

Many of the suggestions support elimination of the death penalty. In a civilized society, perhaps there are better alternatives.

the question remains of what to do with the ones who are guilty of the most horrendous crimes; those that truly are guilty.

We've got to stop providing these criminals with attention: no book deals; no sympathy articles in the papers; no public attention whatsoever.

A few short weeks ago, BlueOregon discussed the horror of solitary confinement. Even this was viewed by some as being too extreme a punishment.

Some have room in their hearts for forgiveness. I say, save that caring for people who are more deserving, and who might actually benefit society. Citizens who have common sense and respect for the law.

If we are going to rid ourselves of capital punishment, then let's make sure that the truly guilty ones are locked up for a very long time; and that they are constantly reminded of their crime against their community.

Sometimes we simply forget how horrendous their crimes were. Let's not coddle them at all.

Devil's Island anyone?

Can we afford not to have it? Think of the children!

Mike can look into the heart and know true innocence and guilt, winnowing the statutory from the personal crime and seeing their future behavior. Why would one such as a God tolerate his tax dollars molly coddling the reprobate?

Actually, I don't really know who is guilty and who is not. Can any of us know the real truth? We may all have opinion.

Instead, we have a system that determines one's guilt or innocence, and then wrestles with an appropriate punishment. Regardless of the punishment enacted, there will be some in society that deems it too harsh, others "just about right", and still others "not harsh enough".

The answer? Our society attempts to define a sentence so the criminal does not repeat the crime. For example, it's been a long time since we have executed someone for treason. We've been able to move on from that. Perhaps because none of us can agree what treason actually is anymore. Executions for capital murder are rather rare, as the article supposes.

Once we agree that the death penalty should be stopped, the debate can then move on to what the punishment should be. It will be somewhere between "letting the guy go, admonished not to do that again" and solitary confinement. Perhaps we can all agree that the former is not an option.

So, I guess I could be convinced that we cannot afford the death penalty in its present form. So I'm ready to move to the next question - what do we do with the person that has been found guilty of the crime? What can we afford to do?

On the importance of the DP on plea bargaining, there is of course the other argument. Why would you ask, do people who are clearly guilty of horrendous crimes even have a trial? Because of the DP. So in these notorius cases, the DP causes a long drawn out trial.

Rep. Shields - I find them unconvincing. You are asking to legalize jury nullification. Our system is based on the rule of law - that juries will abide by their sworn oath to obey the instructions judges give them, regardless of their personal feelings about the law. Your bill undermines that bedrock principle. If you don't like Measure 11 sentences, have the courage to propose a bill to repeal them, don't undermine the fundamental principles of our judicial system.

I suspect the reason that you won't do this is because you know that you lack the popular support to pass such a bill. Thus, you're attempting an end run around the democratic process that gave us Measure 11. Having strong Progressive ideals does not give you license to undermine the rule of law or democratic principles.

@Robert Harris: Good point. Not to mention that capital trials provide a great temptation to prosecutorial and police overreaching, which leads to the high rates of successful appeals, usually resulting in retrials and even more costs, delays, etc.

As was said in the OJ case, "There's nothing that says the police can't try to frame a guilty man." Capital cases are so emotionally charged and so career-enhancing for prosecutors and "hanging" judges that, instead of being the epitome of fair trials (as befitting such a high-stakes endeavor) they are some of the worst run trials, which are then scrutinized through a microscope.

Nice info graphic on countries still killing prisoners. Great bunch to be associated with, eh?

http://awesome.goodmagazine.com/transparency/web/0904/trans0409deathrow.html

If there is absolutely NO doubt ,I feel they shouldn't even be aloud to appeal.Did the person or persons they killed get to appeal?????????

In the article, Susan Goldsmith forgot to address the only thing that matters:

Proof that the death penalty is so much more expensive that comparable life without parole cases (LWOP) that is makes a solid public policy argument to scrap the death penalty because of cost, alone.

Some clarification and investigation are needed.

1) "the average cost of defending a capital murder case is nearly 10 times the cost of a case without the possibility of a death sentence."

Question: I consider the proper cost comparison to be between a death penalty trial and a death penalty qualified case, which had a trial wherein the maximum sentence was life without parole? Is that what you meant?

According to Ms. Goldsmith's sentence, she could be using the average of all non death penalty trial cases, from jay walking up to all murders not given a death penalty trial.

However, I suspect you are using all murder cases, capital or non capital eligible, for which Oregon didn't have a death penalty trial? For example, that is what Ingrid Swenson did in the article. She included all non death penalty murder cases, when only the highest category of murders are relevant, because that is, precisely, the cases that will be the cost comparison, if the death penalty is done away with.

2) Goldsmith had no figure for the costs of true life without parole cases, cases which are roughly equivalent to the death penalty eligible ones that go to trial.

The entire idea of saving money by ending the death penalty depends upon that calculation being compared to death penalty costs.

Where is it? Without it, this is just another anti death penalty witch hunt, which has been the process in the other states, so far.

3) Calculate LWOP costs:

Where to start? Look at the worst murder cases (enough cases to get a meaningful average) which were truly and obviously death penalty eligible, and that went to non death penalty trial and which had a LWOP sentence.

In other states, what you often have (reviews upon request), is a cost comparison which is meaningless. Among others, many studies have three common and important problems:

a) they don't look at same category murders; b) they don't calculate the costs savings to the state of having the death penalty, in order to make possible a plea bargain to maximum life sentences - that cost savings being for LWOP trial and appeals in like cases. The only way to get a LWOP plea is to have the death penalty, without which all maximum case pleas will be to less than LWOP, in many cases an outcome which would be unimaginable for many Oregonians, I suspect. c) they don't calculate geriatric care costs for prisoners, costs which usually begin between ages 50-55 and cost $60,000-$90,000 per year per inmate.

3) Did Goldsmith review any other state's death penalty protocol's to see if they better managed their death penalty systems and how that would reduce costs in Oregon?

4) Goldsmith used the term "exonerated", which means to remove any connection to the murder, or actually innocent, as opposed to any legal definition of innocence. How many cases of actual innocence have been confirmed in Oregon, and was that assertion confirmed by the judge prosecutor and /or defense counsel? Or do you use the DPIC list?

5) I ask that because Goldsmith cited the DPIC, as follows: 'Since 1973, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, 131 death row inmates in 26 states have been freed across the United States after their convictions were overturned, they were acquitted, or given a pardon by a governor based on new evidence."

Since 1997, it has been known that the DPIC created their own definitions for innocence and exonerated, neither of which included the true definitions of either word. Possibly, 25 of those 131 might be actually innocent, as most of us understand the definition.

What standard for exoneration was Goldsmith using?

This are all important considerations for this important public policy debate. I hope The Oregonian will address them.

<hr/>