S.122, a bill to abolish the death penalty under federal law

[gottaB]

Senator Feingold has reintroduced his bill to abolish the federal death penalty (S.122).

Feingold's floor statement:

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I introduce the Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act of 2005. This bill would abolish the death penalty at the Federal level. It would put an immediate halt to executions and forbid the imposition of the death penalty as a sentence for violations of Federal law.

Since 1976, when the death penalty was reinstated by the Supreme Court, there have been almost 1,000 executions across the country, including three at the Federal level. At the same time, over 100 people on death row were later found innocent and released from death row. Exonerated inmates are not only removed from death row, but they are usually released from prison altogether. Apparently, these people never should have been convicted in the first place. While death penalty proponents claim that the death penalty is fair, efficient, and a deterrent, the fact remains that our criminal justice system has failed and has resulted in at least 117 very grave mistakes.

Nine hundred and forty-four executions, and 117 exonerations in the modern death penalty era. That is an embarrassing statistic, one that should have us all questioning the use of capital punishment in this country. And we continue to learn about more cases in which our justice system has failed. Since I first introduced this bill in November of 1999, 36 death row inmates have been exonerated throughout the country, 12 since I introduced this bill in the last Congress in February 2003. Since I last introduced this bill, 115 people have been executed nationwide. How many innocents are among them? We may never know.

Feingold on abolishing the death penalty....

I believe we all recognize that the bill has a snowball's chance in the present Congress. But that should not be the case. Public opinion surveys about the death penalty increasingly show that when presented with the option of life sentences without parole vs. the death penalty, the majority would decline to support the death penalty. Without that option being presented, a majority still support the death penalty, however, support is waning. We are obliged to demand that our representatives in Washington understand our feelings about what is fair and right, and that they exercise leadership accordingly.

If Senator Feingold's words resonate with you, if this issue speaks to your fundamental values, then please contact your Senators and ask them to support S. 122.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. I wonder how much of a deterrant the death penalty is anyway

I was watching City Confidential the other day-it was about the murder of two Dartmouth University professors by a couple of teens who wanted to 'live a life of crime'. They were caught relatively easily and given life sentences. The one was teary-eyed and remorseful; the other cold and smirking when the sentences were given. These were two smart, popular kids, not apparently on drugs, not from deprived environments.

What made them think that they could 'get away with it'? What makes any criminal think that way? A psychological quirk? Lack of development of the frontal lobes of the brain? Does it matter? It is obvious that for many who murder, the possibility of the DP is not considered much, if at all.


So the DP is not a deterrent for many murderers. And think of the many, many innocent souls who, through circumstance are convicted.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. The deterrent argument constantly comes up...

and is usually pretty well refuted. But, that doesn't stop DP proponents from bringing it up again and again. Deterring crime has a lot more to do with the criminal's perception of the chances of getting caught, not in the penalty received if caught.

The moral arguments against it are stronger, but tend to be abstract enough to cause glazed eyes.

Best practical argument against it is the cost. Capital trials always cost a million or so more than non capital ones. Some counties have actually come close to bankruptcy after paying the nut for capital trials.

[meow2u3]

6. If the death penalty is such a deterrent...

...then why is the murder rate higher in states with the death penalty than in states without it?

[TreasonousBastard]

9. Because it isn't a deterrent, but...

that's really a strawman.

Murder rates are dependent on far more things than the penalty if caught. Proponments often argue that the rates would be even higher if there were no DP in those states.

There is no way to rationally argue either side.

[OneBlueSky]

2. can you say "dies in committee?" . . .

I knew you could . . .

[gottaB]

8. of course, but it's still worthwhile to get cosigners

What does it accomplish? (a) It establishes a nucleus of support for other death penalty reform bills that may have a fighting chance; (b) it stakes out a liberal position on a question of fundamental values.

I have given a bit of study to the religious doctrines that supposedly inform the political decision making of a large portion of the electorate, and it is clear to me that Christian teaching is by and large decidedly against the death penalty. Yet the conservatives who support the death penalty have made great strides by portraying Democrats and liberals in particular as diametrically opposed to religious values, and especially what they call the "culture of life." Is that true? If liberal Democrats fail to stand up for their core values, it may as well be true, because the only working definitions of liberalism will be coming from its opponents. Simply ducking the label will not inoculate Democratic Senators against the charge that they have no genuine values. They must take principled stands. S.122 presents an opportunity for liberal Democrats to define themselves.

And the timing now is propitious. The old new Democratic guard, in my estimation, relied too heavily upon certain truisms that were supported by flaky interpretations of polling data. They might have argued, for instance, that opposing the death penalty was either overwhelmingly unpopular, or that it simply could not win more votes than it could lose. That's just wrong. Any intelligent reading of the data shows that public opinion is not fixed, and that actual support for the death penalty depends upon how the issue is framed. Senators occupy a privileged position from which to articulate how issues ought to be framed. The political lesson that needs to be learned is this: those who do not take a stand on an issue will be at the mercy of those who do.

One hopes that eventually a majority of fairminded Senators of both parties (and Jim Jeffords) will come to see the wisdom of S.122. In the meantime, there are a number of Senators who have little to lose and much to gain by showing some leadership on this issue. They ought to be encouraged to get on board.

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. So far he has been unsuccessful in finding any cosponsors

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00122:@@@L&summ2=m&#cosponsors

He couldn't get any cosponsors last time either:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d108:2:./temp/~bdqYFP::|/bss/d108query.html|

[Calvinist Basset]

3. Is there research anywhere . . .

that reports how many persons were put to death wrongly? Obviously, there are those who were exonerated while still alive, but has anyone studied to find out whether persons who actually were put to death were really innocent?

It would seem that this type of information could be pretty convincing for those still "sitting on the fence" about the matter.

[TreasonousBastard]

5. Not really...

there are a number of people who are now presumed by many to have been innocent, but no proof. In every case, the original trial findings were upheld, so no "proof" of innocence exists.

Here's one report:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=111#executed

There was a study a while back that said over 100 innocents have been executed, but it did have a few flaws. I can't remember the details now, but it was big in ant-DP circles a few years ago.

If we go way back, prior to 1976 when the law changed radically, vast numbers of lynchings, legal and otherwise, involved innocents.

[gottaB]

7. How do you retry such a case after your client has been executed?

Just a question, if you happen to know.

[TreasonousBastard]

10. You don't retry it...

but you try to get the facts out and some sort of exoneration.

A posthumous Presidential or Gubernatorial pardon might be possible, but that includes the assumption that he did it, and seems a bit unlikely for someone executed.

Exoneration would probably mean some legislative act to overturn the trial findings and change the record to innocent. That, too, is extremely rare. Sacco and Vanzetti were executed in 1937, and the efforts to clear their names are still going on.

None of this is very likely for most of them. It takes a lot of work to move this sort of thing, and the DA's and police who hold the evidence are not likely to be of any assistance. Even in cases where they are alive and on death row, often the authorities stall and refuse to cooperate with defenders who want to review evidence. Evidence is sometimes destroyed after the execution, partly to save space, but, conveniently, it also avoids the embarassment of a posthumous overturning of the conviction.

Remember, this would be the government admitting that it killed someone by mistake. That is not an admission that it would be overly interested in making.