The Effect of Deterrence

The Washington Post published an article today in regards to the puzzling debate over whether or not deterrence is a legitimate argument. As I was reading through, nothing came as a surprise or caught my attention...until the end. This article states both positions, which is ultimately stating that neither is justified as an argument. But the article concludes by saying,

A prominent line of reasoning, endorsed by several justices, holds that if capital punishment fails to deter crime, it serves no useful purpose and hence is cruel and unusual, violating the Eighth Amendment.

So, if there is no evidence that the death penalty is a deterrant to murder, then shouldn't the death penalty be eliminated? Here is the whole article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/29/AR2008062901476.html?referrer=emailarticle

Supreme Court: Death Penalty Reserved "for crimes that take the life of the victim"

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, struck down Louisiana's law allowing a death sentence for those guilty of child rape. The Kennedy v. Louisiana opinion additionally extended the current understanding of death-eligible crimes, clarifying that the death penalty is “for crimes that take the life of the victim."

More from SCOTUSblog:

Barring the death penalty for any crime that does not take the life of an individual victim, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that it is unconstitutional to impose the death penalty for the crime of raping a child. If the victim does not die and death was not intended, capital punishment for that crime violates the Eighth Amendment, the Court ruled in an opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. The case was Patrick Kennedy v. Louisiana (07-343). The broad declaration that death sentences should be reserved “for crimes that take the life of the victim” will apply, the Court said, to crimes against individuals...

You can find the opinion here.

Swift, Severe, and Certain

Throughout my research involving 'Victim Outreach', I've come across statements regarding "harsh" penalties. In many circumstances, simply the sense of feeling that their case is receiving the harshest penalty that exists is all that is needed. Margaret Vandiver explains this by writing, "Any sentence lighter than the maximum provided by law runs the risk of seeming to indicate that the criminal justice system, or society in general, did not properly value the victim's life or comprehend the magnitude of the family's loss".

So I bring up the question[s] of the day. If the death penalty didn't exist, and an offender was sentenced to the most severe penalty of LWOP, wouldn't the family members feel justified? The problem with that today would be that we know the death penalty does and can exist, but whether it should has yet to be determined. Our system is principled on a 'code'. A code that says it [the system] is to be swift, severe, and certain. It's easy to tell that this isn't always the case when it comes to crime. So, if we're striving for a system of swiftness, shouldn't we revise the system? LWOP allows the family members to end their involvement with the criminal justice system, whereas a sentence of death drags out the process. Afterall, isn't it all about the victim families? It's easy to say, and I think most everyone would agree, that the murderer deserves to die, but does that mean that they should die? If the death penalty exists, doesn't that pressure surviving members to support the punishment simply because it is the most severe? How can we be certain?
...support a moratorium!

A Look to the Past, Victim Families

As of late, I've been researching victim families in hopes of contacting them and discussing the delicate issues that arise when talking about the death penalty. It's not an easy project. It's hard enough to just find family members, but I imagine it'll be even harder to approach them.

I came across an article that was released back in 2001, that talks about the forgiving nature of one family member whose father was killed right in front of his own eyes. This is the story about Tim Streett:

His father was rushed to the hospital. He was dead on arrival. "I think I was just in shock," Tim Streett says. "You just go into this state of unconsciousness. I think over the next week, even months, I kind of came out of it slowly." Within weeks, three young men were arrested: Michael Daniels, the shooter, Don Cox, who drove the getaway car, and Kevin Edmonds, who testified against the other two for a lighter sentence. "The lack of remorse from the defendants was remarkable," says prosecutor Stephen Goldsmith, who showed no mercy. Daniels was sentenced to death. Cox was sentenced to 90 years in prison.

Then he did something truly unusual. In 1997, almost 20 years after seeing his father gunned down, Tim Streett decided to face his father's killers again. So he sent each of them a letter. "Well, he introduced himself and he wanted me to know that he had forgiven me," Cox says. "It was unbelievable," he says. "Until it actually happens to you, you're not really sure that people like this even exist, or if it's real." Tim Streett was asked why he didn't think along the lines of: "know forgiveness is in the Bible, but these young people took my father's life." "It's very easy to say that, but it's amazing what a person can go through psychologically when they're unwilling to forgive," he says. "Anger and bitterness - that can build up. But true forgiveness says, 'I forgive you, and it's over.'"

So Tim Streett decided to put his forgiveness into action. He went to see Stephen Goldsmith. "He said, 'I'd like you to help me get Don Cox out of prison early," Goldsmith remembers. "Well, I was a pretty hardline prosecutor. I never agreed to clemency; I never agreed to parole." But Tim Streett convinced him to help, and Cox's sentence was reduced to 23 years. Cox was released from prison last year, and is now working as an auto mechanic. "True forgiveness not only says that you're forgiven, but it acts on that," Streett says. "Whether it be somebody who committed a murder, or just a white lie. We can all be forgiven."
To read more on this story, visit http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/12/20/48hours/main258775.shtml

I see the transpiring of Tim Streett to be quite incredible. It goes to show us that it not only can happen, but it does happen! This article doesn't report the end of this story, but in 2005, the killer, Michael Daniels was taken off of death row as Governor Kernan commuted the sentence.

Was justice served? I can't say I know what it feels like to be a surviving member of a family that has dealt with such unfortunate circumstances, but I would go to say that these men were punished for their crime. The life of the victim has been honored and remembered, and, I believe, justice was paid. This story semi-exemplifies how our system is supposed to work in the first place. One of both restitution and compassion.

My heart goes out to all who have lost a family member to homicide, and I pray for strength and justice [for all].

More on Charles Hood

The NY Times has a much more concise and coherent explanation of the Charles Hood case in Texas than my earlier post (as it should be).

A couple highlights:

"We've had a lot of cases in Texas that defy common sense, but this does reach a new low," said Andrea Keilen, executive director of the Texas Defender Service....

Lawrence J. Fox, a lawyer and professor of judicial ethics at the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard, said, "These proceedings are far too susceptible to human error and call into question if we ought to impose the ultimate sanction."

Texas's Deathical Debate

In a series of last-minute twists that would put 24 to shame, the execution of Charles Dean Hood was ultimately stayed in Texas last night. The debate over his execution centers on an alleged ongoing affair between the judge that presided over his case and the prosecutor that was trying that same case (Dallas Morning News):

In a letter to The Dallas Morning News in 2000, Mr. Hood wrote, "During my trial, the setting [sic] judge and district attorney were having a sexual relationship, a huge ("conflict of interest")."

The allegations were publicized in 2005 in an article on Salon.com but had not been raised at trial or during Mr. Hood's other appeals because attorneys had no proof, only rumors.

But in early June, former Assistant District Attorney Matthew Goeller swore in an affidavit saying the relationship was "common knowledge," lasting from 1987 until 1993.

Mr. Hood's attorneys felt that affidavit from a former prosecutor who worked in the office during the time of the trial offered sufficient reason to introduce the alleged relationship as a reason to reverse the conviction and sentence.

"The absence of an impartial judge is a structural defect," they wrote.

The alleged affair was brought up on appeal but the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals and the Fifth Circuit both denied relief.

Yesterday, June 17, the Collin County District Judge withdrew the date and recused himself which indefinitely postponed Hood's execution. The State immediately appealed to the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals which found another judge to reissue the execution date. The prison, however, informed the State that they would not be able to properly carry out the execution in the time alloted (it was around 11pm after all this was settled and the death warrant expired at midnight). Finally, Texas Gov. Rick Perry granted a one-time reprieve, putting the execution off for a month.

What an absolutely unmitigated mess. To think that Texas was racing the clock to make sure this guy could be executed before midnight just seems remarkably ridiculous, not to mention the lack of closure on the ethical dilemma of the judge's relationship with the prosecutor. Surely, there will be more on this that develops but I'll leave you with this (also from Dallas Morning News):

Earlier in the day, Larry Fox, former chairman of the American Bar Association Ethics Committee, worried about the impact of Mr. Hood's possible execution. Mr. Fox was one of several other legal experts calling for review of the case.

"I was thinking the headlines tomorrow for us around the world would be a black mark on our system of justice," he said.

Great coverage by Capital Defense Weekly, Grits for Breakfast and Stand Down.

Cutting to the Core of the American Justice System

I find the research involved with this topic [the death penalty] to be very interesting. Articles online about innocents convicted of murder and sentenced to death are all too occurring. What's it going to take to make more people question the fairness of the death penalty? I found one particular story on CBS's 60 Minutes. It's a story that cuts to the core of our justice system, as two lawyers knew of the innocence of a man convicted to life in prison, yet didn't speak up to defend his life.

Alton Logan was convicted of killing a security guard at a McDonald's in Chicago in 1982. Police arrested him after a tip and got three eyewitnesses to identify him. Logan, his mother and brother all testified he was at home asleep when the murder occurred. But a jury found him guilty of first degree murder. Now new evidence reveals that Logan did not commit that murder, something that was not new to those two attorneys, who knew it all along but say they couldn't speak out until now. Alton Logan's story cuts to the core of America's justice system...

The problem was the killer was their client. So, legally, they had to keep his secret even though an innocent man was about to be tried for murder. "I know a lot of people who would say, 'Hey if the guy's innocent you've got to say so. You can't let him rot because of that,'" Simon remarked. "Well, the vast majority of the public apparently believes that, but if you check with attorneys or ethics committees or you know anybody who knows the rules of conduct for attorneys, it’s very, very clear-it's not morally clear-but we're in a position to where we have to maintain client confidentiality, just as a priest would or a doctor would. It's just a requirement of the law. The system wouldn't work without it," Coventry explained. So that was the dilemma. They couldn't speak out, they felt, but how could they remain silent?

To read more from this article, visit http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/06/60minutes/main3914719.shtml

Alton Logan wasn't sentenced to death, but life in prison is essentially the same. I don't want to necessarily even question the morality of the two lawyers who had the evidence of preventing his trial, but I want to criticize the system as a whole. How can someone be found guilty upon unreasonable doubt if s/he is, in fact, completely innocent? Is that the make-up of a "fair" system? The system should be devoted to ending the injustices, not ending more lives! This isn't just about the death penalty...it's about a reform of our country. Aren't laws in place to protect people? Then why wouldn't Alton be protected?

With research comes questions...

Being an intern...

This summer I’ve been given the opportunity to intern with Will, and I look forward to what I’ll be able to experience and take with me from my time here in Indianapolis. At this point, my knowledge (though expanding) on the death penalty issue is one that is seeking perspectives from all stances. I can’t fully express my own views on the topic at this point, but I’m hoping to better form my view as the summer progresses. One thing I know I am excited about doing is simply discussing the issue with other outsiders. I sense that the public has not been very well informed, which is why it’s not such a big political issue. So I feel I’ll be able to offer an interesting insight as the summer progresses and that I’ll be able to reach another “crowd” of people that could eventually, potentially stand up as a citizen that has a right to fight legislation.

It’s funny that I use the word “fight”, as I’m currently living in the Peace House (which is part of the Indianapolis Peace Institute summer program) with twelve other students. Many people have their own definitions of such terms, so I encourage you to seek, understand and live it.


I’ve never done any work that has involved a coalition before, but I think it will be neat to go through the summer making contacts and networks with folks that at least share some interest with social issues. I have one more year to complete at Anderson University (major: Criminal Justice; double minor: Finance and Peace and Conflict Transformation), but from there, I have no idea where I’ll be led to. I’m currently enjoying the new scenery here in Indianapolis, but I look forward to taking my experience back with me to Anderson. As for now, here I am embracing it.

In Memoriam: Tim Russert

Very rarely, if ever, do I stray from the topics typically addressed by this blog. However, the amount of respect I held for Tim Russert compels me to interject briefly and use this humble platform to point out what a service he provided with his analysis and fearless questioning where others would fall short. He was the epitome of a journalist and, by all accounts, a wonderful human being.

I wish his family the best in this difficult time.

Readers, Meet David

You'll notice a new blogger on the site starting shortly: InCASE intern David Durica.

David is a Criminal Justice major who will be helping us out with research and outreach over the course of the summer, thanks to the great folks at the Indianapolis Peace Institute.

Please welcome David and send him any feedback directly at david@indianacase.org.

Ohio Judge: Revise Lethal Injection Protocol

In the wake of Baze v. Rees, many states are looking over their lethal injection protocols and death penalty statutes to winnow out any possible flaws or snags. In Ohio, a state court judge pointed out that the language of the Ohio law requires that Ohio's method of lethal injection be changed from the three-drug cocktail to a single strong drug (NY Times):

The Ohio judge, James M. Burge of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas in Elyria, appeared to concede that a constitutional challenge to the Ohio protocol would fail under Baze. Judge Burge based his decision instead on an Ohio law requiring that lethal injections use “a drug or combination of drugs of sufficient dosage to quickly and painlessly cause death.”

Baze, Judge Burge wrote, said the Constitution did not require the avoidance of all risk of pain. The Ohio law, by contrast, he said, “demands the avoidance of any unnecessary risk of pain and, as well, any unnecessary expectation by the condemned person that his execution may be agonizing or excruciatingly painful.”

At first glance, it appears that Indiana does not have the same "avoidance of all risk of pain" clause in its own execution statute (Indiana Code 35-38-6-1). It remains to be seen if this decision will hold up or crop up in other states due to statutory language.