[lbo-talk] Death penalty (was: Singapore)

[andie_nachgeborenen]

Almost no federal crimes carry the death penalty, although many carry very long sentences, depending on aggravating factors and criminal history. The only case I can think of of when the federal death penalty has been imposed and carried out in recent decades is Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber. But almost 40 states have sentencing guidelines modeled on the federal ones and many of these have the death penalty. Almost all death sentences are imposed or carried out in the "death belt" in the old Confederacy. I think this tells you a bit about veiled racist motivations and something about punitive and violent culture of the South. States that do not have federal-style sentencing guidelines use similar factors imposed by statute. Since Booker,  all guidelines have been discretionary rather than mandatory. In federal sentencing policy and I presume in all states that are modeled on the USSG,the law requires the judge to impose a sentence that balance just deserts (retribution), deterrence, community safety, proportionality, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The latter is more of a joke than the others.

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 5, 2012, at 7:09 AM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:


> Marv: "The death penalty should be opposed for all of the various
> reasons which have been mentioned on this thread - in particular,
> because it is never a deterrent, is disproportionately aimed at the
> poor and powerless, oppressed minorities, and dissidents, and claims
> too many innocent victims."
> 
> [WS:] Not necessarily.  Deterrence is grounded in a utilitarian
> concept of law, which not everyone shares.  Retributionists would
> argue that the only purpose of punishment is retribution to satisfy
> justice, not to achieve any other practical end (such as future crime
> prevention.)  Thefact that it discriminated against the poor etc. is
> no more a logical reason for abolition than the existence of potholes
> in the road is a reason for abolition of the road.  A logical
> consequence is that it should be applied to to rich and powerful as
> well, as Andie argued.  As to the claim of too many innocent victims -
> I do not think we have any reliable numbers is, so we will never know
> for sure.  I happen to believe that in most cases the persons
> condemned to die as guilty as charged, and the only outstanding issue
> is not guilt but leniency i.e. whether the convicted person should die
> or serve a jail term.
> 
> As I said before, I happen to believe that death penalty is applied
> too wantonly in cases where it is not necessarily justified (e.g.
> killing a cop, as many people have good reasons to fear them and
> panic)  - but that calls for imposing restrictions on its application
> - e.g. federal sentencing guidelines that limit it application to most
> severe cases, such as multiple murders, deliberate acts of cruelty,
> etc. - but not necessarily abolition.  But I do not want to give up
> the right of executing the likes of Breivik, or for that matter the
> most notorious Wall Street crooks, either.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Wojtek
> 
> "An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk