« Young kid killer of two (including dad) gets sentence of residential treatment | Main | Seventh and final USSC regional hearing this week in Phoenix »

January 18, 2010

"Anti-death penalty movement wooing conservatives"

The title of this post is the headline of this notable article in today's Washington Post.  Here are excerpts:

The Roman Catholic church has long been an organized and vocal critic of the death penalty, but [a] new effort is trying to bring in other conservatives shaped by both evangelical faiths and political ideology.  Now, liberals and conservatives — longtime opponents on contentious social issues from abortion to capital punishment — are working together in a time of strong political polarization.

The effort took center stage at the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty's annual conference over the weekend in Louisville....  Shari Silberstein, executive director of Equal Justice USA, a Brooklyn, N.Y.-based anti-death penalty organization, said working with conservatives is about common sense and common ground. "It's not really an ideological question," Silberstein said.

The effort has been backed by Richard Viguerie, a fundraiser and activist considered the father of the modern conservative movement.  Viguerie, in a July 2009 essay in Sojourners magazine, wrote that executions are supposed to take the life of the guilty — but noted there are enough flaws in the system to fear an innocent person has been put to death.

Viguerie noted that death row inmates have been exonerated by DNA evidence, raising the prospect that prosecutors and juries made mistakes in cases without scientific evidence and in cases that predate the science.  "To conservatives, that should be deemed as immoral as abortion," Viguerie wrote.

And as lawmakers continue to slash budgets because of the slumping economy, many are wondering whether the price tag of the death penalty and the resulting drawn-out legal process is worthwhile.  The winding series of appeals often runs up huge legal bills for states, which many advocates say is often more expensive than the cost of life imprisonment....

Not all conservatives are open to [this] pitch. Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation and an outspoken capital punishment supporter, said most of the costs of a death penalty case come from "exhaustive investigation" of the defendant's background and should be cut out.  "I think those who are falling for this line are misguided," Scheidegger said.  "The death penalty does not need to cost more than life imprisonment."

While there are no hard numbers on how many conservatives have joined the anti-capital punishment campaign, those involved say it's a growing movement.

January 18, 2010 at 10:31 AM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e20120a7e7873e970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Anti-death penalty movement wooing conservatives":

Comments

Viguerie, by the same logic, should stop all transportation, including being a pedestrian. Twenty times more pedestrians are killed than are killed by the DP. Until this error rate is solved, no one should walk in the street. Say 10 people of 40 are innocent and falsely receive the death penalty.

Then 5000 times more innocent people are killed in crashes, by butchery methods, with metal slicing and pounding the body, and survival in agony for hours.

All useful human activity has an error rate. When it is used to end one but not all the others, the error rate is a pretext. The use of pretext is a form of bad faith, and a sin, Mr. Viguerie.

[To be fair, the deterrence argument is false in support of the death penalty, and should not be allowed in any serious discussion. Punishment is to deter the defendant. It should not even be allowed in a policy discussion because of its unfairness and unconstitutionality. The deterrence of uninvolved people committing or not committing crimes into the distant future violates the procedural due process rights of the defendant on trial for a past crime. If the word deterrence is used and applies to others than the defendant, the charges have an improper motive, and a mistrial should be declared.]

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jan 18, 2010 10:53:33 AM

Ironic. The Catholic Church opposes the death penalty.

Until 10,000 clergy were expelled or beheaded in the French Revolution, they had a busy death penalty business going, seizing the assets of the condemned for the church. They are the ones that perfected the gotcha, the plea bargain, the trial. The trial continues to take place along Scholasticist doctrines, with Medieval Rules of Evidence. The trial looks as if conducted by and in a church.

http://supremacyclaus.blogspot.com/2009/01/indicia-of-church-origin-of-common-law.html

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jan 18, 2010 11:05:11 AM

Conservatives are no doubt increasingly troubled by the never-ending instances of police and prosecutorial misconduct that undermines the integrity of the system the prosecutors' calls for death--even in those cases where that penalty may well be deserved. See e.g., Wilson v. Beard 2009 WL 4981199 (3rd Cir. 2009) (murder conviction and sentence of death vacated because of prosecutor’s suppression of favorable information regarding witnesses criminal convictions and providing money to witnesses); Montgomery v. Bagley, 581 F.3d 440 (6th Cir. 2009) (murder conviction and death penalty vacated because of prosecutor’s failure to disclose exculpatory report); U.S. v. Robinson, 583 F.3d 1265 (10th Cir. 2009) (non-capital)[prosecutor's opposition to disclosure of informant’s mental health records to defense violated Due Process and Confrontation Clause); U.S. v. Price 566 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2009)(non-capital)(conviction reversed where prosecutor violated his due process duty under Brady to learn the results of investigation into criminal past of government witness); Tennison v. City and County of San Francisco,570 F.3d 1078(9th Cir. 2009) (state's motion for summary judgement denied in civil suit under § 1983 as a result of Brady violations that resulted in two innocent men serving 13 years in prison where evidence showed state's suppression of (1) the taped confession of the actual killer, (2) statements by an eyewitness exonerating defendant) Police officer has affirmative duty to convey exculpatory information to the prosecutor)

Posted by: Michael R. Levine | Jan 18, 2010 11:11:41 AM

How many articles has the Washington Post written about liberals who support the death penalty?

Posted by: justice seeker | Jan 18, 2010 11:16:36 AM

I'll shit bricks if Ted Olson teams up with David Boies to get SCOTUS to strike down the death penalty. But until then, I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by: . | Jan 18, 2010 11:16:43 AM

How many articles has the Washington Post written quoting liberals who support the death penalty?

Posted by: justice seeker | Jan 18, 2010 11:19:40 AM

Sorry for the double post. But I really want an answer to my question!!!! Didn't think my first entry posted.

Posted by: justice seeker | Jan 18, 2010 11:40:18 AM

I'm really not sure where I stand on the death penalty. I think it can be morally justified when the crime being punished is particularly heinous (such as murdering a child, mass murder, or murder with particular cruelty, not that all murders aren't cruel).

On the other hand, it would be absolutely unacceptable and appalling to execute an innocent person. The first commenter noted that every "useful" human activity (begging the question that the death penalty is actually useful) has a certain level of risk. This is of course true. However, unlike walking or driving in cars, the average citizen would likely see little to no practical difference in their lives if the death penalty were abolished.

Posted by: RustyShackleford | Jan 18, 2010 4:12:42 PM

"I'll shit bricks if Ted Olson teams up with David Boies to get SCOTUS to strike down the death penalty. But until then, I'm not holding my breath."

I have no information that either Ted Olson or David Boies OPPOSES the death penalty.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 18, 2010 5:34:52 PM

RustyShackleford --

"[U]nlike walking or driving in cars, the average citizen would likely see little to no practical difference in their lives if the death penalty were abolished."

That is probably true. It is also probably true that the average citizen would see little to no practical difference in their lives if prison sentences for violent criminals were cut by half. The average person still wouldn't get mugged.

But that doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it.

The average citizen also would likely see little to no practical difference in their lives if the death penalty were imposed twice as much as it is.

The idea is to do justice. When a man like John Couey rapes and then murders a nine year-old by burying her alive, there is no justice in a sentence of incarceration no matter what its length. When a man already serving a life sentence for his first murder kills again in prison, there is no justice in giving him a freebie, which is what another life sentence would be. Nor would it be safe, since it would be an effective invitation to kill as many as he cares to. With (for practical purposes) little or no penalty, why not?

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 18, 2010 5:57:18 PM

Michael R. Levine --

"Conservatives are no doubt increasingly troubled by the never-ending instances of police and prosecutorial misconduct that undermines the integrity of the system the prosecutors' calls for death--even in those cases where that penalty may well be deserved."

This conservative holds the radical belief that the punishment should depend on the facts of the case, not on the facts of other cases.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 18, 2010 6:03:01 PM

From the WaPo: "The effort has been backed by Richard Viguerie, a fundraiser and activist considered the father of the modern conservative movement."

1. The father of the modern conservative movement is Barry Goldwater. Ronald Reagan brought it back after Goldwater's disastrous 1964 presidential bid.

2. Viguerie has been behind the curve for several years now.

3. I said recently not to underestimate the number of useful idiots the Republican Party can create for the likes of the WaPo to gobble up. Ditto for "the modern conservative movement."

4. Extra added bonus (if somewhat off topic): If Brown beats Coakley tomorrow, a realistc possibility but far from a certainty, there is a decent chance that the election this November will have the Democrats hoping that they can do AS WELL as they did in 1994. The idea that an unknown Republican could even seriously contest Teddy Kennedy's Senate seat is simply mind-boggling.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 18, 2010 6:40:03 PM

Conservatives also are passionate about civil liberties and freedom. We are also brave and live dangerously.

Posted by: beth | Jan 18, 2010 8:42:52 PM

"The idea is to do justice. When a man like John Couey rapes and then murders a nine year-old by burying her alive, there is no justice in a sentence of incarceration no matter what its length. When a man already serving a life sentence for his first murder kills again in prison, there is no justice in giving him a freebie, which is what another life sentence would be. Nor would it be safe, since it would be an effective invitation to kill as many as he cares to. With (for practical purposes) little or no penalty, why not?"

I have to agree in with you completely in cases like these.


Posted by: rodsmith3510 | Jan 19, 2010 2:46:14 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB