« US Solicitor General supports SCOTUS review and application of Sixth Amendment rights for key issue for applying Armed Career Criminal Act | Main | Some press pieces reviewing SCOTUS argument in Rahimi Second Amendment case »
November 7, 2023
Intriguing numbers in latest Gallup polling on US views on the death penalty
Gallup yesterday released this report, headlined "New 47% Low Say Death Penalty Is Fairly Applied in U.S.," which discusses the results of its latest polling about capital punishment views in the United States. Here is some of the descriptions of the results:
For the first time since Gallup started asking about the fairness of the death penalty's application in the U.S. -- a trend that dates back to 2000 -- more Americans say it is applied unfairly (50%) than fairly (47%). This represents a five-point increase in the percentage who think it is applied unfairly since the prior measurement in 2018.
From 2000 through 2015, between 51% and 61% of Americans thought capital punishment was used fairly in the U.S., but since 2016, readings on the measure have averaged 49%. The latest reading is from Gallup’s annual Crime survey, conducted Oct. 2-23.
Solid majorities of Republicans since 2000 have consistently said the death penalty is fairly applied, including 68% currently. Meanwhile, Democrats have been far less likely to say the death penalty is applied fairly, barely reaching the majority level twice -- in 2005 and 2006. The current 28% reading among Democrats is the lowest for the group, while independents’ 46% reading ties their lowest, from 2000.
Gallup first asked Americans whether they supported the death penalty for convicted murderers in 1936 and found 59% favoring it. With the exception of several readings between 1957 and March 1972, including the record-low 42% in 1966, majorities have supported it since then.
Even after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the death penalty unconstitutional in June 1972, majorities continued to back it, and after it was reinstated in 1976, public support for it grew, eventually peaking at 80% in 1994. At least 60% of U.S. adults favored capital punishment until 2017, when support dipped below that level. The current 53% of Americans who favor the death penalty is the lowest since 1972, though it is not statistically different from 54% and 55% readings over the past three years.
Partisans' views of the death penalty continue to differ sharply, with most Republicans (81%) and a slim majority of independents (51%) favoring it, but most Democrats (65%) opposing it. The 32% of Democrats who currently support capital punishment for murderers is the lowest in Gallup’s trend. Support for the death penalty in 2023 among independents and Democrats falls well below these groups' recent averages of 60% and 48%, respectively, while Republican support is similar to the 79% average.
A separate question gauging Americans’ opinions of how frequently the death penalty is imposed finds that 39% think it is not used often enough and equal 28% shares saying it is used too often and not enough. This general pattern -- whereby a plurality or majority think capital punishment is not used enough, while smaller percentages are divided between thinking it is used about the right amount or too often -- has been the case since the inception of this Gallup trend question.
November 7, 2023 at 05:18 PM | Permalink
Comments
https://reason.com/2023/11/07/he-allegedly-killed-a-cop-during-a-no-knock-raid-will-the-jury-agree-it-was-self-defense/
Wow. You good with him getting capital punishment? It's been taken off the table, but it was there.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 7, 2023 5:40:39 PM
Doug --
Given a different spin, the poll shows that a majority continues to support the DP and has for the last 50 years; that support is higher than at almost any time in the Sixties; that the largest plurality says that it's not given enough; and that fully two-thirds think that we have it about the right amount or not enough. And support has stayed roughly the same (the mid-low fifties) for the last six years. Before then, it was falling sharply.
P.S. Either Biden or Trump would be delighted to get the numbers next year the DP is getting. Neither did in 2020.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 7, 2023 6:45:26 PM
federalist: Bill (and Master Tarls?) seem to be the biggest fans of state power and capital punishment, so you ought to ask them about the case you link.
Bill: given that the number of death sentences and executions are close to historic lows in the last 30+ years even though murders are up from recent lows, I am surprised to not see significantly more capital punishment support. But the kids today....
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 7, 2023 10:08:19 PM
Doug --
Given that academia and the press and the culture generally have waged a 50 year war on the death penalty, the surprising thing is that it still has a clear majority, and a majority that has remained more-or-less stable over the last few years.
Still, you gotta give the Public Defenders Office credit, or, if not credit exactly...................https://ringsideatthereckoning.substack.com/p/this-is-the-defense-bar-youre-paying?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=888959&post_id=138683985&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=1hnurd&utm_medium=email
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 7, 2023 11:13:34 PM
Doug, are you ducking? Because your rationale for subjecting Rittenhouse to LWOP would allow the same in this case. Personally, from what I have read, I couldn't ethically prosecute the case, as I don't think there's enough evidence to negate SD BRD.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 8, 2023 9:29:02 AM
Not ducking anything, federalist, and I did not "subject" Rittenhouse to anything. I do think everyone is subject to our criminal laws, which often includes all sorts of legal and factual uncertainties regarding both the elements of a crime and components of a claimed statutory/common-law defense. (Interestingly, you seem to think SD is a federal constitutional defense and yet you have ducked all my basic follow-up questions about why people who lose SD claims in state courts do not pursue federal habeas SD claims.)
Prosecutors have very broad charging discretion --- often too broad in my view --- especially in cases in which an individual has indisputably killed another person(s). If you want to be the prosecutor exercising this broad charging discretion (or the judge evaluating a motion to dismiss), seek that position. Or, if you want to curtail prosecutorial discretion more broadly, join me in supporting lots more legislative/court reforms of prosecutorial discretion. But do not expect me to join in your affinity for having strong feelings about cases based only on a superficial review of a press report about the case. I like to develop views on important matters based on a careful review of facts, not just based on feelings.
But Bill and Master Tarls might have feelings on these fronts that do not turn on a careful review of the particulars, so I suggested you inquire of them. Or, even better, start a self-defense blog so we might all better understand your legal and constitutional feeling about all sort of cases (such as whether you are now worried about, eg, Zackey Rahimi losing his SD rights).
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 8, 2023 9:45:51 AM
Amazing.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 8, 2023 10:43:48 AM
Doug --
Geez, I said that Rittenhouse's defense lawyer was a hero. How far over to the defendant's side can I possibly get?
The defendant clearly acted in self defense and walked free, as he should have. When the defense is honest and gets it right, I'm not afraid to say so. When they want to do a shake-and-jive for a guilty-as-sin hoodlum, that's a different story. wouldn't you agree?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 8, 2023 3:17:04 PM
Bill, I believe federalist considers it a travesty that a prosecutor decided to charge Rittenhouse with anything. Is that your view? federalist rails against a number of prosecutors a lot more than many other commentators, especially in SD cases.
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 8, 2023 5:09:37 PM
Doug, you are correct that I believe that. And absent something I haven't seen, my sense is that the prosecution of Mr. Guy is probably worse.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 9, 2023 9:49:44 AM
So I just read some coverage of the trial. The cops say they announced once they were inside. This is why we now have bodycams.
Here's an OT thing, but interesting. If this case gets to discovery, it's going to be a problem.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/11/08/mark-houck-family-sue-biden-doj-for-malicious-and-retaliatory-prosecution/
Posted by: federalist | Nov 9, 2023 10:21:22 AM
federalist, has your additional reading changed your view that one could not "ethically prosecute the case"?
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 9, 2023 10:51:58 AM
Not really. It's a sad case. I don't think the cops were bad. It just doesn't look to me like there's enough evidence to negate the guy's story that he was awakened and was in fear and didn't know. He's lucky to be alive. Is he a murderer? I think, actually, that he is. But that's just what I think. A lot of people thought Richard Jewell did it too.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 9, 2023 11:28:45 AM
I am a bit confused, federalist. Are you saying that you think Marvin Guy is a murderer, but also that it would be unethical for anyone to seek to prosecute a person who you think is a murderer?
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 9, 2023 2:44:12 PM
I have to wonder if the Markel murder would have happened if we had an effective death penalty. Would Charlie have still chanced it?
Posted by: William Jockusch | Nov 9, 2023 4:50:50 PM
Well, Florida had 10 executions the 12 months before my friend Dan was killed. That is a significant number by modern death penalty terms, though perhaps still not "effective." Indeed, if such matters really enter into rational thinking, Charlie could have hired someone to kill Dan in (death-penalty free) New York.
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 9, 2023 5:48:05 PM
Yeah, 10 executions in a state in 12 months is a lot by US standards. But I'm skeptical that it's enough to be much of a deterrent.
Posted by: William Jockusch | Nov 9, 2023 11:43:56 PM
For comparison, I see Wikipedia has annual intentional homicides in Florida of about 1100 per year. So 10 executions is less than 1% of the number of intentional homicides.
Posted by: William Jockusch | Nov 9, 2023 11:47:41 PM
Yes, Doug. Just thinking someone did it isn't enough--there has to be evidence from which a fact-finder could determine guilt BRD. What's the evidence in the Guy case that negates SD? This "ambush" story seems very very implausible.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 10, 2023 9:18:43 AM
I have not reviewed the case at all, federalist, but you said you have. What is the evidence that leads you think Marvin Guy is a murderer? And do you have a similar take on the person scheduled to be executed in Oklahoma who claimed SD?
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 10, 2023 11:37:28 AM
Tbh, I haven't looked into the OK case. Marvin Guy--just a hunch, really. My gut tells me that he knew he was shooting at cops. But who the hell knows? I haven't seen any evidence that proves BRD that he knew he was shooting at the cops. It doesn't make much sense--Guy wound up surrendering, then got pistol-whipped and a gun in his mouth for his troubles--bonus question: did he have the right to defend himself against that clearly illegal conduct? Would the other cops have been privileged to use deadly force to stop SD in that case?
Posted by: federalist | Nov 10, 2023 3:00:19 PM
federalist, I assume your "gut" tells you he knew he was shooting at cops because of whatever evidence you reviewed. Likewise, I presume (and sure hope) that the prosecutor in this case entirely believes the multiple cops who testified to yelling “Police, search warrant” as they entered --- which would seem to amount to admissible evidence sufficient to support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt (since knowing the entering were law enforcement under Texas law makes defense unavailable).
I suspect you are suspicious about the police officers' claims a decade later, and the jury may be as well (though I recall you dislike suggestions that cops might ever "testi-lie"). But if the prosecutor here were to say to you that he is 100% certain that the cops are telling the truth, would you still consider him unethical for taking this case to a jury? Do you think prosecutors are ethically obligated to have a reasonable doubt about police testimony?
Because I have never served as a prosecutor, I have no experience making these sorts of calls. Perhaps Bill Otis will jump in to share his view as to whether he thinks it unethical to bring a charge under these circumstances. He is often quick to assail the ethics of defense attorneys, so I would be especially interested in his view of prosecutorial ethics here.
The OK case also is yet another one involving contestable facts (as is often the case with SD) where it seem there was clearly initially a right to use defense force, but the defender was convicted of going way too far in using force. I typically think it is for the jury to sort through these factual disputes, but I sense you may think in SD cases the prosecutor must ethically ALWAYS stand down when the facts are reasonably in dispute.
As for your bonus question, Texas SD law seemingly speaks to the right to resist excessive police force in TX Penal Code section 9.31: "(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified: (1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary." https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 10, 2023 5:29:17 PM
