You are here:   America > The Penalty that Degrades America
 

Gordon Smith is the affable Sheriff of Bradford County, home of the Florida State Prison. A Democrat, Smith appears genuinely concerned to represent the death penalty as a just and fair response to the most heinous crime. Admitting that it is "unfortunately not a deterrent", Smith nonetheless believes that there are some violent criminals for whom execution is the only acceptable form of punishment.

"It is a protection of our community," says Smith. "Some people are so evil that death is the only punishment to fit the crime." What about imposing a whole life tariff for dangerous killers? "There is always a risk that they may return, and death is final."

I ask the Sheriff about the apparent contradiction between his religious beliefs and supporting state executions. "Thou shall not kill is really, thou shall not murder," he replies. 

Does the death penalty give better protection against the most dangerous criminals? There is evidence that death sentences are haphazardly meted out, with virtually no connection to the severity of the crime. One study in Connecticut, conducted by John Donohue, a Stanford law professor, found that inmates on death row are indistinguishable from equally violent offenders who escape that penalty and that the process is often arbitrary and discriminatory.

I ask Gordon Smith if he worries about wrongful convictions. "Sometimes people are wrongly convicted, but we are going overboard in trying to protect innocent people and we have cared less and less about the victims of crime."

During my visit to Florida I repeatedly heard talk of the case of Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old African American shot dead by George Zimmerman, a neighbourhood activist, in a gated community in Orlando last February. Zimmerman was not charged for more than a month because he invoked self-defence under Florida's so-called "stand your ground" law. This racially charged case has raised the question of discrimination once again. Studies have found that although blacks and whites are murder victims in nearly equal numbers, 80 per cent of prisoners executed were convicted of murders where the victim was white.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Emmet
August 1st, 2012
3:08 PM
The only facts you can take from this article are that the vast majority of people in the USA support the death penalty, especially those who have been the victim of crime. Justice should be swift however, with all appeals cleared within a year of the conviction.

Anonymous
July 5th, 2012
4:07 PM
Murdering another human being requires the strongest possible punishment. In any just system of law it requires that the murderer's own life be forfeit.

BeadyEye
July 3rd, 2012
9:07 PM
Police chiefs are just another species of politician, and should never be presumed to speak for rank-and-file cops.

BeadyEye
July 3rd, 2012
9:07 PM
It is disingenuous to erect every sort of barrier to implementation, and then complain that implementation is too expensive.

Rose P
July 3rd, 2012
6:07 PM
I agree with Ms. Bindel that the death penalty is wrong for many reasons. I have for a long time thought that we should abolish the death penalty and replace it with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole but with the possibility of assisted suicide.

BlueStrikes
July 3rd, 2012
4:07 PM
PresidentD, just because the constitution recognises it does not make it right - at the end of the day, the U.S. Constitution is just a piece of paper, as are human rights conventions. And a piece of paper, no matter how fancy, cannot determine the morality of the death penalty. Ms. Bindel is not taking issue with the legal aspect of the death penalty; she objects against the morality of it. Therefore, it is incorrect to rebut her using the constitution. Her reference to human rights conventions is founded on the implicit assumption that those conventions are an accurate depiction of actual morality. Whether this is the case or not may be debated. Indeed, reconsidering this article, Ms. Bindel does not focus on moral arguments against the death penalty but rather focuses on practical considerations: efficiency and effectiveness. These are issues that should be responded to, not dismissed with a handwaved 'specious arguments'.

PresidentD
June 27th, 2012
10:06 PM
Ms. Bindel, we've heard all of your specious arguments against the death penalty countless times before. And no, it does not "contravene every human rights convention", whatever that means. The U.S. Constitution is the highest law America recognizes, and it permits the death penalty. The handwringing clowns at the U.N., Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch can take a hike.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.