If you have any doubt about whether proponents of life without parole intend to end the death penalty, just take a look at this quote from an article in yesterday's Houston Chronicle:

"The Texas Legislature killed moratorium proposals during its last session, including one sponsored by [State Rep. Harold] Dutton, who will try again next year. Another possible route is eliminating the death penalty while instituting actual life imprisonment.

'There's still a lot of support for the death penalty in Texas, but the idea of life without parole is gaining ground,' [State Rep. Sylvester] Turner said."

Count me as opposing LWOP. It is a dishonest approach to criminal justice. And I frankly think it is immoral to put guards in the dangerous position of guarding people who have no chance of parole.

Furthermore, the current parole system was carefully created to balance the need for prison space against the need to hold dangerous criminals for longer sentences. If LWOP is created for capital murder, it is darn hard to argue against it for rape of children. And then we will end up with a prison system that, again, is tough but not so smart.

When I visited the Statesville (sp.?) Pen. in Joliet, Ill., a life without parole defendant had smashed a chair leg into another prisoner's eye socket, killing him. He lost his rights to watch television and that's about it. This was before Illinois reinstituted the death penalty and then fumbled the ball.

I can give you names, dates, locations, methods & means of numerous Texas prison inmates serving time for murder convictions, who have killed again AFTER going to prison. There have been murders committed by condemned men on death row, and there have been inmates doing capital life sentences (closest thing we have to LWOP in Tx) who have murdered again -- after arriving at the penitentiary.

And, has anyone ever thought about the other, potentially tragic consequence -- i.e. after a man (or woman, for that matter) is sent to prison for say, killing a child, rabbi, physician or Nobel Prize winner, NO ONE can guarantee that person will remain in prison, chained to a wall. Consider the escape that was just cleared, a month after the guy had run off: prison inmate was bench-warranted to local county jail. He then becomes property of the county, and THEY get to say how he is housed, etc. So, they put him on an outside work squad, and he takes off. Nobody tells TDCJ for nearly two weeks, so a full-blown search is delayed. He is found in IDAHO about 3 weeks after the fugitive folks are notified.

So, before LWOP is seriously considered, perhaps ALL the facts about prison violence should be considered.

I guess a compromise (of sorts) will be to preserve the death penalty for anyone convicted of a murder committed while serving a LWOP sentence. If our Legislature does not repeal 12.31, then the US Supreme Court will effectively do so. Regardless of the good arguments, we will join the rest of the "civilized" world sooner or later. With your efforts we can hope it will be much later, but I think the tide has turned. People will just not be that upset with a legislator who votes to cancel the ultimate penalty. Its happened in state after state.

You're killing me, Martin. It ain't that bad.

The death penalty preserves a moral line between right and wrong. Whether people want to face it or not, there is real evil in this world, and civilized people will always have the right to protect themselves and remind others of that moral line.

I'm convinced that the vast majority of the people in this state and in this country, for that matter, still support the death penalty. The problem lies with the misinformation that is consistantly spread by opponents of the death penalty, and the media, without opposition.

In the abstract, life without parole, like prohibiting the execution of 17 year olds or the retarded, sounds like a perfectly rational notion. When couched in terms that ignore the fact that we're talking about the most heinous crimes and offenders imaginable, it's easy to support some of the more "reasonable limitations" on the death penalty that are proposed. After all, like the Supreme Court said in Atkins, we're dealing with "evolving standards of decency." Of course "evolving standards of decency" are of little consequence to the murdered victim(s) and his/her family. Nor is it important to the correctional officer, nurse, secretary, prison minister, etc. that one of these cold-blooded killers decides to go off on.

If you haven't had a chance to see A.P. Merillat's prison violence/future dangerousness presentation you should do so. A.P. can tell you all you need to know about how well we can "protect" other potential victims from incarcerated violent offenders. In short, if we believe in the death penalty we have to get our message out. It was surprising to me last legislative session just how misinformed our elected legislators are about these issues and how media-driven these matters can become. Does anyone believe it's a coincidence that the Houston Chronicle is running expose' articles regarding the "future dangerousness" special issue one month before the election and 3 months before the legislature convenes? You can bet someone will sponsor a bill to abolish that statutory special issue soon. Truly, the death penalty is under attack. The media and the Supreme Court are not making our jobs any easier. The old cliche "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" may be worn but I feel that it's especially true in regard to opponents of the death penalty. We, as individual prosecutors and an association, can either support the death penalty by educating the public and legislature, at all times telling the truth, or we can do nothing and let the death penalty die on the vine. The choice is ours.

[This message was edited by Lee Hon on 10-01-02 at .]

[This message was edited by Lee Hon on 10-01-02 at .]

Amen to A.P., John and Lee!

Martin, the compromise you're looking for is called prosecutorial discretion. If you've got a capital case not deserving of the death penalty, you're the one to make that call. Then the voters of your county/district get to validate your performance (or your boss's performance if you're not elected).

John is right. There is real evil in this world and we're the ones on the front lines to deal with it.

Lee is right. We have to spread the word about the real situation. We can't just preach to the choir, we have to be proactive. The arguments about whether the death penalty is a deterrent often make me sick. It is definitely a deterrent to the one who is executed. He won't do it again (not his promise this time, but a reality with finality!)

A.P. is right...but, then, he nearly always is!

Whether I am right about our destiny or not, the fight is one deserving of our fervent attention and I had no intention of implying otherwise. Aside from heralding how evil or dangerous someone was, how can prosecutors best provide support for this form of remedy? Even if one is convinced from the Bible or some other moral code that this type of killing is righteous and salutary, there will be recurrent examples which suggest our methods of application are inefficient, ineffective, or otherwise in need of reform, limitation, or more humane alternatives. The need for the penalty can be touted but it is often easily characterized as momentary and unpredictable. The costs (errors), on the other hand, are always portrayed as permanent and irreversible.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with your thinking. Such sweeping generalizations are better left to the editorial pages, where they aren't subject to any scrutiny.

Our entire system of laws is subject to error. That would be because we, including the defendants, are all human beings and not perfect. But that does not mean we should throw up our hands and cry. Only the liberals have that luxury.

The system by which we investigate, prosecute, convict, and punish people is well-weighted in the defendant's favor. It provides numerous levels of due process, reviewing the work of the trial over and over again. And much of the information suggesting that there is injustice in the system is false, generated by lying defendants and misguided lawyers who think it is their job to parrot to the public anything told them by a defendant.

And, frankly, I find it disengenuous to argue that the death penalty must be perfectly carried out to be morally acceptable. So, you can take a little injustice if the sentence is life without parole? Come on, take a real stand and reject all punishment as immoral absent perfect justice if you want to be philosphically pure.

Hey John, just a thought, but are you making one of those signature deftly-manuevered segues into guessing the name of Scott's band again? Pretty cool move, but I think they've already given away that TDCAA cap to one lucky winner who didn't happen to be me, of course.

[This message was edited by A.P. Merillat on 10-02-02 at .]

My non-lawyer sister in California raised a concern when the 21 year old daughter of some close friends was kidnapped and murdered. They didn't find her killer until three years later (some of you may know of the case--Denise Hubner, found in a freezer in a u-haul truck in the perp's back yard). The killer was sentenced to death, although in CA its doubtful he will ever be executed. My sister's major concern with the issue of life without parole is not just the safety of guards and other inmates, but the chance that the legislature could amend the law allowing the person to be released.

Here's a rarity -- someone calling b.s. on the oft-quoted "100 innocents freed from death row" claim ...

NRO article

Thanks for the link, Shannon. I forwarded a copy of the article to UH Law Center Dean Rapoport, who recently sponsored the "Exoneration" seminar that I was complaining about in another thread.

LWOP has a lot of problems of its own and for that reason, if no other, should not be considered a valid alternative to the DP. Certainly it would be a cop-out of the worst kind. John, it does not trouble me for a moment that 10 or even 100 truly innocent persons may have been executed for something they did not do. That is still a very small number in comparison to the crimes which should have led to death of the perp. We (society)should reasonably try to prevent wrongful identification from happening (short of a moratorium). But, it is my belief that, as you say, once due process has been afforded- carry out the sentence with the assurance that the person is "guilty" and justice as best we can craft it has been accomplished. Innocent people are killed in lots of ways, and far more aside from the DP than because of it. But you do not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Bush got caught up on the idea that since no one was actually wrongly executed in Texas, we should have no problem with our law. He implied that if he could be proven wrong, even once, it would be a different story. I would say, to Burdine or whoever: "That's too bad. We did what we could to prevent it from happening. That case is irrelevant to what should happen to the next guy." No one should suffer a penalty just because of his ethnicity, but focusing on that part of the problem is likewise an illegitimate diversion. But, we must still ultimately seek to convince folks that certain activity warrants the DP, that it is morally right to carry out, and that overall, despite its imperfections, its value far exceeds what can be gained with any alternative. Now, you can use facts or stats or poignant examples or whatever to try to sway or persuade, but I think it remains largely an individual philosophical or moral issue. Each one of us either decides all humans are entitled to continued life, or that some definitely are not. Still, I query, what did you want to accomplish in starting this thread? I am ready to hear your ideas, opinions, or whatever you want to call it on how or why prosecutors should wage this fight. Is it merely that we demand the opposition be truthful and not "cook" the numbers?

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the gist of John's initial post was that proponants of life without parole are seeking to use that legislation to undermine the death penalty.

I hate to sound like Chicken Little crying "the sky is falling," but you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out the anti-death penalty folks have given up on the notion of effectively convincing the public to oppose the death penalty and are seeking to use other indirect methods to complicate the process and dissuade us, as prosecutors, from seeking the death penalty in circumstances where it may very well be appropriate.

Just read the news. The anti-death penalty folks have been championing the Supreme Court rulings in Ring and Atkins as the "beginning of the end for the death penalty." In this morning's Houston Chronicle Sen. Rodney Ellis and Rep. Juan Hinejosa wrote an editorial criticizing the Court of Criminal Appeals and a Harris Co. District Judge for misapplying the Indigent Defense Act by not allowing Calvin Burdine (the sleeping defense lawyer case) to keep his out-of-state unapproved counsel that got his sentence overturned and instead appointing an approved local counsel. Is there any doubt that the supporters of the Indigent Defense Act were hoping that legislation would make it more unlikely the State could obtain the death penalty. Same with the DNA bill. Same with the proposed life without parole bill.

Give the death penalty opponents credit. Under the guise of "making the system more fair" they are flanking us and little by little chipping away at the death penalty. The problem is that the public, and many members of the Legislature, only hear the anti-death penalty propaganda and simply don't understand how many protections already exist in the system or how really difficult it is for the State to take someone's life. We have to be willing to write letters to the editor explaining how the system works and cry foul when the anti-death penalty folks spread misinformation. We have to be willing to go to Austin to testify on these death penalty issues and educate our representatives. As a prosecutor, you would be surprised how many legislators are willing to visit with you during the legislative session even though you might not be from their district. We need to stay in touch with Shannon and Rob and stay aware of when these issues are set for commitee hearings. We need to inform other interested professional allies of what's going on so they can be heard too. I'm sure TDCJ is concerned about life without parole. Would you believe in the commitee hearings on the mental retardation legislation last session there was not a single psychologist or psychiatrist there to be heard about the definition of retardation or the problems with such legislation? That will be an issue again this session because of Atkins.

In short we have to give of our time and energy, and be heard. The public will support us when they know the facts. People simply don't like violent crime and they believe in the death penalty when it's appropriate. We simply cannot continue to remain silent.

Sounds good to me. Let's roll.

If a sizeable majority now exists in favor of the current law (at least in Texas), then maybe its good attributes can prevail despite what has happened elsewhere and particularly in Washington, D.C. That the opponents are devious may be the best evidence they are wrong.

I'm always somewhat amused by the emotional dialogue and energy generated when it comes to discussing the pros and cons of the death penalty. i'm less amused by the price we all pay, as taxpayers, to support the death penalty as a punishment option. and i'm fairly convinced that prosecutors can't win the argument...at least in the media...that it (death penalty) is worth keeping given all the trouble. but i'd never deny john, a.p. and lee their right to keep holding on to the DP with all their might.

John, as A.P. points out we already have something close to LWOP in our automatic 35 and 40 year sentences. Is there always a problem when there is no reward for good conduct or vice versa no real penalty for bad conduct, or do you favor those types of provisions, just as long as execution is also available? Some predicted the state jails would be quite unruly, but I think they proved that wrong (perhaps because mostly nonviolent types reside there).

Fireball: Certainly it is a problem that it has become more expensive to get someone executed than to house and guard them for very long periods of time. But, first of all, that is not true in every case. The additional monetary cost just seems to be the price we pay for drawing the proper line. We do not always have to choose the most cost-effective approach if a more expensive one still makes sense. I suppose at some point if the ratio were to get too much out of kilter, we would have to think harder about that part of the debate.

Fireball and others who like to talk about the money:

The average (that's AVERAGE) cost per day, per inmate to be housed in the Tx prison system is
about $45.00, it goes up and down between the sexes for some reason, and I know better than to get off into that right now.

The men NOT on death row range in cost from the high $30.00 tab to the lower $40's. Women cost from the $40.00 area up to the $50.00's, plus or minus.

The medical facilities, including those for psych patient inmates have a daily cost average up to $200.00 per day. Kind of like your local Sadler-financed hospital. Oops didn't mean to go there.

The average (that's AVERAGE, for you nit-pickers) cost to house a man on death row in Texas is around $53.15 per day.

My point (not the one on top of my head, the philosophical one) being that where does the cost weigh in against the d.p.?

According to TDCJ, the average (did I mention AVERAGE) stay on death row in Texas is 10.58 years. Now, if you multiply (you do it, I'm not that smart) the average stay on D.R. by the $53.15 cost per day, you will come up with a figure. If a capital murderer (not a forger or jay-walker) is executed, then his cost stops.

BUT, if a convicted felon who abducts and kills a 5-year old girl or one who burglarizes your favorite sexually oriented business serves say, 24 years and 7 months or how about this, "Life without parole" his (or her) cost would continue long after the above mentioned 10.58 years. Or what about this one: say someone's brother in law who happens to be a convicted felon in the iron house in Texas makes love to 15 or 20 other like-minded felons and he catches AIDS. Then, that man's cost will rise even higher than the women's cost per day figures. You see, it's quite expensive to take care of sick inmates, including those with hepatitus, AIDS, kidney problems, etc.

Now, before you have a convulsion and tell me to join the Taliban, I know (I do it for a living) that capital trials are quite expensive. But most of that cost is spent on behalf of the bad guy, his lawyers and his appeals. (And maybe his website after he gets to prison). But don't you think the cost for a LWOP trial will be at least "sort of" high too?

So, you anonymous philosophers and others who always seem to put money into the question. I think the argument should be centered around how close-minded people like me who think crime deserves punishment should be barbecued and hung on a spit.

A.P. Merillat, the "A" is for Antiquated, as in mindset.