Sometimes I think the media shouldn’t cover crim justice stories at all
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
I’ve said this before and what I heard on the radio today re-affirmed this belief. Sometimes, I think they don’t know what the heck they’re talking about.
One of the topics of discussion on Ray and Diane’s morning show today was tomorrow’s death penalty constitutionality hearings. Right off the bat, they didn’t know when the hearing was being conducted. Diane kept talking about how if she was free this afternoon, she’d go watch. I hope she didn’t. Because it’s tomorrow.
Then, the central theme of their rant was how anyone could think that those on CT’s death row weren’t deserving of the death penalty. Ray decided to read (and re-read) the convictions of those on death row and the reasons for them being there (shot a cop, killed a pregnant woman, etc.).
Yes, I understand. These people are convicted of heinous crimes. I don’t think anyone doubts that the crimes were extremely gruesome and depraved.
But that isn’t the question. Therein lies the problem. It’s not that complicated really, and if you’re going to rant about it for over 30 minutes, then at least make the effort to find out what the claim really is.
The claims is not that these inmates shouldn’t be sentenced to death because their crimes aren’t heinous enough, but that the death penalty was applied to them in a racially impermissible manner, because similarly situated white defendants were not sentenced to the death penalty.
Put another way: if these crimes are heinous enough to warrant the death penalty, then why are only the black defendants of these crimes sentenced to death?
Equal protection, etc.
Just for the record, tomorrow’s hearing is on the State’s Motion to Dismiss. It’s right there. In that press release.
Sphere: Related Content
Loading ...
Just for the record, the only two people within living memory who have been executed in Connecticut are both Caucasian.
Michael Ross begged to be executed. He doesn’t count. That still doesn’t say anything about the challenge, either.
Wouldn’t telling us something about the “similarly situated white defendants” say something about “the challenge”?
How about it?
Yeah, I think that’s what the study says. That there are many more offenses that are the same, if not worse, that did not result in the death penalty being sought.
Obviously I don’t have the raw data, if that’s what you’re looking for.
There are a host of reasons why certain people get death and others do not. Pointing to cases where a black person gets death, but a white person does not is not, ipso facto, an Equal Protection problem. However, let’s say that racial favoritism from a jury or a prosecutor let some whites get over–can any rational system of justice hold that black defendants can assert legal harm? If you agree to that, then you are agreeing that a few people get to decide whether we are going to have a death penalty. A racist prosecutor gets to kill the death penalty? A forgiving jury gets to? That’s nuts.
SPO - It’s not “nuts” to take a hard look at a draconian and irreversible method of punishment in light of data suggesting that its implementation is racist (and this is just one of MANY concerns and problems with it). You have highlighted the very reason it is arbitrary and capricious and why it can never be anything but - because its implementation depends on nothing but a subjective decision by flawed individuals. And I do not meant to insult jurors or prosecutors with the term “flawed” - it’s just reality that we’re all flawed to some degree and in some way. I’m willing to accept that for the criminal justice system to function at all, we necessarily must have us flawed individuals determining the fates of perpetrators. However, when we’re talking about killing someone, I don’t see how anyone can think it’s “nuts” to scrutinize the way in which the punishment is assigned.
The point is, Miranda, that the argument is that if race taints any capital punishment decision then no capital punishment is permissible. That’s nuts.
In any event, these “studies” are garbage. Black victims of homicide are different from white victims of homicide on a macro-level. Any student of criminal justice knows this.
I’m not a student of criminal justice, so do you mind explaining why black victims of homicide are different from white victims “on a macro level”?
Percentage-wise, black victims of homicide are more likely to be criminals, more likely to be victims of non-capital eligible murders. Moreover, black victims are concentrated in jurisdictions where death is sought less on a per murder basis.
These things explain the disparity on a macro level. Without question, there are death cases where race comes into play, e.g., the leniency shown to a James Burmeister in NC.
Putting aside the very disturbing implications of your comment, let’s focus on what the statistics in CT show. If the data shows that regardless of what the victim’s criminal background is, if the crimes are of a comparable nature and the only difference between the seeking of the dp and the decision not to seek is the race of the victim, then why wouldn’t the death penalty as applied in the State be unconstitutional?
Disturbing nature? Cute. Guess what, if you aggregated all characteristics of all black murder victims in the country and all white murder victims in the country and came up with an average profile, there would be a difference. Maybe that’s disturbing; maybe not–to me it falls into the “is what it is” category.
The problem with your question is that criminal history of victims is not the only variable, for one. Second, you cannot look at things on a statewide basis–why, because different prosecutors exercise their discretion in a different way, and Connecticut is not homogeneous when it comes to who is murdered on a geographic basis. Black-victim disparity happens, but the reason it happens is that, on a per murder basis, jurisdictions with high murder rates (which also tend to be higher in minority populations) tend to be less gung-ho about the death penalty. This would tend to create the victim disparity you decry.
Now how in the hell would that cause an Equal Protection Violation? Some counties are tougher than others. It’s that simple.