Death Penalty

Dying is not usually a pleasant process. That being said, lethal injection is a lot more pleasant a way to die than, say, cancer or solitary confinement. And no, it is not up for debate. Solitary confinement leads to a very cruel, slow, spiritual death, succeeded by physical death, often by way of suicide. Anyway, it should not be up the condemned to decide how he is to be executed.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

Make no mistake about it, in the fullness of time, innocent people will be wrongfully convicted and wrongfully executed. However, that is no reason for not employing capital punishment.

If it'll make you feel better, consider the fact the body count for innocents will always be much, much higher on the side where the guilty are wrongfully exonerated and under prosecuted.

 

Do you have a link (?) to where Perry said evidence of innocence is not enough to prompt a stay of execution. That could be huge in the presidential race.

 

It is wrong...period.

Anyone who says otherwise is wrong...period.

 

The death penalty should only be used when there is absolute evidence of guilt, such as a video of a killing. Even DNA evidence is subject to failure through error or deliberate manipulation.

As for videos, there ought to be much more of them (everywhere in public places - except in bathrooms).

 

While this isn't related to the presidential this presents a false argument that must be addressed.

A person cannot "prove their innocence" nor have any actually done that. We know of over 140 death row inmates that have been released because DNA existed to exhonorate them. What about the hunderds of innocent people on death row where no DNA evidence exists? How do they prove their innocence? The fact is they didn't "prove their innocence" but instead proved that someone else committed the crime.

We have cases, such as the one I listed above, where 7 of 9 witnesses against the person have recanted their trial testimony stating that the convicted person is NOT the one that committed the murder. Several of those have stated they were coerced or threatened by the prosecution into testifying against the person during the trial. There is no DNA evidence that will exhonerate him and he will be executed in 8 more days. Seven witnesses have admitted to intentionally committing perjury during the trial and they know that the person convicted did not commit the crime but he will still die for that crime. So how does he "prove" that he didn't commit the crime?

Rarely is it possible to prove a negative which is why a person does not have to prove their innocence. "Hurricane" Carter had witnesses that he was somewhere else when a murder took place but he was still convicted because the prosecution cut a deal with a criminal to testify against him.

How does a person prove that they didn't do something? The only way I know of is if they can prove that someone else committed the crime and that is what happens with DNA evidence. Basically it requires the inmate to do the job of the prosecution and police while the person is locked up in prison.

 

I did not provide a "loose definition" of murder. It is the intentional taking of a person's life that is unnecessary.

When the government executes a person it is the intentional and unnecessary taking of a person's life. Incarceration for life without the possibility of parole, in solitary confinement if deemed necessary by the Court, prevents an indivdual from ever committing another murder or any other crime against society. The death penalty is the unnecessary taking of a person's life and therefore meets the strict definition of murder which I've provided.

What would be an extremely "loose definition" of murder would be to state that the government is responsible for the actions of an individual that commits murder.

 

Shiva:

Wikipedia is NOT fact checking.

The following is:

Based upon the evidence presented in the June, 2010 hearing, it was clear that the federal district court would rule against Davis and that SCOTUS would not intervene.

This shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone that knew the facts of the case.

Anti death penalty folks, were, of course, fed a bunch of nonsense by their leadership and they simply accepted it.

As I wrote 6/25/10

Innocence claims will offer no reprieve for Troy Davis
Dudley Sharp

Based upon the media reports, alone, of the two day hearing of June 2010, just as I suspect Davis' attorneys have known all along, the appellate case cannot prevail in overturning the findings that Troy

Davis is guilty of the murder of Police Officer Mark Allen MacPhail.

What happened in the two day hearing was very ordinary, if you are aware of anti death penalty nonsense. (1)

Sylvester "Redd" Coles' "Confessions"

The blockbuster witnesses who were going to testify that the "real murderer" Sylvester "Redd" Coles had confessed to them were not allowed to testify, because Davis' attorneys refused to call Coles to testify, thereby rendering these witnesses in possession of hearsay evidence and, therefore, not able to testify.

Well, Judge Moore did allow, wrongly, one of them, Anthony Hargrove, to testify. The judge "said that unless Coles is called to the stand, he might give (Hargrove's) hearsay testimony "no weight whatsoever."

Of course, Davis' attorneys didn't call Coles. Davis' attorneys made sure Hargrove's testimony as well as the other "confession" witnesses will have no weight.

This will become part of the anti death penalty PR machine - the anti death penalty folks will blame the system for not allowing the "truth" to come out, by muzzling these witnesses, even though Davis' attorneys had to do this intentionally, knowing that the witnesses couldn't be heard, because of the hearsay rule.

The defense couldn't call Coles, because he would have been a strong witness to rebut his alleged confessions, therefore making things worse for Davis. I seems obvious that the defense made a statement as to how fragile and unreliable these "confession" witnesses were that Davis' attorneys refused to call Coles.

Hargrove being wrongly allowed to testify must have been a surprise.

"Recantation" Witnesses

The additional problem for Davis is this: There are solid witnesses against Davis who did not recant.

The recantation witnesses claims that the police pressured or threatened them into falsely testifying make no sense.

First, there were enough witnesses against Davis - the state had a solid case - therefore there was no reason to put lying witnesses on the stand. Even if we presume that some were pressured and threatened into false statements, both police and prosecutors knew, before trial, that they need not risk putting any such perjuring witnesses on the stand. They had enough evidence without them.

Why risk perjured testimony when you don't need it? They wouldn't have.

Secondly, the non recantation witnesses, the police investigators, and prosecutors have been consistent from the beginning of the case - those witnesses haven't recanted, and police and prosecutors have testified that there were no threats or pressure for false testimony and those consistent, non recanting witnesses gave truthful statements without pressure or threats.

Thirdly, there is no evidence that the investigating officers or the prosecutors had ever been involved in such illegal activities before and the non recantation witnesses give more weight to the position that police and prosecutors did not pressure or threaten for false testimony and to the proposition that the recantations were the lies.

Judges are very aware of false testimony and how pressure can be applied to produce it, by community activists, such as anti death penalty folks.

Judges are aware that pressure is a two sided coin and they must consider both sides of it and how that may effect credibility. In a case such as this, the evidence is such that

Davis cannot prevail.

Credibility - this says it all.

"(Troy) Davis' legal team also summoned Benjamin Gordon, who testified that he saw Sylvester "Redd" Coles shoot and kill the officer." (2)

Gordon, who is incarcerated and has at least six prior felony convictions, said he never came forward because he did not trust the police and feared what Coles might do to him or his family in retaliation.

"Is there any doubt in your mind that Redd Coles fired that shot?" Horton asked. "No, sir," Gordon replied.

Davis' legal team has long maintained that Coles, who was at the scene and came forward after (Police Officer) MacPhail's slaying and implicated Davis to police, was the actual triggerman. Coles has denied shooting MacPhail.

Beth Attaway Burton, the state's lead attorney, got Gordon to acknowledge he never said he saw Coles shoot MacPhail in interviews with police "or in sworn statements he gave Davis' legal team in 2003 and 2008."

"What made you change your story today?" Burton asked.

"It's the truth," Gordon said. "

I think the judge will have to weigh Gordon's credibility similarly to that of Davis' other supportive witnesses - ZERO.

-----------------------------

Note: We will hear protests that Davis' attorneys tried to subpoena Coles the day before the hearing, but couldn't locate him. The judge didn't buy it saying that there was no excuse based upon them having much time to prepare for the hearing. It's clear they didn't want Coles. When Davis loses this appeal, he will then appeal to a higher court, which will uphold the denial.

(1) 3 of many

"The Innocent Executed: Deception & Death Penalty Opponents"
http(COLON)//homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/08/the-innocent-executed-deception--death-penalty-opponents--draft.aspx

The 130 (now 139) death row "innocents" scam
http(COLON)//homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/04/fact-checking-issues-on-
innocence-and-the-death-penalty.aspx

"Cameron Todd Willingham: Another Media Meltdown", A Collection of Articles
http(COLON)//homicidesurvivors.com/categories/Cameron%20Todd%20Willingham.aspx

(2) All quotes from this article:

"Witnesses back off testimony against Troy Davis", The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, June 23, 2010 www(DOT)ajc.com/news/atlanta/witnesses-back-off-testimony-555778.html?cxntlid=daylf_artr


Other references:


Troy Davis: Both sides need to be told
Dudley Sharp, contact info below

Anyone interested in justice will demand a fair, thorough look at both sides of this or any case. Here is the side that the pro Troy Davis faction is, intentionally, not presenting.

(1) Davis v Georgia, Georgia Supreme Court, 3/17/08
Full ruling www(DOT)gasupreme.us/pdf/s07a1758.pdf
Summary www(DOT)gasupreme.us/op_summaries/mar_17.pdf

" . . . the majority finds that 'most of the witnesses to the crime who have allegedly recanted have merely stated that they now do not feel able to identify the shooter.' "One of the affidavits 'might actually be read so as to confirm trial testimony that Davis was the shooter.' "

The murder occurred in 1989.

(2) "THE PAROLE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION OF THE TROY ANTHONY DAVIS CASE" , 9/22/08, www(DOT)pap.state.ga.us/opencms/opencms/

"After an exhaustive review of all available information regarding the Troy Davis case and after considering all possible reasons for granting clemency, the Board has determined that clemency is not warranted."

"The Board has now spent more than a year studying and considering this case. As a part of its proceedings, the Board gave Davisâ?? attorneys an opportunity to present every witness they desired to support their allegation that there is doubt as to Davisâ?? guilt. The Board heard each of these witnesses and questioned them closely. In addition, the Board has studied the voluminous trial transcript, the police investigation report and the initial statements of all witnesses. The Board has also had certain physical evidence retested and Davis interviewed."

(3) A detailed review of the extraordinary consideration that Davis was given for all of his claims,
by Chatham County District Attorney Spencer Lawton http(COLON)//tinyurl.com/46c73l

Troy Davis' claims are undermined, revealing the dishonesty of the Davis advocates . Look, particularly, at pages 4-7, which show the reasoned, thoughtful and generous reviews of Davis' claims, as well a how despicable the one sided cynical pro Troy Davis effort is.


(4) Officer Mark Allen MacPhail: The family of murdered Officer MacPhail fully believes that Troy Davis murdered their loved one and that the evidence is supportive of that opinion. www(DOT)fop9.net/markmacphail/debunkingthemyths.cfm

Not simply an emotional and understandable plea for justice, but a detailed factual review of the case.


(5) "Death and Dying", by Cliff Green, LIKE THE DEW, 7/22/09,
http(COLON)//likethedew.com/2009/07/22/death-and-dying/

 

Precisley, non murderers and murderers, alike, are quite capable of harming and murdering, again, in prioson, as they do, every day.

There is no such thing as perfect prison security or perfect prison guards, as we all know.

We all do know, however, that executed murderers will never harm and murder, again and we all do know that living murderers are capable and sometimes do harm and murder, again.

All of us knows this, so your rebuttal is not such thing.

That pretty low recidivism rate has produced about 28,000 additional murders committed by those murderers who have murdered before, just in the US and just since 1973.

The new evidence actualy further implicates Willingham. Nothing points to his innocence.

Please review and fact check next time.

"Cameron Todd Willingham: Another Media Meltdown", A Collection of Articles
http://homicidesurvivors.com/categories/Cameron Todd Willingham.aspx

The false innocence claims by anti death penalty activists are legendary. Some examples:

4) "The Innocent Executed: Deception & Death Penalty Opponents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/1...eception--death-penalty-opponents--draft.aspx

5) The 130 (now 13 death row "innocents" scam
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/04/fact-checking-issues-on-innocence-and-the-death-penalty.aspx

6) Sister Helen Prejean & the death penalty: A Critical Review"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/0...ean--the-death-penalty-a-critical-review.aspx

7) "At the Death House Door" Can Rev. Carroll Pickett be trusted?"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/01/30/fact-checking-is-very-welcome.asp

Which one was that and why was it not good?

Here are 27 such recent studies. After you speak to the authors about why you may not like these, tell us what the authors said about your possible criticism.

Of course the death penalty deters.

All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.

1) 27 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm

and a reply to some critics

2) "Deterrence & the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/0...th-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx

I have. Many executions in the US are publized throughout the US and as there have been on average (from 1973-2010) about 50 murders/day, nationwide, a short term deterrent effect would save many innocent lives.

And if we executed more, even mor innocent lives would be saved.

Or if we stopped executing murderers, more innocents would be murdered.

Which outcome is preferred?

Did you think about it? It appears not.

 

He didn't say it. He acted on it.
He refused to stay the execution of a man charged with arson after evidence turned up that the forensic evidence used to convict him was junk science.
After not staying the execution, he fired the people looking into it.

I think that says a lot about either Perry's ideology or Perry's ethics.

 

No.

The best way to make a determination is not to ask but to see what folks actually do. What folks say and what they do are often quite different.

About 99% of those who face a possible death sentence and execution do every thing they can through plea bargains, pre trial, tiral and appeals to avoid the death penalty and execution.

What's Worse: Death Penalty or Life in Prison?
Dudley Sharp

Some death penalty opponents argue against death penalty deterrence, stating that it's a harsher penalty to be locked up without any possibility of getting out.

Reality paints a very different picture.

First, there is always the possibility of getting out of prison.

More importantly, living murderers can harm and murder, again - executed murderers cannot. A very big deal.

Secondly, let's look at those who actually face the death penalty and see what they choose.

What percentage of capital murderers seek a plea bargain to a death sentence? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment.

What percentage of convicted capital murderers argue for execution in the penalty phase of their capital trial? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment.

What percentage of death row inmates waive their appeals and speed up the execution process? Nearly zero. They prefer long term imprisonment.

This is not, even remotely, in dispute.

What of that more rational group, the potential murderers who choose not to murder, is it likely that they, like most of us, fear death more than life?

Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life.

No surprise.

Deterrence

All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.

1) 25 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation,
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm

2) "Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/0...th-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx

4) "Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html


5) This is out of date, but corrects an number of the misconceptions about deterrence.

"Death Penalty and Deterrence"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/0...rmed--seven-recent-studies-updated-61204.aspx

6) "The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

Javablack,

My apologies I did not see your rebuttal to my statement:

"Of all human endeavors that put innocents at risk, is there one with a better record of sparing innocent lives than the US death penalty? Unlikely."

No one has ever attempted to rebut it, before.

Could you repeat it or direct me to a post number?

Thank you.

 

The following is:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/cases/usa-troy-davis

There was no physical evidence connecting Troy Davis to the murder and it was exclusively based upon eye witness testimony. Seven of the nine eye witnesses have recanted their testimony citing police pressure and coercion. One of the two remaining eye witnesses is the secondary suspect which would leave only one witness who's testimony could be called "unbiased" and without collaboration of the one eye witness testimony it wouldn't be grounds for a conviction.

Once again Troy Davis cannot "prove" that Sylvester Coles committed the murder which is fundamentally what the Appeals Court ruled even though nine affidavits implicating Coles have been filed. The conviction will stand because of the inability of Troy Davis to establish that someone else, anyone else, actually committed a crime.

Troy Davis has been convicted based upon the testimony of witnesses that were pressured or coerced by police and by testimony of the person that very probably committed the actual murder. He will probably be executed and there is a fairly high probability based upon the facts that the government will be executing an innocent man.

 

How can a person incarcerated in solitary confinement, if circumstances dictate, in a maximum security prison for life without the possibility of parole murder innocent people?

Please explain that to me.

There is no historical evidence of anyone held in a maximum security prison in solitary confinement ever murdering anyone.

 

This is where your argument falls apart(the rest of it actually turned out to be against the person siding with you who claimed life in solitary was more cruel than death-- I claim it's individual perspective).

Your claim is that what people say and what they do is different. True many times.
Often people who say "kill me if I get old" don't feel that way when older.
That doesn't mean they didn't think it when they were young.

People who face the death penalty, likewise, might revisit the "I don't care if I die" mentality they once had (frankly I don't agree with your characterization of those who plea to avoid death being the rational ones-- sounds like many of them are just scared... It's perfectly rational to prefer death over life in a total institution surrounded by other criminals) in a similar manner.
This does not suggest that they consider death the worse option before getting caught, any more than elderly people thought being old would be tolerable as self-destructive teenagers.

Add to that that murders have other deterrents that are less debatable:
1. killing is wrong... most people, including most people who commit murders (sociopaths aren't as common in real life as they are on "Criminal Minds"), have a moral position against murder. Something has to occur to either temporarily or permanently convince them that a murder is justified. This is usually a lot harder than convincing yourself it's okay to steal a candy bar or pull a tax scam. To value stretch to the point of murder involves being convinced a wrong is so great that it justifies the death of a person or to fire you up to the point of passion that all consequences be (*)(*)(*)(*)ed.
2. Prison sucks more than regular life... To prefer prison over freedom requires a strange perspective. Most homeless people continue being homeless rather than breaking windows to get put away. The average murderer is better off outside of prison and most likely knows it. It doesn't matter if death is worse than prison; it matters how much worse and how much worse it appears now-- before being caught and actually facing the prospect. A bigger deal is the notion of being caught and prosecuted at all (indeed, a lot of people face also the intense internal prospect of being exposed as a murderer to people they care about-- not an issue with gangs so much, but with most other murderers it is).

What 2 leads me to is the problem I've always had with studies about deterrence.
The media effect.
I put it together that the media generally focuses on how easy it is to escape prosecution, how easy it is for a criminal to get off with a lesser sentence, etc. Stuff that pisses people off. Usually without context.
The media distort the view of how easy or hard it is to avoid consequences.
So even when murderers consider consequences (which I heavily doubt second degree murderers do at all), the view of consequences is distorted.

The reason executions appear to deter (for short periods after an episode) is that they are the exception. Where rare (most places) death penalty is the exception to the rule. It is reported. An example of someone getting caught and prosecuted to full extent.
Of course, over time I suspect this to wear off if the death penalty becomes common. Furthermore anytime a person pleas to get life, it increases the perspective that "it's easy to escape full consequences" if the reaction of people to that is any indicator.

 

Executing incorrigible criminals is necessary!

When are you going to stop making the same bad argument? We've been over this at least twice already.

One more time, and pay attention, I am tired of having to repeat myself.

You can't put them in solitary confinement, that would be cruel and unusual punishment. You can't put them in general pop, they're likely to kill or maim another inmate or even a C.O. At the very least, they'll undermine the rehabilitative efforts of the facility. About the only thing you might be able to do is freeze them in carbonite. Unfortunately, that technology only exists in science fiction movies. Therefore, we have only one remaining option: death by lethal injection.

Get it now?

Then who is responsible when the "individual," that is known to be a murderer, is released by the CJS back into society, or even back into general pop, and commits yet another murder, the "individual"?

WRONG!!

The CJS already knew how dangerous this "individual" was before they released him. Therefore, the CJS is responsible. Who do you blame when a vicious pit bull is carelessly allowed to roam about the neighborhood and then mauls a child to death, the dog? No, you blame the dog's owner.

 

I wonder, if there were no death penalty, how much concern would there be for Troy Davis, more or less?

If Troy Davis is to be a martyr, let him be a martyr for meaningful reforms toward all the things which may have caused him to be wrongfully convicted, and not a martyr for the abolishment of the death penalty.

Abolishing the death penalty is not a cure for wrongful convictions. Indeed, it is only a surefire means of aggravating the problem.

 

“[Solitary confinement] units are virtual incubators of psychoses--seeding illness in otherwise healthy inmates and exacerbating illness in those already suffering from mental infirmities.”
—Ruiz v. Johnson (2001)

It’s a standard psychiatric concept, if you put people in isolation, they will go insane…. It’s a big problem in the California system, putting large numbers in the SHUs… Most people in isolation will fall apart.”
— Sandra Schank, staff psychiatrist, Mule Creek Prison

In 2005, forty-four prisoners in the California prison system committed suicide, 70% of whom were in solitary confinement.

This has been a consistent trend. A national study of 401 jail suicides in 1986 found that two out of three were among those held in a control unit. A 2007 study examining attempted suicide in the prison system identified solitary confinement as a major factor in suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.

"I started hearing voices and losing control of my own thoughts...I really started noticing more when I started being in the hole...It just started getting worse for me."
—Participant 2211

http://solitarywatch.files.wordpres...ological-effects-of-solitary-confinement2.pdf

 

Seems like in the case of George Stinney that justice was served. Perhaps a little too quickly, but served nonetheless.

Now, how about you read the story of Perry Smith and Richard (Dick) Hickock, and tell us what you think. Was justice served in this instance?



Perry & Dick (Just read the part "Overview of the Crime)

 

So the proposition is that having the government kill a person is the way to address the possible mental issues related to solitary confinement?

I can see the entire mental health industry jumping on this idea. If someone is suffering mental illness then just kill them and the problem goes away.

How about addressing the problem, which is potential mental illness for those that are probably mentally ill to begin with, for those held in solitary confinement? "Killing the patient" doesn't sould like a viable solution to me.

 

No, justice was not served. Revenge was served and there is a difference.

 

So you are running on the "Kill the Ill" platform. Good luck with that. LOL!

 

The assumption that removing a person from solitary confinement is the only option in dealing with potential mental illness problems is false.

I might suggest that solitary confinement need not be isolation and it is isolation that is apparently the problem. Why not simply have cells that use bars but are separated by three feet between the cells. It would physically prevent one inmate from killing another inmate but they wouldn't be "isolated" from others. There are certainly other options that can be reviewed. The key is preventing an inmate from killing other inmates.

There are certainly numerous options other than killing the inmate that can be considered.

Once again there is a choice. Do we address possible solutions to potential mental health issues of just kill the inmate so we don't have to deal with those potential mental health issues?

 

I'm also somewhat skeptical of the idea that people need to be around other people to keep from killing themselves. People might go a bit nuts and start talking to inanimate objects, but they cope.
I think the problemwith solitary is that it's not designed for long-term imprisonment so much as punishment for the already imprisoned.

The general prison population has access to books and other distractions.
There's no reason why a person can't be kept in solitary but given access to the same forms of non-social entertainment as everyone else, particularly if they are in olitary for the purpose of imprisonment rather than the purpose of being further punished for bad behavior in prison.

While people, especially extroverts might not like being lonely, I can't imagine that having access to books or something wouldn't reduce that pain. After all a lot of lonely people survive on the outside.
Frankly I'd prefer being locked in a room alone with some books to being stuck in a crowd of people not of my picking (who were, in fact, picked for their acts of violence), and I classify as an extrovert.

If anything the complaint against that is from the people who think prison is "too cushy" (because who wouldn't want to give up their freedom for... the ability to watch a TV and lift weights?)... but that is a retributive argument, not an argument about the utilitarian concept of keeping society safe from dangerous people.

 

They drove over 800 miles round-trip across Kansas, killed a family of four, and got $40, a pair of binoculars, and a transistor radio for their effort.

How can you say that executing them isn't just?

 

Justice is a meaningless term. You're approaching things from a retributionist angle, Shiva from an angle by which any state killing of a person in custody is unjust.
Both are internally consistent views and are ultimately based on subjective positions.

Personally I reject the value of "closure" as a form of justice, because it does nothing but give a good feeling (never as good as they expect) to the person wronged and a false sense of security to society. Because the effect is no different if the crime is fake or the condemned innocent, I don't think this is a worthy thing to promote in any way.
For instance, the same "closure" came when innocent women were executed for witchcraft after some girls acted strangely and were presumed "bewitched." This led to closure for those worried about the girls and a false sense of security for society.
Considering "closure" a good end to achieve, therefore, is the promotion of pre-bureaucratic methods of "justice": it's a modern extension of lynching and tribal revenge killings. I don't think it is worthwhile to cater to this feeling.

So I only accept utilitarian approaches to the death penalty. I find the evidence given suspect.

Part of the problem here is that everyone starts with different assumptions about what "justice" is or about what the system is to protect or encourage.
There is no way for anyone to "win" an argument with logic in such issues.

I believe the most fitting compromise is to make executions very rare, only for the most dangerous cases and only when the evidence is overwhelming.
Emotion should be removed from the justice system as much as possible, so I don't think the "horrible" factor is important to any extent that it does not contribute to a "danger" factor.
I'm tired of prosecutors using emotional baggage ("a mother killing a child", "everybody loved the victim") to justify the death penalty, which they are really just using as a political tool to make them look "tough on crime." The "horrifying" factor should complement the "danger" factor ("The victims were tortured beforehand.").

But you see where this all fits together?
The problem I have is that, while I could accept serial killiers being executed, the way our society glorifies the death penalty leads to its use as a political tool, encouraging overstretching.

What I'm most against is the cult of the death penalty, which is a subset of the larger cult of punishment that America is enthralled with. Ever wonder why we have such a high imprisonment rate? Why recivitism is out of control? Why so many of the mentally ill wind up in prison instead of getting help?
It's all part of the culture that accepts an authoritarian parenting view of human behavior and rejects anything utilitarian. We never reduce crime, nor rehabilitate our criminals because we're too concerned with "justice."
The death penalty cult is just the most extreme element of that dominant worldview.