Nashville's Online Source for Daily News
Search Site
D.A. says more statewide standards for death penalty could be ‘problem’
Davidson County District Attorney Torry Johnson recommended against establishing an additional statewide set of legally binding guidelines for when state prosecutors can seek the death penalty.
Johnson is the only known District Attorney in the state who has written guidelines spelled out for when his office would push for capital punishment in a first-degree murder trial.
Although he has written criteria, Johnson sided with some of his fellow prosecutors Tuesday in testimony to the Death Penalty Study Committee, saying establishing similar guidelines and putting them into state law would open up a “cottage industry” of appeals from defense attorneys.
“I’m very happy with my guidelines,” Johnson told the committee. “But I might be less happy if every case I was going to have to go into court and go into some excruciating detail about how we made a decision. I think that would be a problem.”
The decision of when prosecutors should seek the death penalty and when they should refrain has been the major theme in the opening meetings of the Death Penalty Study Committee.
Prosecutors, like Johnson and others, say that there is already a system in law to make sure that prosecutors do not overreach.
For example, in order for a prosecutor to push for the death penalty or life imprisonment without parole for a person charged with first-degree murder, the prosecutors must decide that the alleged murderer meets at least one of 15 “aggravating circumstances” defined by law.
There are other elements prosecutors consider as well, they said, including mitigating factors, the likelihood of conviction, and whether the family of the victim wants capital punishment enforced.
But underlying the prosecutors’ argument against more legal guidelines was that they each make judgments differently.
“District Attorneys are not cookie cutter prosecutors,” said Wally Kirby, the executive director of the District Attorney General’s Conference. “They’re all different.”
Several on the committee, however, believe that guidelines should be established in law for when prosecutors can seek the death penalty.
Father Charles Strobel seized on Kirby’s claim that all District Attorneys proceed differently as an argument for instituting standards and that the current system could present opportunities for “abuse.”
“If it’s a 50-50 proposition, that, to me, begs the question of whether or not it’s fair,” Strobel said.
Sen. Doug Jackson (D-Dickson), a death penalty supporter and co-chair of the committee, said the panel’s goal was to make the capital punishment process “as fair and as accurate as we can make it.”
One of Jackson’s concerns was that prosecutors’ “subjectivity” on issues like whether or not they were going to win and prosecuting a death penalty case based on the sense of the surrounding community gave him “concern.”
“That seems to me almost like licking your finger and sticking it up in the air,” Jackson said.
Jackson said not having set guidelines statewide was “troublesome” and argued, “there are some steps that should be formalized.”
At the meeting, a specific prosecutor who had pursued the death penalty for illegitimate reasons, such as political ones, was not mentioned.
“Show me the beef,” said former Sevier County District Attorney Al Schmutzer. “I haven’t heard it yet. There’s no way that the Legislature can pass anything that will require DAs to reach the same decision reviewing the same facts.”
A federal judge in Nashville has found the state’s standard method to administer the death penalty — lethal injection — causes cruel and unusual punishment and is therefore unconstitutional. The state is appealing that ruling to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear a Kentucky case to rule on the constitutionality of lethal injection.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Technorati
Mailing list sign-up
1103 Sewell Ct, Mt Juliet
Price: $0
Bedrooms/Bathrooms: 0/0
1030 Raybon Binkley Rd, Ashland City
Price: $0
Bedrooms/Bathrooms: 0/0
View More Homes
Hmmmmph. As a death penalty advocate, I'm tiring of these protracted hearings that aren't serving justice.Throw out the existing 'mitigating factors' list and make the DP automatic for any 1st degree murder. Then, force a defense to prove the need for not using the DP.An overplayed defense of 'well,(s)he wouldn't have killed if (s)he hadn't been spanked as a child', or 'she says he 'beat' her' (even if there were no marks and he was asleep when murdered) shouldn't cut it. If the murder was justified in some way, prove that (that should be very difficult to prove, BTW.) If the perp had a strong mental imbalance (not a contrived defensive ploy pulled from a hat at the last minute) then prove that. As long as the DP is on the books, we should use it. As it is now, it's a frustrating joke. Clever defense 'teams' delay the actual execution to the point that any deterrence factor is moot. Murderers are given 3 hots and a cot, while the victim(s) is dead and buried.So easily forgotten, the victim.
Serr0d, we have provided plenty of reasons not to kill. Besides, Serr0d, you're not a "death penalty advocate". You're simply someone who proposes, from the comfort of your basement & on virtually unread internet sites, killing other people. Advocates actually SPEAK IN PUBLIC. They attend meetings & forums & rallies.We are, fortunately, moving toward the end of state-killing, which has no reason to continue (you haven't come up with one) & many reasons to end.I hope that everyone thinking about this issue follows the example of Charles Strobel, who, even after the murder of his mother (a victim remembered each year in an award given to a worker in the non-profit field), has remained a true advocate for rehabilitation and against the childish illusion that killing solves killing.Serr0d, killing someone else just makes two victims where there was one before. Not a good plan.
I wonder if you would speak up so quickly for the killing of unborn children? Hummm, just curious...
M BJ, should you not be mopping the floor at Watkins, now?The Death Penalty's advocates are a majority of Americans, some 67%. A few very vocal 'mouths (of which you are one of the loudest and most strident, not that those characteristics are a positive) tend to overwhelm the debate. I would much rather support the victim, the victim's surviving family, and give deterrence a chance. You, wasting your time.Get some religion. And a mop...
For most decent human beings killing is killing. Whether it is an unborn child or a ruthless killer. It's really very simple.
For the deterrence, Fundit. There's really no comparison. An unborn child is possibilities and promise. A ruthless killer is at the end of his rope. Or should be...
Thanks, Serr0d, for the feeble ad hominem & for the misleading statistics. Nationwide support for state-killing is at 67%, but it has been declining for years. In 1994, it was 80%. When the poll asks whether people would choose killing over a sentence of life imprisonment w/out parole, then support for killing drops to 47%. In addition, just this month, a majority of Marylanders, living near one of the highest centers of violent crime, the unfairly occupied District of Columbia, is against it. Citing religion as your support for state-killing shows the weakness of your position. I don’t know what religion supports state-killing (certainly not Christianity nor Judaism), but it doesn’t matter. The U.S. doesn’t make its laws based on any religion, thank goodness, but based on the Constitution, which is against state-killing—an argument I’ve made here several times while you keep mentioning “the victim” in you haste to create more victims. You don’t support victims by creating more victims. You simply support vengeance.Your deterrence argument is utterly false. Eighty-four percent of criminologists state that state-killing does NOT deter murder. The southern states kill the most imprisoned victims (eighty percent of the killings), but still have the highest murder rate. The northeastern states, which kill the fewest (under one percent), have the lowest murder rates.Fundit, abortion is legal, because we have a constitutionally protected right to individual freedom over our bodies. Abortion (certainly a topic worthy of discussion) has no relation to state-killing. Let’s save it for another day. As to floor-mopping, Serr0d, I haven’t done so for years, but it is honorable, honest, & necessary work, and I respect those who do it. I am proud of what I do. You, on the other hand, Serr0d, have an occupation that dares not speak its name.
One last note, Serr0d, then I must work. If you really, truly want the victim remembered more & the murderer (&, of course, we have killed many people who weren’t murderers, who didn’t commit any crime for which they were sentenced) forgotten, then you should strongly support life imprisonment without parole, and you should work against state-killing.Nothing makes the murderer the focus over the victim more than continuing state-killing, and no one is more forgotten than those imprisoned for life. Life imprisonment permits us to help the families of the victims w/ no more attention to the murderer.
Instead of "statewide standards" to applied by political hacks known as "District Attorney Generals
How can you possibly get to the true bottom of "premeditated killings?" Not only do the perpetrators lie, but so do the prosecuting and defending attorneys? I DO NOT WANT MY TAX DOLLARS SUPPORTING ANYONE WHO DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE RULES OF SOCIETY. I BELIEVE PRISON SYSTEMS SHOULD BE DONE AWAY WITH. WE CAN PUT THE MILLIONS AND MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS SAVED TOWARDS BETTERING EDUCATION AND LIVING BETTER LIVES RATHER THAN PAYING TO SUPPORT PEOPLE WHO PLAY BY THEIR OWN RULES AND DESTROY LIVES.
M BJ, deterrence would work if the existing laws weren't so demonized and the process delayed by the (thankfully) legal means you have to do so. Your rights to loudly shout out your opinion is well and good, but really you should not get so carried away; you've gone to lengths (including defamation) to make your points. Others have other opinions, and are as entitled to those as you are to yours. Your loudness and volume doesn't negate the existing law, nor does it win you any support. Vainglorious and egotistical exhibitions such as you display here are best left in theater. That, and you're completely wrong about the deterrence effect.
ummm...chakka, where would you put criminals? Australia isn't open, anymore...
Hang ‘em quick, hang ‘em high!
The US Supreme Court has recently granted a "Stay" to a Mississippi inmate scheduled for lethal injection (said to be because of a pending review in a Kentucky case); supposedly sending the message to "lower courts" that the Supreme Court stands against state executions, generally. Such a visible stance should be valuable to an array of judges and politicians whom do not wish to be put in the position of having to diliberate upon such undesireable topics (within their own jurisdictions or districts).I'm opposed to "capitol punishment
Since the Constitution guarantees will remain, Serr0d, (for which you & I are both thankful) then state-killing will not get any speedier. Thus, according to your own argument, it fails as a deterrent. Thus, besides personal vengeance, you have no argument for killing. Welcome.State-killing is a cruel & unusual punishment. Someday soon, we will remove it. Fewer states practice it than practiced it ten years ago. No state will kill for the next few months. Then, the Supreme Court may make 37 states re-write their killing methods, which would be another opportunity to leave killing behind. Further, the A.M.A. may forbid doctors, as it should, from participating in state-killing. This will make the practice even more difficult. One in three Americans has realized that state-killing is wrong. Fifty-four of every hundred Americans already prefer life imprisonment w/out parole. We shall soon remove this ugly practice from our land.
Hopefully the “cocktail” will be refined, and that “issue” will go away. The funny thing is that the “cocktail” has to be less painful (but who really cares) than electrocution, and yet, that is what the courts will drive the states back to. Oh well, what ever it takes to get the job done!
Spoken like a murderer, Lou: The "job" is killing, so just do it "what ever [sic] it takes".Lou, once a criminal is imprisoned, the job is done. Killing is unnecessary & wrong, and you have never been able to argue otherwise.