The decision by a Colorado prosecutor to seek the death penalty against James Holmes is cause for continuing commentary.
Andrew Cohen posts, "In Aurora Shooting Case, a Public Pushback Against the Death Penalty," at the Atlantic.
To give you a sense of how far the public debate over capital punishment has moved toward rationality over the past few decades you need only read Tuesday's house editorial in The Denver Post about a Colorado prosecutor's decision to seek the death penalty in the Aurora theater shooting case. "Justice is death," the prosecutor had dramatically announced Monday, telling the world the punishment he will seek against James Holmes, the young man accused of killing 24 people and wounding scores more at a "Batman" movie on July 20, 2012.
And:
The Post wasn't alone in its vocal challenge to the prosecutor's choice. In the southwest corner of the state, the editorial writers at The Durango Herald, not exactly known as a citadel of love for criminal defendants, also made the case against spending millions of dollars in taxpayer money to fight for a death penalty against Holmes. On Monday, the Herald's house editorial focused upon the opportunity costs of pushing for a death sentence where the defendant has signaled a willingness to accept responsibility and punishment for the crime.
Chicago Tribune editorial board member Steve Chapman writes, "The Illusory Value of the Death Penalty." It's also available at TownHall.com and Reason.com.
After deciding to pursue the execution of the man charged with fatally shooting 12 people in a Colorado movie theater last summer, the prosecutor declared that "for James Egan Holmes, justice is death." By that definition, he might have added, justice is also highly unlikely.Arapahoe County District Attorney George Brauchler might have resolved this case quickly, simply and inexpensively. Holmes' lawyers say their client would be willing to plead guilty for a sentence of life without parole. But the prosecutor declined.
Not much should be made of this announcement, since he has plenty of time and many reasons to change his mind. Arizona prosecutors had no apparent qualms about a plea bargain with Jared Loughner, who agreed to spend the rest of his life behind bars for killing six people and wounding 13 others in Tucson.
Rep. Gabby Giffords, who was shot in the head, and her husband approved the deal. The Wall Street Journal reported that "victims and their families largely welcomed" it.
It's not hard to see why. A plea bargain may deprive them of the satisfaction of seeing the killer pay the ultimate price, but it avoids years of uncertainty and frustration. If we know anything about the death penalty in this country, it's that there is nothing swift or sure about it.
"The Death Penalty Spectacle," is by Lewis and Clark Law Professor Tung Yin.
Now that local prosecutors in Colorado have rejected the offer by alleged Aurora mass shooter James Holmes to plead guilty in exchange for avoiding the death penalty, we can once again ask whether it's worth it to incur the extra cost involved with capital punishment, compared to life imprisonment.
One study by a retired federal judge (a Reagan appointee, if that matters to you) argues that California has spent over $4 billion since 1978 because of the death penalty, or about $308 million per actual execution. Other estimates are quite lower, but still on the order of $2 million or more per death row inmate, compared to simply locking that person up for life.
Even if one has no moral qualms about capital punishment, and no concerns about executing an innocent (i.e., wrongly convicted) person, the extra costs must give pause, especially given the current fiscal crises that numerous states are facing.
"Judicial system needs to work to expedite proces," is the Yuma Sun editorial.
Prosecutors in Colorado announced this week that they are seeking the death penalty for James Holmes, the suspect in the Aurora, Colo., movie theater shootings.
The attack last July in Aurora, Colo., left 12 dead and wounded 70, who were either shot or hurt while trying to leave the theater.
The judge in the case, William Sylvester, notes that it could take years for the case to reach a final conclusion, which is a major problem with our judicial system.
Often in cases such as this, where the death penalty is on the table, trials drag on for some time, which is followed by a lengthy appeals process.
The accused deserves the right to a fair trial. Every last little point should be reviewed to make sure that justice is served fairly. And as the Sixth Amendment notes, defendants have the right to a speedy trial.
However, the victims and their families also deserve a speedy trial and closure – which is hard to achieve, regardless of the final outcome, when the process drags on for years.
Earlier commentary on the Holmes case, and the decision by the district attorney to seek death, begins at the link.
Comments