Deseret News | Reader comments: Utah bucking U.S. death penalty trend

Reader comments
Utah bucks U.S. death penalty trend

Page:
1
2
Next >

Save | 10:13 p.m. May 3, 2009

the money. Life without possibility of parole should be good enough. All the death penalty does is make attorneys rich.

Anonymous | 10:56 p.m. May 3, 2009

Utah lacks the rest of America, more news at ten. What other news: water flows downhill?

Jeremy | 12:28 a.m. May 4, 2009

If a poll was taken, the average Utahn would most likely pay even more to see these murderers put down within a year of sentencing.

Comments continue below

Anonymous | 1:33 a.m. May 4, 2009

why leave them on death row...kill them

rightascension | 2:07 a.m. May 4, 2009

So then, why is it unacceptable for individuals to take human life, but it is acceptable for the state to take human life as a way of punishing taking human life? Smacks of hypocrisy -- and judging from the details of this article, expen$ive hypocrisy at that.

Scrap The Penal Code | 2:07 a.m. May 4, 2009

Greetings:

Having been a student of the late Dr. W. Cleon Skousen, I'll repeat what he taught.

First of all, we need to totally scrap our existing penal codes, and close the prisons.

Ancient Israel did not have prisons, for they couldn't afford them, and guess what, - - - neither can we.

If our current penal system worked, then why is prison such a booming growth industry?

Prison is an unnatural environment, producing unnatural character, that continues after an inmate's return to society.

State governments are subject to corruption, conspiracy, and political whim, so the state should not be entrusted with the death penalty.

Instead, according to our Holy Bible, as taught by Dr. Skousen in his United States Constitution courses, the death penalty should be carried out in public by the victim's family, and by those who witnessed the crime.

No, life without parole does not stop murder, for prison escapes do occur, as does violence against other inmates or against correctional officials.

For additional details, please consider studying Dr. Skousen's writings.

Thank you.

John Robert Mallernee
Armed Forces Retirement Home
Washington, D.C. 20011-8400

Hmmm... | 2:18 a.m. May 4, 2009

It seems the only way that the death penalty becomes more expensive is through the appeals process. I don't see how a potassium-chloride filled syringe is going to cost more than housing an inmate for 50 years. The problem is that we allow them to appeal so much, which is what the lawyers want, because every time they enter the court room, they get paid more taxpayer dollars. Maybe, if it is obvious that the criminal committed the crime that warranted the death penalty, perhaps there should be no appeals process when the death penalty sentence is given. If they're worthy of death, what's there to appeal? If you enforce the penalty within a year of conviction, I see that this only decreases the financial costs while avoiding unnecessary appeals.

Stalwart Sentinel | 2:36 a.m. May 4, 2009

@ Jeremy

Thank you for pointing out what is wrong with the average Utahn.

Cost is not an issue | 3:20 a.m. May 4, 2009

Since when is cost the ruling mentality of justice? If costs were allowed to be a factor then why not just open the doors to prisons and let all the criminals go loose? That makes it a zero dollar cost to justice. The argument that it costs too much to medical kill those that deserve it moot. There are less costly means of enforcing the death penalty, and more humane than injecting the condemend with expensive drugs. By keeping the condemend alive for decades is also costly and our prisions over crowded. It seems that justice finds it cheaper to build more over crowded billion dollar prisons than to hand out justice. There is also doubt at the cost figures been bandied around to execute someone and that should be investigated.

Huh? | 6:08 a.m. May 4, 2009

Let me get this straight. The Utah Attorney General's office tries limiting the number of frivolous appeals that a convicted killer can file. But that effort was defeated, supposedly in the name of "justice."

But then, when it comes time to actually execute these guys, the killers then argue that we shouldn't, all because it took so much money to deal with all their frivolous appeals that they've been allowed to file.

In other words, every time a convicted killer files a frivolous appeal, he's basically writing his own "get out of death free" card. And yet we're supposed to believe that there'e something wrong with trying to stop this?

MT in MD | 6:31 a.m. May 4, 2009

Wow, what a disappointment to have reported only that executions cost more than keeping someone alive. How do we get to that conclusion? Where are the line items? I understand that you rehearse these things and that costs time and money, but wouldn't you have to do slightly less rehearsing if you were executing more often? Granted, with only 10 people on death row, Utah's not got an urgent need to address this "problem" right now. Come on, DN! Don't be afraid to report facts. Or ask for clarification, rather than just taking assertions as fact. I find it hard to believe that it costs millions to empty a syringe of potassium cyanide into someone's arm.

dumb founding | 6:56 a.m. May 4, 2009

it is dumb founding that people like Jeremy and other on this thread are so ignorant of the facts that they actually believe what they say. I would hope for their sake they are never wrongly convicted as other have been before.

re: rightascension | 7:38 a.m. May 4, 2009

so by your arguement, since it is wrong for someone to take my money or property by force, the government can't do so either. All taxes, therefore, are illegal. Since an individual can't pull me over on the street, the police can't do it either. Your arguement is ridiculous.

Anonymous | 7:47 a.m. May 4, 2009

I used to favor the death penalty, but after many years of reflection, I have come to the conclusion that no matter how rotten we feel a person is, we should err on the side of not doing it. There are actually some who are innocent who are sentenced to death. Further, I cannot honestly reconcile the death penalty with other pro-life matters. Maybe it is better to have someone be subjected to a life sentence, able to reflect on his or her past, or at least be confined (which is no picnic). Of course, some will disagree, and I understand those views, but have come to my uneasy decision on the matter. I hope people will think about the issue carefully rather than react with a spirit of vengence and retaliation.

@MT in MD | 7:50 a.m. May 4, 2009

did you miss the part of the article where it talks about the high cost in Texas despite the frequent executions (19 already this year alone)?

Francine | 8:03 a.m. May 4, 2009

To John,

The late Dr. W. Cleon Skousen was a religious extremist, a legal and Constitutional neophyte, and a zealot. You destroy your credibility entirely when you start with that.

In case you hadn't noticed from the confines of your retirement home, we no longer live in "Ancient Israel" and that is a good thing!

Human societies have progressed greatly since ancient Israelites used a silly lottery to identify sinners in their congregations (Jonah1:7,Lev.16:8,1Sam.14:42)!

You think State governments under our current Constitutional structure are subject to corruption, but your Holy Bible documents thousands of years of corruption among religious and political leaders.

I have studied Dr. Skousen's writings, and I assure you he is the LAST person we would ever want to pattern our legal system after!

Instereo | 8:05 a.m. May 4, 2009

You value what you pay for and it appears that Utah values are distorted.

Utah will pay more to execute criminals and do away with many of their appeals inspite of findings around the country about how many mistakes are made in our justice system.

Utah will pay the least amount per student in Education.

Utah will build a soccer stadium but won't pay for children's dental care.

The values of Utah are not only out of step with the Nation, they are out of step with any form of morality. The funny thing is the people pushing these values actually feel they are doing the work of God. I'd say they are out of step with Him.

Anonymous | 8:39 a.m. May 4, 2009

Cost really isn't the issue or like the earlier comment we should shut all prisons and save a bunch of money. It is my simple understanding that putting someone in prison and yes, even the death penalty are meant as a punishment for lawbreakers. A message is sent to society as a whole that also acts as a deterrent for future law breakers who might be on the edge of doing something horrible. It's kind of hard for the death penalty to send that message if it's not administered more quickly. Either way we live in a great state.

Re: Francine | 9:00 a.m. May 4, 2009

I find Dr. Cleon Skousen to be a storehouse of wisdom. To dismiss his ideas out of hand is fooling.

Dr. Skousen was a former FBI agent and constitutional scholar.

Sure, the people of the old testiment were not perfect. Christ changed many of their practices for the better.

Most people have no idea what freedom is, let alone the principles that allow it to exist. If more people read Dr. Skousen's works they would know both.

Values? Come on Instereo | 9:17 a.m. May 4, 2009

I love this bleeding heart appeal. Make the other guys feel like their savages, with no heart, no charity, no modern sensitiblities. Just a bunch of unedcuated, moraless, naives.

But when you peal back the onion on all these arguments, you find the subtler motivations where some nuggets of truth are found.

Pay children's dental? Why should anyone pay for a child's dental exam except for their parents or their relatives. The minute you remove the reponsibility for the care of children form their parents or their extended family and make them dependent on the state is the moment when those children begin to learn that Daddy and mommy and grandma aren't as able, or as loving, or as dependable as the state. You trash dependence on family for dependence on government. The family becomes obsolete. Just a bunch of genetically related people living under the same roof. Bad idea.

Same thing with education. We mandate that students get their education big box schools where repsect, decorum and learning are absent. They would learn a lot more at home. But then the state wouldn't be nanny. Education trashes the family. Again.

Liberal ideas always trash family.

@8:39 a.m. | 9:29 a.m. May 4, 2009

I used to think like you until I got myself educated on the facts of crime and punishment in the US and around the world. You may want to do some research even in parts of the world where it is "done more quickly" or "in public" as someone else suggested their crime rates remain higher then in countries without the death penalty. As far as prison being a deterrent we have the highest incarceration rate in the world and still struggle with a much higher crime rate then those countries with a far smaller percentage of its population in prison (that also have no death penalty). Speaking from experience, we can talk at you tell the cows come home but the only way you will learn the truth is by doing the research and getting educated on the facts.

Anonymous | 9:30 a.m. May 4, 2009

When our justice system is so perfect that we are not releasing people from death row because they were unjustly convicted, we can kill them faster. Won't happen and it shouldn't!

appeals | 9:41 a.m. May 4, 2009

@ Huh? 6:08: Who said the appeals are frivolous? Yes, the prisoner often loses - but that does not in and of itself make them frivolous. Often, real issues are raised which, even if they don't make a change in this particular case, may lead to changes in future cases.

As far as I am aware, none of Utah's death row inmates are claiming they are actually innocent. However, in other states, this is a claim that has frequently been found to be true.

There have also been appeals due to the judge falling asleep, the defense attorney falling asleep, the failure to present information that is relevant to sentencing that may lead to life in prison without parole instead of the death penalty, appeals dealing with mental competency, and the list goes on. Sometimes these appeals are found to have merit, sometimes they are not - but even when they lose they are not frivolous.

Yo! | 9:46 a.m. May 4, 2009

The less killing the better.

Warren Kay | 9:47 a.m. May 4, 2009

I personally find many of us hypocrits. If we want all life spared, should not we also protect the unborn child? If we protect the unborn child, should not we also protect the criminal?

Alex | 9:50 a.m. May 4, 2009

Hypothetically speaking, if the state of Utah has 10 people on death row and 9 of them really did the crime and should be killed (murdered)is it fair to execute that 1 innocent person? Lets say the state of Utah had 1000 people on death row and just 1 of them was innocent, is it fair that the innocent dies? Where this question gets hypothetical, what if youre that one person? Is it worth your life, having committed no crime punishable by death, to have those other 999 people who deserve to be punished by death killed? We all need to remember that we can be that 1 innocent person on death row and we need to walk a mile in their shoes. Anyone remember what happened to death row when DNA testing came out?

Human error its everywhere around us. Humans are very flawed creatures, you find one person that doesnt make a mistake everyday and I say you found a liar.

Anonymous | 9:52 a.m. May 4, 2009

Here is a question I would like some people to answer; what percent of people on death row do you think are truly guilty of the crime they were charged with and will die for? 99.9%, 90%, or 70%.

If I learned one thing in all my time being human, is that, 100% of the people on death row are not guilty of the crime for which they were charged. I am not saying I know what the percent of truly guilty people are, but I know one thing for sure, and that is, that 100% of the people on death row are not guilty and do not deserve to die.

John | 9:57 a.m. May 4, 2009

I am LDS and am staunchly against the death penalty. Clearly it does not deter people from criminal acts, because crimes considered worthy of the death penalty happen everyday. And the cost alone is just not worth it. Think of what we could do with that money if we didn't need so many state attorney's litigating for a death penalty.

But to those who think the solution is to scrap the appeal process, I implore you to read the nonfiction "The Innocent Man" written by John Grisham. Then come back and tell me if you still think the appeals process should be shortcut.

I'd rather let someone sit in prison for a lifetime, because I don't feel comfortable thinking that I may make a mistake and kill an innocent man. How do I justify that to God in the next life? The fact that if would save the state money is icing on the cake.

Here's an idea | 10:17 a.m. May 4, 2009

Anyone who is caught on video or has more than three creditalbe witnesses be sent straight to the table (or Chair). I am not picky. The rest of the appeals cost should be picked up by the families who support them. Is it too much for people to pay for their crimes. And here is another idea, maybe if the law is enforced, people wont break it.

Hatuletoh | 10:30 a.m. May 4, 2009

Do people really pine for the judicial philosophies of Bronze Age Israel? That would be hilarious if it were a joke; it's terrifying because I think these people are serious. And I call decrepit old guys like Orrin Hatch "dinosaurs". I apologize to Mr. Hatch--Dr. Skousen and his advocate Mr. Mallernee are true dinosaurs; Mr. Hatch is no more than a wooly mammoth.

Also, I must point out the irony of someone in a retirement home advocating for a return to the "natural" state of things in Bronze Age Eurasia. The life expectancy in that period was about 40 years.

re: John | 9:57 a.m. | 11:07 a.m. May 4, 2009

John, let's go back in history to October 13, 1988, it was the debate between the two presidential nominees.

Bernard Shaw, the moderator of the debate, asked Dukakis, "Governor, if Kitty Dukakis [his wife] were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?" Dukakis replied, "No, I don't, and I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life", and explained his stance.

John and others would also oppose the death penality, even if as I suspect, the evidence is before their eyes.

Judd | 11:09 a.m. May 4, 2009

To Francine
Apparently you did not understand much of Doctor Cleon Skousans teaching regarding our legal system. Anciet Isreal system was 1000 times better than todays. They had victum rights where damages were paid to the victum not to the lawyers and judges. If you think todays system is better you are just plain crazy. Our jails are so full that 40% of people, in jail are released early because there is no room to keep them. If our sytem was not set up to inrich the lawyers and judges and to keep litagations going on forever we would be much better off. By the way Francine the Leaders of the LDS Church fully supported Cleon Skousan. I know his Son in Law Doctor Glen Kimber very well. Cleon was higlhly regarded by the LDS church authorities.

Common Sense | 11:10 a.m. May 4, 2009

If it is costing tax payers more to execute the worst of our criminals rather than locking the up for life we should be looking into that. At the same time we need to consider the problems with overcrowding and the expenses of maintaining prisons that afford many of the luxaries of home. Prison should be prison. I think lesser offenders could have some small luxaries but the worst of the worst should have nothing but concrete walls to look at all day and bland food!

Life in Prison | 11:15 a.m. May 4, 2009

Anyone who thinks life in prison gives them plenty of time to think about what they did is naive to say the least. These inmates on death row adapt to the life style and give litte thought to the crime they committed.

Brother Chuck Schroeder | 11:27 a.m. May 4, 2009

Now we'll talk about the shoe on the other Utah foot here. Let's see now, against Due Process Of Law, the Utah Attorney General's Office is pushing to strengthen the state's ultimate punishment by limiting the appeals process?. Let's look at this another way now to here. Let's say it was Elder David A. Bednar of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or say even the President of the LDS Church on death roe. would Utah then want them to have due process of law to until they run out of all options and idea's?. YOU BET THEY WOULD. Now why is that?.

RE: Common Sense | 12:13 p.m. May 4, 2009

Since it costs so much to encarcerate criminals, lets turn the prisons into real prisons. Stop giving them so much luxury. A lot of these inmates commit crimes just to get themselves off the streets. They know they'll be taken care of in prison, all at the expense of someone else. Make prison a miserable place to be so that people don't want to be there. that's common sense.

@12;13 p.m. | 12:28 p.m. May 4, 2009

as someone that has worked in corrections I have to ask have if you have ever actually been inside a prison or jail before? if so you would now how stupid you sound

@here's an idea | 12:30 p.m. May 4, 2009

"More then three witnesses" have you ever heard of the Salem witch trials? "the rest of the appeals process should be picked up by the families" so if you are poor and wrongly convicted then to bad?

Supporter of DP | 12:33 p.m. May 4, 2009

I once heard a state prosecutor speak on this very subject, and what he said made a lot of sense. In a few words, he said that the cost of incarceration versus cost of execution discussion is one he regarded as "obscene." Basically, if a jury decides a person deserves the death penalty, the state should be willing to carry it out regardles off the cost. If a jury has decided the person does not deserve the death penalty, the state should be willing to pay the cost of incarcerating that person for life, regardless of the cost.

Frnakly, I think he was right. Whether the death penalty is appropriate is determined by the killer's horrific actions, not whether it would be cheaper to keep him around or execute him now. It is a shame that our legal system shows such regard for the rights of individuals who themselves have shown so little disregard for the rights of others.

dave | 12:37 p.m. May 4, 2009

in the first place the people like Elder Bednar would not do anything close to killing someone in cold blood to deserve the sentence.
I like the idea of having the inmates decide what the want. Life in prison with no parole possible or be put to death. I would let them make that decision any time they want. So after 10 years in prison they say this is not what I want in life lets end it, we would accomodate that. In fact we could let them choose to kill themselves so no one else would feel responsible.
Why do we think that life at any price or condition is what everyone wants? Some of these people may have a conscience and not want to have to live with the guilt and sorrow of their actions.
BTW how many appeals is enough? After two or three is te fifth more instructive? I would think not. If the person is found guilty and sentenced to die, there was very good proof or it wouldn't happen. They would get a lesser sentence.

Mr DJ | 12:43 p.m. May 4, 2009

Ancient Israel did indeed have one or two excellent ideas in regards to criminal justice, and NONE of these good ideas involve the death penalty. Israel utilized banishment. To me, this is the ultimate solution for the real problem people in society. The person is completely removed from society as if they had been executed, and the state no longer bears any financial obligations to their well-being. Unfortunately, there aren't any more Australias to utilize. We do have the West Desert...hmmmmm....
THe other terrific concept in Ancient Israeli criminal justic eis full reimbursement for stolen property. We should make criminals work until they have paid back every cent they took, and their sentence should be indefinite pending repayment, IMHO. Bland food, solitary confinement, and blank concrete walls until they decide to grow up and take responsibility.
As for drug users, they need to be in a rehab program, not prison. (Unless there are criminal actions aside from the drug use itself, of course.)

Re: RE: Common Sense | 12:44 p.m. May 4, 2009

The crime problem in our country is not a result of the comfort level of our prisons - it's a far deeper societal problem. Though prisons are quite a bit better than they were a few hundred years ago, I assure you that they are still pretty miserable places to be.

Most of Europe, which has even more "comfortable" prison systems than America (research "open prisons") has significantly lower rates of crime and recidivism.

Re Supporter of DB | 12:51 p.m. May 4, 2009

You and your state prosecutor are completely disregarding the human factor here.

Why do you think that the prosecution and the defense spend so much time picking a jury? They look for people that tend to look at life their way, and will ignore the actual facts of the case! You think that's fair? Clearly it is not.

Susan S | 1:43 p.m. May 4, 2009

States which have studied costs have found that the bulk of the high costs for a death penalty case come before the "slam of the gavel." Even when accounting for the cost of incarceration, the death penalty is far more costly than life in prison.

Death Penalty | 3:14 p.m. May 4, 2009

Benefits of utilizing the death penalty is, you don't have to guard them from trying to escape & there are no repeat offenders!

doesn't make sense | 3:30 p.m. May 4, 2009

If sticking offenders in prison for life is worse punishemt than the death penalty, why not execute them, it's more humane.

And by the way, since when has justice become a money issue?

An Observer | 4:31 p.m. May 4, 2009

Is this about money or Justice?

and what should the JUSCTICE system be about?

bill schurman | 4:43 p.m. May 4, 2009

As I write this the Colorado legislature is debating to end the death penalty and give the +/- $, 1,000,000 to help solve cold cases and bring closure and justice to the victim's families. They support this along with the ACLU and numerous clergy members. In Colorado there are 2 men on death row and the prosecutors have failed to obtain a death verdict in 99% of their attempts.The state public defenders try most of these cases and are well schooled in how to defend one. All it takes is one person to vote for life and after all the $$ that the prosecutors spend they end up with a life sentence.
The death penalty is but a sham for morally shameless politicians to hide behind.

Mark B | 5:32 p.m. May 4, 2009

Was there anything in particular to make this issue come up again? Or are we just being reminded that the state AG wants to run for governor in part on the backs of executed prisoners? Unless you are the governor of Texas, DP cases would not take a very large percentage of your time.

As for the DP, how many different crimes have allowed this penalty in state history? I don't know, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't at least a dozen. The point is - Why are we so absolutely sure that we NOW FINALLY have got it RIGHT?

magnus | 5:57 p.m. May 4, 2009

It has always seemed strange to me that the same crowd that believes abortion is murder also beleives in swift and merciless capitol punnishment.

Somehow the idea that a developing embryo has consiousness and a right to life, and when one is destroyed it is murder, makes total and complete sense...

But when wrongly accused and convicted adult human beings, (many estimate up 10-20% of death row inmates are wrongly convicted) who also have a right to life, are executed, it seems to have no sway on their consciousness.

I support Life, and there are times when people should die for taking the life of others, but our system is too subjective and corrupted to apply that ultimate form of Justice in good conscience... therefore it should be done away with.

Page:
1
2
Next >

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.