E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSSources says Jared Lee Loughner, the man accused of killing six people and wounding Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in 2011, is set to plead guilty Tuesday. NBC News' Diana Alvear reports.
ANALYSIS
Updated at 4 p.m. ET Aug. 7: The death penalty is often regarded as a relic of a bygone era, invented in a world before prisons, when branding, maiming and flogging were the lesser options. Its role is often debated in a modern world in which incarceration rather than physical pain is the norm.
Wes Oliver is a law professor and director of the Criminal Justice Program at the Duquesne University School of Law. That Jared Lee Loughner, who shot then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., and many others in Tucson early last year, pleaded guilty Tuesday shows why the death penalty may be allowed to linger on the books.
Loughner chose a certain life sentence over the risk of a death sentence. That threat — the potential of facing death — avoided a costly and highly publicized trial, saving the victims and their families from a painful ordeal and the judicial system from expending extraordinary resources.
Without the threat of the death penalty, there likely wouldn't have been a plea deal — no reasonable prosecutor would be willing to risk letting Loughner see the light of day outside a jail cell. And no reasonable defense lawyer would recommend that his client accept the maximum sentence permitted by law.
Stay informed with the latest headlines; sign up for our newsletter
The child sexual abuse case against former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky offers an excellent comparison. With the prosecution unable to offer anything more — or less — than a life sentence, the defense could do nothing other than recommend that Sandusky roll the dice, because there was no downside to letting the jury decide.
Loughner risked a very different outcome if he didn't reach an agreement that eliminated his risk of execution.
From the prosecution's perspective, a life sentence achieves many of the goals of a death sentence. An effective life sentence — whether it is phrased as a life sentence, several life sentences or a sentence of several hundred years —is no lenient alternative to death.
And such a sentence protects society. Our penal institutions are capable of detaining men on death row for many years, meaning those prisons can hold similar men into their geriatric years.
There are also financial advantages to life sentences. Counterintuitively, life sentences are typically cheaper than death sentences because of the greater complexity of capital cases.
Opponents of the death penalty contend that it legitimizes violence, but it offers substantial incentives for defendants to reach agreements that avoid extraordinarily expensive and psychologically taxing trials. The criminal justice system's strong interest in such alternatives may mean the death penalty lingers long after there's a consensus that there's a better way to punish violent criminals.
More content from NBCNews.com:
Leave a Comment:
There should be only one reason to keep this piece of sheet alive that is put him in a cell with Bubba who loves to give anal sex and receive oral sex anytime Bubba would like it. After Bubba to pay for the costs of keeping this low life scum bag alive would be have him become a pleasure worker in the prison for the other inmates 50 times a day whereby they would have their choice of either receiving oral sex from him or giving him anal sex or anything else they would like to use him for sexual purposes at $1 per shot. Let's see how long this monster keeps that stupid ass grin on his face. Maybe in 40 years he might have some remorse for all the harm he did and would wish he received the death penalty. When other idiots like him see the sentence they would receive they could think twice about the horrible deeds they do. They should also do the same thing to the jerk off who shot up the movie theater.
Death penalty is garbage disposal only. Murderer gets "life" but in 40 years gets released for one reason or another. The problem with death penalty is that the funding is unlimited and seems to feed a host of law firms for the 10-20 years of appeals which are created by the defense lawyers and tax payer must absorb another one of these costs which cannot be understood or argued by the tax payer. Death penalty should be mandatory for 1st degree murder and some other crimes. It works in many countries (i.e. the killer does not ever go free) and may even offer some deterant factoring. One knows that in Saudi Arabi, selling drugs and murder is a death penalty offense, same in Singapore. Now that America has broken down all of the laws and punishments which originally were designed to protect its citizens, why even charge the murderers? they will probably do better to have the congresswoman read to them a book about tranquility. Glad i moved out of the crime ridden united states.
Joe
I am glad that you are not in the United States also. Do not come back regardless of how bad the country you moved to is. If you do not appreciate the freedoms this country offers f u
He doesn't to deserve to live. Nuke Him!
pro life and pro death penalty is not a conflict. pro life stands against killing the innocent. (who could kill a baby, held one lately?). pro death penalty stands for putting to death violent criminals who are guilty of harming others. protect the innocent, justice for the quilty. I think we need to get back to the basics in our society. These "progressives" or "enlightened ones" are confusing our society.
The only bargan that would be excepted, would be if the defence, take full responabilty for this person, and Must take him into their home, to live with their families. This should lesson the plea, to keep him alive. Anyone who kills for the thrill of it, should have the same thrill, of him being killed. If he is allowed to live, while the people he killed, and didn't have a choise, to choose, should be avendged to the most extreem. If he is allowed to live, it will be a blow to our culture.
We kill creatures that kill people, WHY should we reward people who kill people. prison, or hospitals, is like hatels, with no rent, taxes, free food, all the comforts of home. This is on punishment at all. If we can do it to other creatures, of the wild, and at home, why not the human killers of today. If there is a doute of innocent, then allow them to go to jail. Without a dout of innocents, KILL them like thay killed the innocent.
"Analysis: How death penalty can be a bargaining chip"
Duh. This needs to be analyzed?
Death or not is not relevant. The appeals alone would stretch over 20 years. In this case we avoided a media circus - a month long trial held to make money for the networks and not justice. Now all we have will be the "what if" book writers.
If something is broken and can't be fixed, then it is time to throw it away. In cases like this where there is absolutely no doubt of guilt, the death penalty is apropos. Terminate it in the most timely and cost effective manor, and cover it in dirt. No sense wasting more money on it.
In EVERY law school in the world you would be extremely hard pressed to find ONE opinion that Capitol Punishment deters crime.
It does not.
And as a reference: How is that conveyer belt to executions working out in deterring crime in Texas?
It does not.
I know... Your BIBLE tells you and eye for an eye.
Isn't it funny that the one I read tells me in another chapter to turn and offer the other cheek as well?
Capitol Punishment has NEVER worked and it NEVER will. But it's obvious to a few here that what works is not what is important. What is important is revenge.
I love how most people in a public forum scream the loudest for swift and absolute justice. Forget the trials! Hang Em! But are not the least bit hesitant to hire me in private to get them off from what every THEY are accused of doing.
I laugh. All the way to the bank.
What's the difference between a lawyer and a catfish? One's a scum sucking, bottom feeding scavenger and the other's a fish. By the way counselor I woulden't hire you to defend me for a parking ticket as you're too dumb to google "death penalty deterrance university studies." If you were smart enough to do some research you would discover that every study in the last 40 years has found a deterrant effect to capital punishment. By the way re Texas anybody with an IQ over 100 knows in statistics you don't compare apples to oranges.
The US is supposedly "one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." One of the Ten Commandments is "Thou shalt not kill." But perhaps Moses forgot to write down the exemption for state governments?
forgot that separation of church and state again, did ya?
The death penalty costs more than life without parole. The death penalty does not deter crime. The death penalty does not serve any usefulness other than retribution. The criminal is locked up and can do do more harm to society why do we care what happens to them after this? Why do we want to waste our money on lawyers?
Anyone found guilty beyond reasonable doubt should just be taken to the back of the courtroom and put a bullet in the head right then and there. You save money on jails and there is no way he will recommit the crime. All good....
The people of Arizona can stop paying taxes now as they don't have to pay for that jerks care. He should be shot multiple times two shots in each arm, two shots in each leg, 15 shots in the torso, and 5 shots to the head. Let him feel each one till the last shot to the head. For under $100.00 the execution can take place. That beats supporting the jerk for the rest of his life. That would be justice not what they are planning. He should be just as dead as the people he killed, especially the little 9 year old that was just beginning to learn from her mentor. To hell with that jerk ----- SOON TOO.
No, the death penalty isn't a deterrant. But it will make darned sure this fellow doesn't do this again. Because if you believe the death penalty won't affect the acts of a person like this, you must mean this person doesn't think like a normal human. In which case, he would do it again given the change. The death penalty will also keep the people of Arizona from having to spend millions to support him for the rest of his life, educate him, medicate him, entertain him. And when he's 60 or so, when the tragedy of the actual victims has dimmed for everyone but the families, the do-gooders will decide he needs to be set free. That he's the victim. That's what the death penalty prevents.
lent google death penalty deterrance university studies and you will surprise surprise discover that capital punishment does deter murderers.
There have been studies that have shown data to support your claim however those studies are highly in question.
I would never assume it as a deterrent unless it was used swiftly, and in a manner in which criminals would see.
But, alas our bleeding hearts of this country prefer violent criminals be locked up for life with some of the worst of the worst without ever seeing much daylight while being succumb to prison societies that breed more harden criminals and produce more crime on the outside (e.g. gang leaders giving commands).
Yes, let's torture the worst of the worst for life. That's a much better answer.
The studies are "in question" by the anti-death penalty crowd for idealogical reasons. As far as statisticians and economists are concerned the deterrant effect of capital punishment is settled science. It is a deterrant. The questioners are lawyers, sociologists, priests, politicians and psychiatrists who are well practiced in the art of twisting facts for personal enrichment and to further their idealogy.
I guess you folks that want the death penalty so bad just can't add. Once again folks do the math or maybe you failed this subject. It costs more than twice as much to execute someone that life without parole. Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year. The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year. I like the math from my perspective.
Wow... not hard to see the agenda in this article at all.
Did this reporter actually talk to ALL of the victims and family members before making this gross assumption?
Our penal institutions are the largest in the world with over 2,000,000 prisoners locked up and that number is growing. There is also data that clearly shows that not all of these death row convicts stay locked up. Probably should have done a little research into that before making such a bold statement. I'm not disagreeing that the majority stays locked up, but to give the impression otherwise... is not true at all.
I don't disagree with this at all. Because the process in which DP convictions occur are grossly expensive and stretched out for years. Add that to the appeals process. The system doesn't work, because the system is broke.
Ah yes, this argument I absolutely enjoy. The anti-DP nut crowd loves this argument. It is better to lock someone up for life, in an institution full of rapists, murderers, thieves and predators. Only to endure years of torment while stuck in a dark 9 x 12 cell with an hour at the most to see daylight every day. Sometimes, never. The anti-DP without a doubt supports torture... and that's the REAL irony with these folks.
The only problem with the death sentence is lawyers and appeals courts.
If you are convicted by a jury and found guilty you should have no recourse for appeal, unless very hard evidence comes up VERY
quickly after the sentence.
If this were adhered to, the death penalty would be very just and very cheap compared to life in prison.
Wes Oliver, you have got to be kidding. Your opening line about the death penalty sounds like it belongs in A Clockwork Orange. How did you ever become the director of a Criminal Justice Program. You ought to be called the director of the Criminal Protection Program. It seems to me that your notion of justice is to help criminals avoid the just penalty of their crime. You describe the death penalty as barbaric and outdated. Such a mindset belittles the victims of murderers and shows a dumbfounding disregard for the value that their existence held. The death penalty is the only acceptable justice in this case. There is no question that he did it. The man was mentally competent enough to live in society for years and to plan and execute his massacre. He even admits that he was wrong and shows understanding of the severity of his actions. You have deluded yourself into thinking that you are helping humanity find a better way to administer justice, but in reality you are just denying it's rightful due. The death penalty brings about an end that allows the family to put aside thoughts of revenge that can continue to destroy their life if the guilty is allowed to live. That kind of closure is worth every penny that the state spends in carrying out the sentence. It also brings a definite end to the crimes of the guilty and removes all possibility of further crime. And it avoids the economical cost of keeping these monsters alive for years and years. Your way of thinking is illogical and irrational.
This is BS. The death penalty is a deterrent. But, it's ugly business that our judicial system doesn't want dirty their hands with. Lethal injection is boo ha ha, too. Hanging, the long drop would be the best. In public.
The only trouble, as I see it and it's a big one. Is the corrupt or inept, judicial system, condemning the wrong man. That's why I'm against it.
In this case, it should be open and shut, step up on the gallows you murdering cur. Showing the public, this is what happens when you do stuff like this.
Within a year of conviction too, stop this silly appeals process that only benefits the attorneys involved.
It should not cost "extraordinary resources" to remove from our planet someone who is so obviously convicted of such a horrible crime. There should be no legal maneuvers available when there is no argument that the guy did commit the crime. Not looking for a deterrent effect - just a removal effect.
There is no such thing as a "reasonable" defense lawyer in this case. These lawyers get too caught up in the letter of the law and miss the intent. It is such lawyers who have set our justice system up with barrier after barrier and a lengthy appeals process that ends up costing more when in cases like this one, it really shouldn't.
Well, it lines their pocket$ in the proce$$.
I'm not much on the death sentence, but there should be some equality between the sentences of those who murder. It just doesn't seem very just to let this guy live and to kill the people in Texas who commit a single murder. If there are two planned out murders, either both should be put to death, or neither should be put to death. And this doesn't take into account the fact that wealthy murderers are almost never put to death.
I'll say it again....death is too good for a piece of sh*t; death brings peace. Prison involves a lot more suffering, especially if someone bigger than you thinks you're cute.
Mass murderers and serial child molesters need to die for their crimes. Cut the BS and fire up old Sparky and lets have a good old fashioned execution. This guy is as guilty as you can get and there is absolutely no doubt that he was the gunman. What are you waiting for? FRY HIM!
I've always thought having the death penalty on the books is a great idea for exactly this reason. Also the most horrific scumbags can be put to death.... Scumbags who have molested, raped, and murdered children or many people deserve to no longer breathe the same air we do.
There is always the best option: Popping a cap in a mofo when you catch up to them.
If you think the death penalty should be kept on the books as a bargaining chip, why not also have the possibility of torture to use as a bargaining chip? Plead guilty, or we might convict you and have someone use a cattle prod on your genitals. Plead guilty, or we might convict you and have you suspended with your arms behind your back until your shoulders are pulled out of their sockets.
Do you see why "so we can use it as a bargaining chip" isn't a sufficient justification for retaining any particular punishment?