Hey!
Did you know that there are more people on death row from Philadelphia than any other part of the state? That fact is courtesy of District Attorney Lynne Abraham, who aggressively seeks the death penalty whenever possible. I just posted an article to It's Our Money that looks at the financial cost of seeking so many capital convictions. Here is a little taste:
There are 222 people on death row in Pennsylvania. Of that group, 116 are from Philadelphia. No other city or county in the state comes close to our numbers. It's true that Philadelphia has the largest population, but that doesn't completely explain why our city is so well represented on death row. Prosecutors in Philadelphia seek the death penalty at a much higher rate than other parts of the state. For example, prosecutors in Pittsburgh seek the death penalty about one fourth as much as their counterparts in our city.
Deciding to seek the death penalty-- and paying the extra costs associated with that choice-- is completely up to discretion of prosecutors. Lynne Abraham strongly supports capital punishment and uses her office as a tool to implement that policy. As a result, Philadelphia taxpayers wind up paying a higher tab to prosecute death penalty cases than people in other parts of the state.
You can read the entire article by clicking here.
Great story
It is important to remember that every dollar wasted on showy death penalty cases (for example the guy who shot the police officer decades ago) are resources taken away from other cases. Its money that could be focused on going after violent criminals, eliminating the back log of destitute sitting in jails on minor crimes, etc.
I'm sure jennifer will make this point much more emphatically any minute now.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
My father-in-law's response
My father-in-law complains bitterly about people disliking Lynne Abraham for her use of the death penalty. Specifically, he says that Abraham is, in his words, 'only being a smart prosecutor' by asking for the maximum applicable penalty under the law, so that the full range of penalties are available. In his words, she's only applying the Commonwealth's laws as written.
To me, this still doesn't make her any less bloodthirsty than she seems to be. And, on a purely practical level, since it has been amply demonstrated that the death penalty *DOES NOT WORK,* why should the government even be involved with something which is barbaric, ineffective, and expensive to boot.
-Z
My understanding
is that she turns cartwheels to make cases death-eligible.
Though I agree that your dad is stating the reasons she does this--to get the greatest range of penalties, or, more accurately to increase the likelihood of a plea bargain as people are scared of taking a chance on trial when the death penalty is on the table--this isn't just simply "applying the Commonwealth's laws." I understand that she finds aggravating factors so that she can claim a case as death-eligible, where the facts arguably don't really support that. There's been a lot of reporting on this.
it's a dumb law too
maybe it is her job, but the death penalty is morally wrong. and an ineffective tool for deterring crime.
This would be interesting data
What proportion of cases that are ruled death-eligible eventually lead to plea bargains, and what proportion go to a death penalty trial?
If the death penalty is functionally a way to get defendants to plead out, then presumably that would be a huge portion -- say 80 or 90 percent. If it's a low number, then either 1) that logic doesn't really work and/or 2) the DA is pursuing the death penalty for some other reason.
As far as I know
this NY Times magazine article is the source of the "deadliest DA" tag.
I don't know about precise empiric studies on that point; it would take some digging. But that data is likely around, because I know Philadelphia death penalty cases have repeatedly been studied (there was a comprehensive late-90s studies on race and capital cases).
I forgot: the other reason she does it is to get "death qualified" (read: tougher) juries.
She decides.....
Just to be clear, the use of the death penalty is completely up to the prosecutor. There are DA's in major cities across the country who have chosen not to use capital punishment as a tool in their arsenal. For example, the District Attorney in both Manhattan and Brooklyn have made a decision not to use the death penalty. Given that crime has steadily been decreasing in New York City, the argument that law enforcement officials need capital punishment seems to not have a great deal of merit.
It's even simpler
The fact that violent crime rates have *increased* since the death penalty was re-enacted is even more evidence that the argument that law enforcement officials need capital punishment has no merit. Simply put, it has no deterrent value; if it had, crime would have gone down, rather than up. The fact that it remains on the books despite this fact suggests that our criminal justice system has become the official revenge system.
Kill 'em all, right?
-Z