Reply #31: There are rare cases where it is justified

[geniph]

but they are quite rare. I believe it should be used the way it is in the state of Washington, rather than, say, the way the state of Texas uses it. We have it here, but it is very, VERY rarely used, and only in the most egregious cases. One example was Charles Campbell, who escaped from prison and murdered two of the chief witnesses in the original case against him. That case strikes at the very heart of our judicial system; someone like Campbell is more than a danger to individuals; he's a danger to jury trials and jurors everywhere.

This state executes someone about once every five to ten years, as opposed to states that execute over a hundred every year. (Stats: Since 1981, 25 men have been convicted and sentenced to death. Four have had their judgments reversed by the federal courts, 2 have had their sentences reversed by the Washington State Supreme Court, and 3 have been executed.) Mass capital punishment doesn't serve as a deterrent (it becomes too common to even be memorable), and pretty much guarantees that you're executing some innocent people.

One argument in favor of retaining it, even if it's almost never used, is the Gary Ridgeway case (the Green River murderer). Because he knew he'd be facing the death penalty unless he made a deal, he agreed to give prosecutors information on bodies that hadn't been found and some that hadn't been identified. He would not have done this had the death penalty not been hanging over his head. Thus, some families were given a closure they would not otherwise have had. Many people are outraged that Ridgeway will not now face the death penalty, but I think the prosecutors made the right decision in that case. Still, it has to be there as an implied threat in order for a deal like that to happen.