Arguments Against Death Penalty
Summary
TLDRIn the episode of 'Face the States,' Arianna Bennett discusses the debate surrounding the death penalty in Nevada. Nancy Hart, president of a Nevada coalition against the death penalty, argues for its abolition, citing the organization's 16-year educational mission to highlight flaws in capital punishment. Hart emphasizes the financial burden, inefficiency, and potential for racial and economic bias in its application. She also addresses victim families' perspectives, noting a growing number oppose the death penalty for its lack of healing. The conversation touches on the possibility of life without parole as an alternative and the changing public opinion in Nevada.
Takeaways
- 🗣️ The debate is about whether to abolish the death penalty in Nevada, with Nancy Hart representing the Nevada coalition against it.
- 📚 The Coalition has been active since 2002, focusing on educating the public and policymakers about the flaws of the death penalty.
- 🏛️ To abolish the death penalty, a legislative bill would be required to repeal Nevada's law, but there are also indirect ways such as juries being less inclined to impose death sentences.
- 📉 There is a national trend of a decline in the number of executions and new death sentences, which is also observed in Nevada.
- 🚫 The Coalition does not handle litigation but follows court cases related to the death penalty.
- 🏛️ The Supreme Court once ruled the death penalty unconstitutional in 1972, but later allowed it under certain circumstances; the Coalition hopes for a return to the original ruling.
- 🤔 The Coalition has diverse opinions on why the death penalty should be abolished, including moral, philosophical, and practical concerns such as racial and economic bias.
- 💰 The death penalty is financially costly, with Clark County in Nevada having a high number of pending death penalty cases, putting a significant burden on the state and county.
- 🔒 The Coalition does not prescribe an alternative punishment but acknowledges life without parole as a severe penalty available in Nevada.
- 🔄 Some victims' families seek closure through the death penalty, but there is a growing number who oppose it, believing it does not promote healing.
- 📊 Public opinion on the death penalty may be shifting, with comprehensive polling suggesting a decline in support when alternatives like life without parole are presented.
Q & A
What is the primary focus of the Nevada Coalition Against the Death Penalty?
-The Nevada Coalition Against the Death Penalty primarily focuses on educating the public and policymakers about the flaws and bad public policy they believe the death penalty represents.
How long has the Nevada Coalition Against the Death Penalty been active?
-The Coalition has been active since 2002, making it over 16 years old at the time of the interview.
What is the most direct way to abolish the death penalty in Nevada according to the script?
-The most direct way to abolish the death penalty in Nevada is through a bill in the legislature to repeal Nevada's law regarding the death penalty.
What is a national trend mentioned in the script regarding juries and the death penalty?
-A national trend mentioned is that juries are becoming less inclined to impose death sentences, which contributes to a decline in new death sentences.
Does the Nevada Coalition Against the Death Penalty handle any litigation related to the death penalty?
-No, the Coalition is an educational organization and advocacy group and does not get involved in litigation.
What was the Supreme Court's stance on the death penalty in 1972 according to the script?
-In 1972, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional.
What is the Coalition's view on the current constitutionality of the death penalty?
-The Coalition believes that the death penalty is still unconstitutional and would urge the Supreme Court to reaffirm this stance.
What are some of the troubling aspects of the death penalty implementation mentioned in the script?
-Troubling aspects include racial and economic bias in the application of the death penalty, arbitrary and disproportionate sentencing, and the high financial cost to maintain the system.
What is the Coalition's position on the alternative penalty for murder if the death penalty is abolished?
-The Coalition does not take a position on what the alternative penalty should be, but acknowledges that life without parole is a severe penalty currently on the books in Nevada.
How does the script address the issue of victim family members seeking closure through the death penalty?
-The script suggests that not all victim family members believe the death penalty promotes healing, and an increasing number of them speak out against it for this reason.
What is the concern from the prosecuting side regarding the removal of the death penalty as a sentencing option?
-The concern is that without the death penalty, the highest available punishment would be life without parole, which could lead to a shift downward in sentencing severity for all crimes.
Is there evidence to suggest that removing the death penalty would lead to fewer serious homicide prosecutions resulting in life without parole sentences?
-The script indicates that there is no evidence to suggest that the removal of the death penalty would lead to fewer life without parole sentences, and it might actually result in those who would have been eligible for death being sentenced to life without parole instead.
What does the script suggest about public opinion on the death penalty in Nevada?
-The script suggests that public opinion in Nevada may be shifting, with more comprehensive polling indicating a decline in support for the death penalty when alternatives like life without parole are presented.
What is the importance of transparency according to the script regarding the death penalty?
-The script emphasizes the importance of maintaining transparency around the death penalty process because it is being done in the name of the public.
Outlines
📜 Abolishing the Death Penalty in Nevada
In this segment, Arianna Bennett interviews Nancy Hart, president of a Nevada coalition against the death penalty. Nancy discusses the coalition's efforts since 2002 to educate the public and policymakers about the flaws in the death penalty system. She explains the legislative process required to repeal the death penalty in Nevada, which involves introducing a bill in the state legislature. Nancy also notes a national trend of juries being less inclined to impose death sentences, effectively reducing new death penalty cases. The coalition, however, does not engage in litigation but focuses on education and advocacy. The conversation highlights the historical context, including the Supreme Court's 1972 ruling that the death penalty was unconstitutional, and the coalition's hope for a similar ruling in the future.
🛡️ Life Without Parole as an Alternative to the Death Penalty
The discussion continues with the exploration of life without parole as a severe alternative to the death penalty in Nevada. Nancy Hart clarifies that while the coalition does not dictate what the highest penalty should be, life without parole is a severe punishment and is already an option in the state. She points out the irony that death penalty cases often result in life imprisonment due to the lengthy appeals process and the current inability to carry out executions. Nancy addresses the inefficiency and high costs associated with pursuing the death penalty, including the financial burden on counties like Clark County, which has a high number of pending death penalty cases. The conversation also touches on the varying opinions of victims' families, with some seeking closure through the death penalty and others finding the process does not promote healing.
🔍 Shifts in Public Opinion and the Impact on Sentencing
In the final paragraph, Nancy Hart discusses the potential impact of abolishing the death penalty on sentencing, refuting the idea that it would lead to more lenient sentences for murderers. She argues that there is no evidence to suggest that the absence of the death penalty would result in fewer life without parole sentences, as Nevada already has a significant number of such cases. Hart also addresses concerns that the death penalty serves as a deterrent for prosecutors, countering that comprehensive polling indicates a decline in public support for capital punishment when alternatives like life without parole are presented. She senses a shift in public opinion in Nevada and believes that more comprehensive polling would reflect a similar trend as seen nationally. The segment concludes with a call for public awareness and transparency in the state's use of the death penalty.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Death Penalty
💡Abolition
💡Nevada Coalition Against the Death Penalty
💡Legislature
💡Juries
💡Supreme Court
💡Constitutional
💡Racial Bias
💡Economic Bias
💡Life Without Parole
💡Victims' Families
💡Public Opinion
Highlights
Introduction of Nancy Hart, president of a Nevada coalition against the death penalty.
The Coalition has been active since 2002, focusing on educating the public and policymakers about the flaws of the death penalty.
Process to abolish the death penalty in Nevada involves legislative action, including a bill to repeal the law.
A decline in death sentences and executions is observed nationally and in Nevada, indicating a shift in attitudes.
The Coalition does not handle litigation but follows court cases related to the death penalty.
Historical context provided on the Supreme Court's rulings regarding the constitutionality of the death penalty.
The Coalition advocates for the Supreme Court to reconsider its stance on the death penalty's constitutionality.
Diverse opinions within the Coalition, ranging from moral to practical concerns about the death penalty.
Concerns about racial and economic biases in the application of the death penalty.
Disproportionate sentencing and the burden on the state and county from a cost perspective.
The inefficiency of the death penalty system, with many cases pending and few executions carried out.
The Coalition does not prescribe an alternative to the death penalty but acknowledges life without parole as a severe penalty.
The financial cost of pursuing the death penalty, with Clark County spending millions on pending cases.
Victim family members' perspectives on the death penalty are not uniform, with some opposing it for lack of closure.
The potential impact of abolishing the death penalty on the severity of other sentences is discussed.
Public opinion on the death penalty in Nevada is suggested to be shifting, with more comprehensive polling indicating a decline in support.
The importance of transparency and public awareness in the application of the death penalty.
Transcripts
[Music]
welcome back to face the states I'm
Arianna Bennett thank you for staying
with us well in the last segment you
heard the arguments for keeping the best
of the death penalty in Nevada now we'll
switch to the other side of the issue
those working to have it abolished Nancy
Hart president of a Nevada coalition
against the death penalty is here for
that Nancy thank you so much for coming
on the show
my pleasure so your Coalition is
actively working to get this abolished
how long have you been working on that
the Coalition has existed since 2002 so
we've been around for 16 years a little
more than 16 years and have been
educating about the issue and and for a
nonprofit organization that seeks
primarily to educate members of the
public and others policy makers around
the flaws and and bad public policy that
we believe the death penalty is so if it
were to happen how how would the process
work to get it abolished well the the
it's provide abort for in Nevada law so
in order to repeal that law you would
have to have a bill in the legislature
to repeal Nevada's law as a practical
matter that's the the most direct way of
getting rid of the death penalty but in
reality there are other ways in which
the death penalty shows a decline and
that's true around the country but it's
also true in in Nevada that you can have
juries who are less inclined to impose
death sentences and that's part of a
national trend that we're finding you
can also have a decline in the number of
executions that are carried out and of
course if juries are imposing it less
than you have a decline in new death
sentences so that's not necessarily
getting rid of the death penalty but it
does effectively get you know it lowers
the amount of cases that are subject to
the death penalty and then there's also
going through the court system is that
something that you guys do we do not
handle any litigation no we are as I say
an educational organization and advocacy
group we don't get involved in
litigation other than to follow it yeah
now at one point the Supreme Court did
rule that the death penalty was
unconstitutional
and then you know it went back on that
decision do you see the
swinging back in the other direction
well certainly that's one of the things
that we would hope for is a that was the
United States Supreme Court as you're
mentioning back in 1972 they ruled that
it was unconstitutional and you know we
hold that that decision is still correct
and although the Supreme Court a few
years later said that it was okay under
certain circumstances in certain you
know certain procedural limitations we
believe that it still is
unconstitutional and we would urge the
supreme court to find that it can also
be found by state supreme courts to be
unconstitutional under state law and
again you can have legislators repealing
it so there are some avenues through the
courts as well as through the
legislature for getting rid of it so
what's your group's primary argument for
why this should go away I'm not sure
that we have a primary argument you know
we're a group of people that and and
organizations that have a range of
opinions all of us are opposed to that
probably obviously that's our name but
some come from a moral standpoint or a
philosophical standpoint of being
opposed under any circumstances and I
think we also have members who approach
this on the fact that there might be an
issue that they have learned about
there's many ways in which the death
penalty is implemented that are quite
troubling everything from racial bias
and economic bias in the application of
the death penalty to arbitrary and
disproportionate sentencing that happens
even from among counties for example in
Nevada Clark County has an enormous
number of filings and no other county in
the state has anywhere near the number
of filings even at all or in relation to
their population and in fact Clark
County has that I think the highest
number of pending cases in any of any
county in the country at this point far
higher than other counties that
historically have had high death cases
Maricopa County in Arizona Riverside
County in California her
County in Texas all of those counties
show a dramatic reduction in how many
cases they have pending and we have over
60 cases filed in Clark County that are
pending at the trial level right now
which is staggering and it puts a huge
burden on the state and the county from
a cost standpoint so that's another
reason that some people oppose the death
penalty is because it's it's extremely
financially costly to maintain
so then is the position of the coalition
that the highest penalty for murder
should be life without parole I mean we
don't take a position on what it should
be but we but that certainly is on the
books in Nevada and and that is a very
severe penalty because you lose you know
you're gonna live the rest of your days
in prison which ironically is pretty
much what happens if you have the death
penalty these days because you aren't
executed because the only people that
are executed are those who who want to
die like mr. Dozier who has given up his
Appeals and of course even in that case
we do have an inability to do it because
the drugs don't exist
so so it's an inefficiency is a big part
of the issue inefficiency is for some a
very compelling issue we spend an
enormous amount of money again Clark
County is spending millions of dollars
to prosecute those 60 cases that are
pending and ultimately for a very futile
system because we're not actually
executing individuals so it's a very
costly costly process for a for no
outcome now we've heard you know from
families of victims before when the
death penalty comes up that that for
them the death penalty is closure you
know something horrific has been done to
their family and they don't want this
person existing you know in their space
anymore how do you reconcile that if the
death penalty comes off the table
actually I think what's interesting is
to realize that not all victims family
members have the same voice and there
are actually a an increasing number of
family members of homicide victims who
speak out against the death penalty
because they believe it will not promote
healing for them or their family members
and so I think that it's very it's
impossible to say that all victims have
the same experience so while there might
be some victim family members who would
say that it would bring closure for them
one we don't we don't really follow how
victim family members feel ten years
afterwards and whether or not they
actually get closure but I also think
you need to look at the larger victim
family victim family member
population because of course the death
penalty is supposed to be reserved for
the worst of the worst but we have lots
of other homicide homicides in the in
the state who have family member vicked
UM's who are victims who have family
members and they have suffered traumatic
loss through violent crime these there's
no nice murder and I think that we need
to design a system that addresses the
needs of all victims of violent crime
all victims of all family members of
victims of homicide part of the concern
that we hear from the prosecuting side
of this is that having the death penalty
on the table provides a tool in the
toolbox that they can they can pursue
you know the highest punishment and then
you know everything beyond that is is
lesser and so then everything shifts
downward almost like you know if they
can't pursue the death penalty anymore
the highest they can pursue is life
without parole then fewer people will
get the highest so you know and then
everything just kind of shifts down and
so we're more lenient with sentences
basically do you see any issue with
something like that knowing that what
they're saying is then in some cases
someone who commits a murder could end
up getting parole and you know or more
of them could end up getting close not
at all I think that that is actually a
there's no evidence to suggest that
there would be any fewer serious
homicide prosecutions that would result
in life without parole sentences we have
an enormous number of them already in
this state and I don't see why there
would be any any real drop in in those
as what you might see is that the people
who would be otherwise eligible for
death would be sentenced to life without
parole
as I say is a very serious penalty that
cannot be you know you're not out on
parole and I don't think it translates
down to some homicide perpetrators
getting getting off when they wouldn't
when they wouldn't have otherwise
qualified for a lesser sentence for some
other reason okay now there have been
you know a lot of different arguments
for and against this what about you know
public opinion here in Nevada previously
has been fairly pro death penalty do you
sense that changing at all and do you
think that it matters I do sense it
changing and I think the you know it
depends on if you look at national
polling you know I don't think we've
done any real thorough polling within
Nevada we've had some what I would call
superficial polls where someone has
asked a simple question do you support
the death penalty yes or no and those
polls around the country tend to come
out yet in favor of the death penalty
but when you ask in a more comprehensive
way do you support the death penalty if
you know that the there is also a
sentence of life without parole the
numbers drop dramatically and if you
offer in a poll do you support the death
penalty if you know that there's life
without parole and some way of providing
restitution to victims the support drops
below fifty percent so I have every
reason to believe that in Nevada that
same kind of comp more comprehensive
polling would result in that kind of
those kinds of results I don't think
Nevadans are any different than Ohioans
or or Kansans or people from wherever
around the country and I think that the
national polling does reveal that there
is a declining trend and I have every
reason to believe that that is part of
that okay well we have just under a
minute left is there anything else that
you would want the public to know about
this well I think one thing that a that
it's important is that we need to that
the public is should be concerned about
this issue and should be following this
issue and
a right to know what's going on our
state is killing people in the and if
we're in the business of killing people
I think that we need to know we need to
maintain transparency around how it's
being done and and and that's a really
important part of maintaining a death
penalty is that it be something that the
public can follow because it's being
done in their names okay Nancy thank you
so much for your time I sure appreciate
it thank you well that is it for this
episode of face the state but for more
information on this or to see past
episodes you can just head to our
website
that's kim TBN comm thank you so much
for being with us we'll see you next
week
Посмотреть больше похожих видео
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)