The Death Penalty Debate

Summary

In this video, two legal experts debate the merits of the death penalty. Robert Blacker, a criminal law professor, argues for its necessity, citing justice and retribution as key reasons, while acknowledging the potential for executing innocent individuals. Steve Greenwald, a lawyer with death penalty experience, advocates for its abolition, citing racial and economic disparities, the lack of deterrence, and the high risk of error. Both discuss the impact of the death penalty on the broader criminal justice system.

Takeaways

• 📚 Robert Blacker is a criminal law professor and constitutional history teacher at New York Law School.
• 🔒 He has spent thousands of hours in maximum-security prisons and on death rows, interviewing convicted killers.
• ⚖️ Blacker supports the death penalty as a form of retributive justice, believing some people deserve to die for their crimes.
• 🔎 He identifies two groups as the 'worst of the worst': cold, callous killers and sadistic serial killers who derive pleasure from their crimes.
• 🤔 Blacker acknowledges the possibility of mistakenly executing innocent people but argues the ratio of error is small compared to the need for justice.
• 🏛️ He suggests that racial disparities in the death penalty can be reduced by redefining the criteria for the worst crimes.
• 👨‍⚖️ Steve Greenwald is a New York lawyer who has worked on death penalty cases for over 20 years.
• ❌ Greenwald opposes the death penalty and advocates for its abolition in the United States.
• 🌍 He argues that the death penalty contributes to the harshness of the U.S. criminal justice system compared to other democratic countries.
• 🚫 Greenwald states that studies show the death penalty is not a deterrent and shares personal experiences that support this view.
• 🔍 He points out the unequal application of the death penalty along racial and economic lines and the high risk of errors leading to the execution of innocent individuals.

Q & A

Who is Robert Blacker and what is his stance on the death penalty?

Robert Blacker is a criminal law professor and constitutional history teacher at New York Law School. He supports the death penalty, believing that some people deserve to die and that society has an obligation to execute them.

What is the main reason Robert Blacker gives for supporting the death penalty?

Robert Blacker supports the death penalty as a form of retribution, arguing that justice is served by executing those who have committed heinous crimes.

What are the two groups of criminals that Robert Blacker considers 'the worst of the worst'?

The two groups Robert Blacker identifies as 'the worst of the worst' are the cold, callous, and wanton killers who feel nothing, and the sadistic serial killers who derive thrill and exhilaration from the suffering of their victims.

What are the two main arguments against the death penalty mentioned in the script?

The two main arguments against the death penalty mentioned are the possibility of mistakenly executing innocent people and the racial bias in its application.

How does Robert Blacker address the concern of potentially executing innocent people?

Robert Blacker acknowledges the horrifying possibility of executing innocent people but argues that the ratio of such errors is small compared to the number of cases where justice is served, suggesting that the death penalty is still worth it despite the risk.

What is Steve Greenwald's profession and his view on the death penalty?

Steve Greenwald is a lawyer in New York with experience in death penalty cases. He is firmly opposed to the death penalty and believes it should be abolished in the United States.

According to Steve Greenwald, how does the death penalty influence the overall criminal justice system in the United States?

Steve Greenwald suggests that the death penalty sets a precedent or tone for the rest of the criminal justice system, making it one of the harshest among democratic countries.

What are some reasons Steve Greenwald provides for the abolition of the death penalty?

Steve Greenwald cites reasons such as the United States having one of the harshest criminal justice systems, the lack of the death penalty as a deterrent, racial and economic disparities in its application, and the high likelihood of errors leading to the execution of innocent individuals.

How does the script suggest addressing the racial disparity in the application of the death penalty?

The script suggests that redefining what crimes constitute the 'worst of the worst' and implementing other changes could reduce the apparent racial disparity without eliminating the death penalty itself.

What is the Innocence Project mentioned in the script, and how does it relate to the death penalty?

The Innocence Project is an organization that works to exonerate wrongfully convicted individuals through DNA testing and other means. The script mentions that since its establishment, around 150 individuals have been exonerated from death sentences due to errors made during trials or investigations.

Outlines

00:00

🏛️ Support for the Death Penalty: Justice and Retribution

Robert Blacker, a criminal law professor and constitutional history teacher at New York Law School, shares his perspective on the death penalty after spending considerable time in maximum-security prisons and on death rows. He believes that some individuals are deserving of execution and that society has an obligation to carry it out. Blacker identifies himself as a retributivist, arguing that the past actions of criminals should be the focus of punishment, rather than considering future benefits. He divides the worst criminals into two groups: the cold, callous killers who feel no remorse, and the sadistic serial killers who derive pleasure from their crimes. He addresses the concerns of death penalty opponents, acknowledging the possibility of executing innocent people but arguing that the potential for error is small compared to the need for justice. He also discusses the racial disparity in death penalty cases and suggests that it could be reduced by redefining the criteria for the most heinous crimes.

05:03

🙅‍♂️ Opposition to Capital Punishment: Inequality and the Risk of Error

Steve Greenwald, a New York lawyer with over 20 years of experience in death penalty cases, expresses his firm opposition to capital punishment and argues for its abolition in the United States. He points out that the U.S. has one of the harshest criminal justice systems in the world, and he believes the presence of the death penalty sets a precedent for severity in sentencing. Greenwald suggests that abolishing the death penalty could lead to broader sentencing reforms and align the U.S. more closely with other democratic nations. He also notes that studies have shown the death penalty is not a deterrent, a point he can personally attest to from his work with death row inmates. Furthermore, he highlights the systemic inequality in the application of the death penalty, particularly along racial and economic lines. Greenwald emphasizes the significant risk of executing the wrong person, citing the Innocence Project's work in exonerating approximately 150 individuals who were wrongfully sentenced to death. He concludes by advocating for the complete elimination of the death penalty.

Keywords

💡Death Penalty

The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, is the practice of executing someone as a punishment for a crime. In the video, the death penalty is a central theme, with two speakers presenting opposing views on its use. Robert Blacker supports the death penalty, arguing that justice is served by executing certain criminals, while Steve Greenwald opposes it, advocating for its abolition due to its severe nature and potential for error.

💡Retributivist

A retributivist is someone who believes in retribution as a form of punishment, emphasizing that the punishment should fit the crime. In the video, Robert Blacker identifies as a retributivist, arguing that certain criminals, whom he describes as the 'worst of the worst,' deserve to die for their heinous acts, thus justifying the use of the death penalty.

💡Abolitionists

Abolitionists, in the context of the video, are individuals who advocate for the complete elimination of the death penalty. Steve Greenwald is described as an abolitionist, arguing that the death penalty is not a deterrent, is racially and economically biased, and carries the risk of executing innocent people.

💡Innocence

In the video, the concept of innocence is discussed in relation to the possibility of executing someone who has been wrongly convicted. The speaker acknowledges the horrifying possibility that innocent people may have been executed, which is a key argument against the death penalty. The Innocence Project is mentioned as an organization that works to exonerate wrongfully convicted individuals, some of whom were on death row.

💡Racial Disparity

Racial disparity refers to the unequal treatment or impact of a policy or practice on different racial groups. In the video, it is mentioned that there is a real disparity in the application of the death penalty, with certain racial groups being overrepresented on death row. This is presented as an argument against the death penalty by Steve Greenwald, who suggests that redefining 'the worst of the worst' crimes could reduce this disparity.

💡Habeas Proceedings

Habeas proceedings refer to a legal action in which a person who is being detained argues that their imprisonment is unlawful. In the video, Steve Greenwald mentions representing individuals in habeas proceedings, which are post-conviction appeals where the death sentence has been applied. This highlights the legal complexities and the ongoing fight for justice in death penalty cases.

💡Deterrence

Deterrence in the context of the video refers to the idea that the threat of punishment can prevent people from committing crimes. Steve Greenwald argues that the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent, based on his experience representing death row inmates and his belief that the threat of execution does not factor into their decision to commit crimes.

💡Error in the Judicial System

The term 'error in the judicial system' is used to describe mistakes made during trials or investigations that can lead to wrongful convictions. The video mentions the Innocence Project and the exonerations of approximately 150 death row inmates due to such errors, which is a significant argument against the use of the death penalty, as it underscores the irreversible nature of its consequences.

💡Capital Punishment

Capital punishment is another term for the death penalty, emphasizing that it is the most severe form of punishment. The video discusses how the existence of capital punishment sets a precedent for the severity of the entire criminal justice system, suggesting that its abolition could lead to broader sentencing reforms.

💡Aristotle's View on Evil

Aristotle's view on evil is referenced in the video to describe the extremes of human behavior. Robert Blacker uses this philosophical perspective to categorize the 'worst of the worst' criminals, arguing that some are cold and callous, while others are emotionally involved in their crimes. This distinction is used to justify the death penalty for those who are deemed to be beyond redemption.

💡Exoneration

Exoneration is the act of clearing someone's name after they have been wrongfully accused or convicted. In the video, the concept is used to highlight the potential for grave injustice in the application of the death penalty, as it discusses cases where individuals were nearly executed before being exonerated due to errors in their trials.

Highlights

Robert Blacker supports the death penalty, believing some people deserve to die and society has an obligation to execute them.

As a retributivist, Blacker emphasizes the importance of past actions independently of future consequences.

Blacker identifies two groups as the 'worst of the worst': cold, callous killers and sadistic serial killers.

The possibility of executing an innocent person is acknowledged as horrifying but considered a small price for justice in most cases.

Racial disparity in the death penalty is real, but Blacker suggests it can be reduced without abolishing the penalty itself.

Steve Greenwald opposes the death penalty and advocates for its abolition in the United States.

Greenwald argues the death penalty sets a harsh tone for the entire criminal justice system.

He believes abolishing the death penalty could lead to sentencing reform and align the U.S. with other democratic nations.

Studies show the death penalty is not a deterrent, which Greenwald confirms through his experiences with death row inmates.

The application of the death penalty is described as unequal, particularly along racial and economic lines.

Greenwald points out the high risk of error in capital punishment, citing cases of exonerated death row inmates.

The death penalty's finality and severity make it a focal point for criminal justice reform discussions.

Blacker and Greenwald present contrasting views on the death penalty, reflecting ongoing debates about its morality and effectiveness.

The transcripts highlight the complexity of the death penalty issue, involving moral, legal, and societal considerations.

Both speakers acknowledge the gravity of their positions, with Blacker emphasizing justice and Greenwald advocating for abolition.

The discussion underscores the need for careful consideration of the death penalty's impact on individuals and society.

Transcripts

[Music]

I'm Robert blacker I'm a criminal law

professor I also teach constitutional

history at New York law school I spent a

couple of thousand hours inside

maximum-security prisons and on death

rows across the United States

interviewing convicted killers from that

experience I've come to understand that

some people simply deserve to die and we

have an obligation to execute them so in

a word why do I support the death

penalty in a word justice in three words

they deserve it I'm a retributivist I

believe in retribution as a

retributivist for me and for my fellow

attribute visits the past counts it

counts independently of the future so

the wrong question to ask us about

punishment is what good will it do the

right question to ask us is what bad has

been done in the hundred or so murderers

whom I've interviewed at length in depth

to get their life stories and to get

them to expound upon the crimes that

committed and why they committed what's

emerged for me are two groups who I

would say are clearly the worst of the

worst of the worst remember again

Aristotle says evil lies at the extremes

and one extreme is the cold callous

wanton killer who feels nothing I'm

thinking about one of the actually to

spray shooters whom I interviewed then

there's the opposite extreme I've

interviewed and stood near people like

Danny walling sadistic serial killers

who raped tortured and mutilated their

victims and as they describe it in the

moments of their doing it they were very

emotionally involved they weren't cold

and callous they had they they felt

thrill in exhilaration these people

deserve to die

and we have an obligation to kill them

opponents of the death penalty

often called abolitionists by themselves

as well as us attack at principally

these days on two grounds number one is

that we might mistakenly execute the

innocent number two is that it's

racially biased so let's take them one

by one executing the innocent we do not

know for a fact that we have executed

even one innocent person we suspect we

have we probably have many fewer than

the abolitionists claim but we probably

have I don't know who it is but it's

horrifying that we have if we have and

we probably have so then the question

becomes first of all is that a price

worth paying the ratio is enormous the

tolerance for error is extremely small

and should be smaller still with the

death penalty than with any other

punishment but it isn't zero we do make

a sacrifice of possible the remote

remote possibility of innocence in order

to accomplish justice in the vast

majority of the cases the apparent

racial disparity in the death penalty

which is real insofar as 11 or 12% of

the population seems to occupy 40 or 45

percent of death row while real is much

more subtle than racism itself could be

radically reduced by redefining what

crimes constitute the worst of the worst

of the worst and a number of other

changes could be made which would

radically reduce the apparent disparity

without eliminating the death penalty

itself

my name is Steve Greenwald I'm a lawyer

in New York and I am someone who has

practiced in the death penalty area for

the last 20 years or so I have

represented people who were sentenced to

death and in what are called the habeas

proceedings meaning on appeal after the

death sentence has been applied or to

the individual as a result of my studies

generally and in particular my work in

the death penalty area I'm firmly

opposed to the death penalty and I think

it should be abolished in the United

States there are numbers of reasons for

about abolition in my opinion and I also

stress some of the most important ones

from my point of view one is that if we

look at the overall punishments regime

in the United States both at the federal

level and at the state level and we

compare it to punishment regimes in

other parts of the world we can see that

the United States has among the harshest

it's not the orcas

criminal justice system from a

standpoint of sentencing and punishment

of any democratic and other democratic

country in the world so we ask the

question why or who do we have such a

severe criminal justice system in my

opinion a part of the reason is that we

have the death penalty because the death

penalty to me is a capstone to the

criminal justice system since it's by

its own terms the most severe and final

sort of punishment that's possible and

if you have the death penalty as we do

in my view it sets a precedent if you

want to call it that or a tone for the

rest of the criminal justice system so I

believe that if we can abolish the death

penalty yes I think it should be

abolished that that could lead to

sentencing reform generally and bring us

more in line with

what other democratic countries are

doing all the studies that have been

done was almost all the studies have

been done show clearly that the death

money is not a deterrent and frankly

that's something I can speak to from

experience because I've represented

numbers of people on death row over the

years and I've also met with and

interviewed other people on death row

and I can tell you that deterrence would

not be a factor in any of the crimes

that these people committed third the

the application of the death penalty in

the United States is completely in equal

and unfair

in terms of on a racial along racial

lines and along economic lines and and

other dimensions another attribute or

defect is high seeded in the capital

punishment system is the likelihood of

error being made the wrong person we've

seen over the last 15 or 20 years since

the Innocence Project was first

established something in the range of

about 150 individuals who have been

exonerated from from death sentences

because errors were made during the

trial or and or in the in the

investigation that led to the trial I

think we have to get rid of the death

penalty once and for all

you