Arguments for Death Penalty

Summary

In this episode of Facebook Dates, Orianna Bennett and District Attorney Chris Hicks discuss the death penalty debate in Nevada. Hicks supports the death penalty, arguing it is used judiciously and is essential for the 'worst of the worst' crimes. He emphasizes the importance of considering victims and their families. The conversation touches on the challenges Nevada faces in carrying out executions, including drug shortages, and the need for reform rather than abolition. Hicks calls for fixing the lengthy appellate process, which he believes is an injustice to the victims and the system.

Takeaways

• 📜 The debate over the death penalty is resurfacing in Nevada due to a recent execution attempt that was delayed by drug manufacturers' protests and a judge's intervention.
• 💉 Nevada is facing challenges in carrying out lethal injections, the only form of execution allowed in the state, due to limited options for the required drugs.
• 🎯 District Attorney Chris Hicks supports the death penalty, emphasizing its judicious use and the importance of considering victims and their families in the discussion.
• 🔎 Prosecutors in Washoe County have sought the death penalty in only two out of hundreds of homicide cases in the past 11 years, indicating a selective and serious approach to its application.
• 🚨 Hicks cites the cases of Tamir Hamilton and James Biela as examples of 'the worst of the worst' crimes that warrant the death penalty, highlighting the severity of their crimes.
• 🏛 Public opinion in Nevada is largely in favor of the death penalty, with a poll showing 66% support across different political ideologies.
• 🚫 Hicks argues that life imprisonment without parole is not a just alternative for the most heinous crimes, as it allows for a better quality of life compared to death row.
• 🤔 He suggests that the death penalty system in Nevada needs fixing rather than abolishing, focusing on the need to amend the lengthy and inefficient appellate process.
• 💰 Contrary to common belief, Hicks states that the cost of keeping someone on death row is not significantly higher than that of life imprisonment without parole, attributing the high costs to prolonged litigation.
• 📉 Hicks proposes limiting the number of appeals in death penalty cases to prevent excessive delays and to respect the decisions of juries and appellate courts.
• 🛑 He believes that if drug manufacturers continue to protest the use of their products for executions, the issue should be resolved in court to ensure that lawful sentences are carried out.

Q & A

What is the main topic of the debate discussed in the video script?

The main topic is the debate over the death penalty, particularly in Nevada, where there has been a resurgence in discussions following a stalled execution attempt.

Why did the execution in Nevada get stalled at the last minute?

The execution was stalled because the makers of the drugs to be used in the execution protested, and a judge granted a delay.

What is the current situation with lethal injections in Nevada?

Nevada has limited options for carrying out lethal injections, which is the only form of execution allowed in the state.

Who is Chris Hicks and what is his stance on the death penalty?

Chris Hicks is a District Attorney in Washoe County, Nevada. He is in favor of the death penalty when it is used sparingly and judiciously, particularly for the 'worst of the worst' crimes.

How does Chris Hicks describe the process of deciding to seek the death penalty in a case?

Hicks describes a very reasoned and judicious process involving a death penalty review team that considers all facts, evidence, and mitigating factors before making a decision.

What are the two death penalty cases in Washoe County that Chris Hicks mentioned?

The two cases mentioned are Tamir Hamilton, who committed a horrific murder involving rape and torture, and Mr. Bella, who abducted and killed two university students, including Brianna Denison.

What does Chris Hicks believe should be done with the death penalty system in Nevada?

Hicks believes that the death penalty system in Nevada does not need to be abolished but rather mended and fixed, with a focus on reducing the lengthy appellate process.

How does Chris Hicks view the cost of the death penalty compared to life imprisonment without parole?

Hicks argues that the cost of keeping someone on death row is roughly the same as life without parole, and the main difference is the extensive litigation costs associated with the repeated appeals process.

What is Chris Hicks' opinion on the number of appeals in death penalty cases?

Hicks believes that while appellate review is important, the repeated and lengthy process that can take decades is an injustice and should be tightened up to be more efficient and respectful of the victims and jurors' decisions.

What logistical issue is Nevada facing in carrying out executions, as mentioned in the script?

Nevada is facing difficulty in finding drugs for lethal executions, with drug companies protesting against their products being used for this purpose.

What does Chris Hicks suggest should be done if Nevada cannot find drugs for lethal injections?

Hicks suggests that the issue should be challenged in court and that the state should explore alternative methods to carry out the death penalty that are not cruel and unusual, while respecting the court's orders.

Outlines

00:00

🏛️ Resurgence of the Death Penalty Debate in Nevada

The video script opens with a discussion on the re-emergence of the death penalty debate in Nevada, following a failed execution attempt that was halted due to drug manufacturer protests and a judicial delay. The conversation highlights the limited options Nevada has for lethal injections and the broader question of the death penalty's value in the criminal justice system. The role of prosecuting attorneys in advocating for death sentences is introduced, with an interview featuring Chris Hicks, a District Attorney from Washoe County, who supports the death penalty for the 'worst of the worst' crimes, emphasizing the careful and considered approach taken by prosecutors in such cases.

05:02

📖 Prosecutors' Perspective on the Death Penalty

In this paragraph, Chris Hicks explains the rationale behind his support for the death penalty, focusing on the seriousness with which prosecutors approach the decision to seek capital punishment. He discusses the importance of considering all evidence and the impact on victims and their families. Hicks provides specific examples of heinous crimes that have led to the death penalty in Washoe County over the past 11 years, arguing that it is reserved for extreme cases. He also touches on the broader implications of the death penalty in Nevada, including public opinion and the alternative of life imprisonment without parole.

10:04

💊 Challenges in Executing the Death Penalty

The final paragraph addresses the logistical issues Nevada faces in carrying out executions, particularly the difficulty in obtaining the necessary drugs for lethal injections. The script mentions the recent case of Dozier, where drug procurement became a contentious issue. Hicks suggests that the state should explore alternative methods for executions that are not considered cruel and unusual, and emphasizes the need for the courts to resolve the ongoing disputes with drug companies. He concludes by urging the public to consider the victims and their families when discussing the death penalty, advocating for fixing rather than abolishing the system.

Keywords

💡Death Penalty

The death penalty refers to the legal process whereby a person is sentenced to death as a punishment for a crime, usually murder. In the video's context, the death penalty is a central theme, with the debate over its reinstatement in Nevada being discussed. The script mentions the state's first attempt at an execution in years, which was delayed, highlighting the controversy surrounding the death penalty.

💡Execution

Execution is the act of carrying out a death sentence. It is a key term in the script as it discusses Nevada's difficulties in carrying out lethal injections, which is the only form of execution allowed in the state. The script also touches on the logistical issues Nevada faces, such as finding drugs for lethal injections.

💡Lethal Injection

Lethal injection is a method of execution that involves the use of drugs to cause death. The script discusses the protests by drug makers against the use of their drugs in executions and the resulting legal delays, which underscore the challenges in carrying out the death penalty.

💡District Attorney

A district attorney is a public official who serves as the chief prosecutor for a local government area. In the script, Chris Hicks, a district attorney from Washoe County, explains his stance in favor of the death penalty, emphasizing the seriousness with which prosecutors approach seeking the death penalty and the importance of considering victims.

💡Judicious

Judicious means showing good judgment and discretion. The script uses this term to describe how prosecutors carefully consider the facts and evidence before deciding to seek the death penalty, indicating that it is not a decision made lightly.

💡Victims

Victims in this context are the individuals who have been murdered and their families. The script highlights the importance of considering the impact on victims and their families when discussing the death penalty, suggesting that justice for them is a significant factor in the debate.

💡Life Without Parole

Life without parole is a sentence in which a person is imprisoned for the rest of their life without the possibility of release on parole. The script mentions this as the next highest punishment if the death penalty were abolished, and it is also used to compare the living conditions of those on death row versus those serving life sentences.

💡Inefficiencies

Inefficiencies refer to the lack of efficiency or waste in processes. The script discusses the inefficiencies in the death penalty process, such as the high costs and lengthy litigation periods, which are seen as problematic and in need of reform.

💡Appellate Review

Appellate review is the process by which a higher court examines the decision of a lower court. The script mentions the importance of appellate review to ensure that convictions, especially for the death penalty, are correct and just, but also points out the need to reduce the excessive length of this process.

💡Constitutional Right

A constitutional right is a power or privilege granted to individuals by a constitution. In the script, the right to appellate review is mentioned as a constitutional right that ensures those convicted of crimes, including the death penalty, can have their convictions reviewed by higher courts.

💡Criminal Justice

Criminal justice refers to the system through which criminal offenses are dealt with by the authorities. The script discusses the role of the death penalty within the criminal justice system, particularly from the perspective of prosecuting attorneys who advocate for this punishment in severe cases.

Highlights

Debate over the death penalty in Nevada is resurfacing due to an execution delay caused by drug makers' protest and a judge's intervention.

Nevada faces limited options for lethal injections, the only execution method allowed in the state.

District Attorney Chris Hicks supports the death penalty, emphasizing its sparing and judicious use.

Prosecutors in Washoe County have sought the death penalty only twice in the last 11 years, highlighting the seriousness of the selected cases.

Tamir Hamilton's case exemplifies the extreme violence that leads to the pursuit of the death penalty, involving multiple rapes and a brutal murder.

The case of Mr. Bella and Brianna Denison's murder illustrates the severity of crimes that warrant the death penalty, including abduction and sexual violence.

Prosecutors consider mitigating factors and evidence before deciding to seek the death penalty, ensuring it is reserved for the 'worst of the worst'.

A poll indicates 66% of Nevadans across political ideologies support the death penalty.

If the death penalty were abolished in Nevada, life imprisonment without parole would be the highest punishment.

The difference between life without parole and death row lies in the living conditions and social interaction of the inmates.

Chris Hicks argues that the death penalty system in Nevada needs fixing, not abolishing, to ensure justice for victims and their families.

The cost of keeping someone on death row is similar to life imprisonment without parole, contrary to common perceptions.

The lengthy litigation process post-conviction is identified as a significant issue in the death penalty system.

Hicks suggests limiting the number of appeals to prevent decades-long legal battles post-conviction.

The logistical challenge of carrying out executions due to drug shortages is a current issue in Nevada.

Hicks believes there are alternative methods to lethal injection that could be explored legally to carry out executions.

The public is urged to consider the victims and their families when discussing the death penalty and its implications.

Transcripts

[Music]

welcome to Facebook dates I'm Orianna

Bennett thank you for joining us the

debate over the death penalty is seeing

a resurgence in Nevada after the state's

first attempt at an execution in years

got stalled at the last minute the

makers of the drugs to be used in that

execution protested and a judge granted

a delay now the state has limited

options for carrying out lethal

injections the only form of execution

allowed in Nevada so some are asking is

it even worth it if you're looking for a

better understanding of the role the

death penalty plays in criminal justice

a good place to turn is the prosecuting

attorneys who push for those sentences

have a district attorney in Washoe

County is one of those so I'm here with

Chris Hicks now to talk about that Chris

thank you so much for coming on the show

thanks for having me oh it's always a

pleasure appreciate you coming on and

when you've come on in the show in the

past you've said that you are in favor

of the death penalty is that still your

stance it is okay so explain just

briefly you know to start us off why

well you know whenever you're discussing

the death penalty it's very important to

start with two topics and one is just

how sparingly and judiciously

prosecutors use it and the other is

victims you know both of those are often

lost in this discussion but you know

when it comes to whether or not we're

going to seek the death penalty in a

murder we take that so incredibly

seriously as prosecutors we staff it

with a in my office with a death penalty

review team we consider all the facts we

consider the evidence we consider

mitigating facts against the accused and

so we make a very reasoned and judicial

judicious response in making that

decision and so if you look at for

example the last two death penalty cases

in Washoe County in the last 11 years

we've only sought and received it twice

and that was one was Tamir Hamilton

which was just a horrific murder this

was a man who raped a 20 year old woman

repeatedly and then two weeks later

raped a 16 year old girl tortured her

stabbed her 40 times and then nearly

decapitated her when he killed her and

this was in her mom's apartment and when

you're dealing with and then you have

missed mr. Bella as well

abducted two university students

kidnapped him raped him violently and

then ultimately abducted brianna denison

and killed her left her lifeless body in

a vacant field naked and so we're

talking about the worst of the worst and

that's who we reserved it for in that 11

years that we've only sought those

sought and received those two death

penalty's death penalties we've

prosecuted and reviewed hundreds of

homicides so it's important to know that

prosecutors look at these things so

closely and we make sure that it's the

right defendant it's the right crime and

there's an overwhelming amount of

evidence we would never seek the death

penalty if that weren't the case and

that's often lost and then the other

thing is the victims you know you can't

imagine nor would you ever want to what

some of these victims have gone through

and then you also have to remember what

their families have gone through I mean

it lives are destroyed because of the

acts of some of these most heinous

murderers and so in that regard in the

right case in the right circumstance I'm

absolutely for the death penalty and the

vast majority of the state of Nevada is

a poll last year before the legislature

had it polling at 66% amongst all

political ideologies in our state and so

a mama believer in the right case and I

think most of the most Nevadans are now

not every state has a legal death

penalty so hypothetically if Nevada

didn't have it if it were abolished then

your next highest you know punishment

you could go for would be life in prison

no parole mm-hmm so yeah that that would

then become the for the worst of the

worst

life in prison without parole so then in

your from your perspective is life in

prison without parole

not justice it depends it depends on the

crime it depends on the facts I mean as

I said we've we prosecute many murders a

year and we rarely seek the death

penalty but we do seek life without and

that's an important part of prosecutors

discretion we talk with victims we look

at just how aggravate

the murder really was in making those

determinations and the difference

between death row and life without is a

big one those inmates that have received

the death penalty and are in Ely at the

maximum-security facility they don't

have a very good quality of life you

know they're locked in locked down most

of the day 23 hours of the day they have

no social interaction and frankly I

think most people agree with that

because again we're talking about the

worst of the worst those that are in

prison for life without the possibility

of parole for example they can be in

medium security facilities they can have

jobs social interaction you know seem

like what small luxuries to you and me

in the real world but if you're locked

up in prison for the rest of your life

that's meaningful to them but I I am

strongly against allowing the very worst

criminals who've done the very worst

crimes to live that kind of life how do

other states do it that don't have the

death penalty option precisely as we've

just discussed but in those states that

no longer have the death penalty option

now the attack is no longer on the death

penalty but now it's on life without and

so it's a it's a moving target as always

is going to be criticized there's people

out there that are opposed to the death

penalty who are also opposed to life

without the possibility of parole and so

where do you stop and so frankly in our

state our death penalty system doesn't

need to end it needs to be mended it

needs to be fixed and so these sentences

that jurors of our own community they're

the ones who decide if someone should

get the death penalty that should be

carried out victims deserve that the

accused deserves it and the jurors

deserve it now I mean you mentioned that

it needed to be amended I don't think

it's you know an easy process to do that

obviously we see great inefficiencies

with this process not the least of which

is putting someone on death row turns

out to be more expensive than just

keeping them in prison for life

so what's the solution that you see to

this particular problem well you know I

like I'm happy to hear that you bring up

cost because in reality

that's not really accurate that what is

often portrayed about the cost now the

one thing I would always say is you

can't put a price on a victims life the

victims of Tamir Hamilton the victims of

James Biela you can't put a price on

those lives nor should you but that

being said if you look at the fact that

in the last 11 years the Worcester

County District Attorney's Office has

only sought that sought and received the

death penalty twice that is such a small

number I mean that is like one percent

of the cases we've prosecuted that were

murders it's just not an overwhelming

cost and that's the statewide it's right

around 1% or less that is actually death

penalty cases on top of that

incarceration costs life without is

roughly the exact same cost as someone

on death row so there's no difference

there the only difference in costs is

all the litigation that goes on for so

many years and that's what needs to be

fixed I've said to you before I'm a firm

believer in appellate review I I want

someone that I prosecute and convict of

the death penalty or any crime to have

an opportunity to have that conviction

reviewed that's a constitutional right

but when it's done repeatedly and

repeatedly and it takes decades it's

just a pizza that's a an injustice for

the system and that's what we need to

fix we need to tighten up those long

periods of time make it more of a

priority and respect the victims respect

what the jurors have decided and respect

what the appellate courts have ruled so

then would you limit the number of

Appeals well I'll give you an example

mr. Beale a James bila we took that case

to trial overwhelming amount of evidence

there was no doubt that he did what he

did

a jury found him guilty and then a jury

heard evidence about who he was and the

aggravating facts of the case and

decided he deserved the death penalty

that case went to the Nevada Supreme

Court the Nevada Supreme Court quality

group of judges reviewed that entire

prosecution that conviction said there

were no mistakes made

he did this he is the worst of the worst

he deserves a death penalty he then had

an opportunity to challenge the

sufficiency of his Pub state-funded

appointed attorneys and again the judge

said no they were perfectly good he gets

to appeal that again to the Nevada

Supreme Court and now they're going to

review whether his attorneys were good

enough for him

after that I think there's been enough

review because you also have to remember

at that starting point as prosecutors

we've already reviewed this case to make

sure that it's sound that there's an

overwhelming amount of evidence and that

it's worthy of the death penalty now

we've had a jury do it a court do it

twice an appellate court do it twice but

unfortunately in our system that's not

the end it keeps going and going and

then it goes to federal court and that's

just too much and there are states and

other in other places in our union that

do it much quicker but and and I think

that that's something that would be in

my opinion what Nevada should be talking

about not abolishing it now beyond that

and we only have a couple minutes but I

do want to get to this is the logistical

issue that Nevada is facing in actually

carrying out the execution once we get

to that point obviously we saw with with

the Dozier case recently that they're

having trouble finding drugs for the

lethal execution and so if they can't

find those drugs and they can't carry

out the execution what do you do well I

think you have to challenge it in court

the use of those drugs but what's the

saying there's a there's a lot of ways

to verb a noun

there's ways I'm sure you could talk to

about any anesthesiologist that would

tell you there are ways to do this where

it's not cruel and unusual it's just the

constant battle by the opponents that

just won't let it go I think there are

ways for the state to fund to carry out

this sentence that has been ordered by a

court to do so in any death penalty case

and I would trust what the Department of

Corrections does in seeking that out and

if the drug companies keep protesting

and none will allow their drugs to be

used well the courts gonna have to be

battled out in the courts and then you

know at the end of the day the death

penalty is the law on the books in the

state of Nevada

and we're gonna have to figure out a way

to make sure those are carried out and

so that in again in my opinion is the

answer all right well we have just about

30 seconds left is there anything else

you would like the public to know about

this you know I just I always urge the

public to to not get caught up in

rhetoric and not get caught up in in in

costs hollow arguments but to remember

the victims and remember the victims

families and remember what these people

did to these individuals the worst of

the worst these heinous crimes and

really step back and say yeah I think we

should be fixing this problem not

abolishing it okay Chris axe thank you

so much for your time thank you sure

appreciate it

well coming up on face the state we will

hear from the other side of this issue

why some are trying to get the death

penalty abolished in Nevada right after

the break

[Music]