I just got an email from a guy named Dudley Sharp supporting Rick Perry’s decision to suspend the panel that was looking into the prosecution of Cameron Todd Willingham. The piece is pretty incoherent (link corrected) — there are no factual statements of any kind and it opens with an extended rant against the media that has almost nothing to do with this particular case.
Regardless of whether or not one supports the death penalty, the fact is that the prosecution’s case against Willingham was largely based on arguments that the fire in his house was caused by arson (rather than by, say, a space heater). These arguments were riddled with errors, and arson expert Craig Beyler concluded that the fire was probably caused by a space heater.
No criminal justice system is perfect, and, similarly, no expert’s judgement is perfect. But it is difficult for me to believe that a reasonable person could now be convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Willingham was guilty. It is, perhaps, not surprising that there are so many people out there who claim otherwise simply because they like the idea of putting the supposedly guilty to death. But it is shameful that these people appear on television so frequently.
Update. I accidentally screwed up the link to Dudley Sharp’s original article. So I am reposting it in its entirety below.
RE: Editorial: “What the Willingham case is really about”, Dallas Morning News, October 26, 2009
From: Dudley Sharp, contact info below
The Dallas Morning News (DMN) writes: ” What counts most is the truth, no matter what the ultimate verdict.”.
We can all hope.
The DMN, until recently, has been extremely biased in this case. This anti death penalty media bias, by many in the media, has been, overwhelming, throughout the US, over the past two months in the Willingham case, just as it has, over the last two decades, with most death penalty issues.
The truth has suffered, greatly.
For example, instead of just reviewing the Chicago Tribunes’ Mills’ CYA piece, possibly the DMN and others will look at Stacy Kuykendall’s revised or contradictory statements, her standing by Todd Willingham, then condemning him, to determine if these are common characteristics of a woman suffering what is commonly called Battered Woman Syndrome.
Evidently, it didn’t even cross Mills’ mind. Instead of the DMN’s backhanded “We’re not calling (Stacy) Kuykendall a liar. “, maybe some should look into that.
Maybe many in the media could make things a little less painful for her (and everyone else) by being more thorough.
The DMN has already revealed one major error in the Beyler Report. Look harder.
The Corsican Fire Department Report (CFDR) made some solid points against Beyler with regard to both errors and bias and the Texas Fire Marshal’s (TFM) office has already stated that they will be standing by their expert’s, Vasquez’, forensics, meaning that they will have to correct the Beyler Report in some convincing fashion, in order to defend Vasquez.
Craig Beyler is no slouch.
We are still waiting on what may be an updated CFDR. They stated they lacked much of the time and the evidence necessary to deliver a thorough report. Due to Perry’s delay, they, now, have that time. And we are still waiting for the TFM Report.
While lacking all of that, as well as having no idea where a thorough, objective investigation by DMN reporters (or others’) may, eventually, lead, when it has already uncovered some damaging information, re Beyler, what does the DMN editorial board say, as do many others?
That Perry shamelessly thwarted the investigation by sacking commission members, that he blocked that search for truth and he should not fear putting the case under the microscope.
Can the DMN or others support any of that, with the facts? Of course not. So much for a search for truth. In other words, the DMN, as many, have already reached a verdict.
Is it possible that Perry did the prudent thing with all of the facts that he had before him? Of course.
Is it possible that he made a strictly political, stupid decision, based, only, upon course self protection? Of course.
Neither the DMN nor anyone else in the media can know, for sure. Not yet.
Dudley Sharp
e-mail [email protected], 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS , VOA and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O’Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.
A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.
Ash
There is NO DOUBT whatsoever that innocent people have been executed before. Nothing will ever change the opinion of people who support the death penalty. To their minds a few innocent dead people is small price to pay for “justice”.
chrome agnomen
some people just like to see other people killed.
no reason necessary.
they tend to migrate right.
General Winfield Stuck
That’s what they used to say about Judge Roy Bean.
Forget it Dougj. It’s Texas/
andy
The impulse to get cases like this out of sight is in service of the idea that cases like this one weaken the case for having a death penalty at all. It’s the same exact phenomenon that happens when there is an MSM media story about a particular gun used in a particular crime. The same trolls show up in comment talking about personal responsibility and how the liberals want to take their guns away, and the circle jerk inevitably descends into a discussion about wound tracks and the .45 vs 9mm controversy. The death penalty feeds the same drives- the desire to be tough-sounding, the desire to have justice in your own hands. That wish for an absolute final solution to all the things that fill them with fear. When holes get punched in their arguments, part of their sense of self gets ripped away too. You can’t be a black and white absolutist in a world full of grey areas.
El Tiburon
Don’t mess with Texas, okay.
We have a Judge on trial because she refused to accept a last minute request for a stay of execution because the lawyers couldn’t get it there until after hours.
We kill people here like most people get gumballs from a gumball machine.
George W. Bush, along with his atty Alberto Gonzales, reportedly never spent more than about 10-15 minutes reviewing ANY death row files prior to the convict being putt to death.
But, hey, it’s all okay: this Willlingham dude was the exception; most of the people we kill are black and brown, you dig?
calipygian
After having read the New Yorker piece and seen the interviews with Willingham’s lawyer, would I have voted for death?
Hell no.
But, depending on how the case was presented in court, would I have voted “Jail”?
Probably.
The big problem is that there is a death penalty and there are a shit load of motherfuckers out there who are too eager to apply it in dubious circumstances.
Keith G
I do not know where Sharp hails from, but many of my Texas neighbors are voicing irritation that anti-death outsiders are using the just execution of a child killer in order to lance the boil that is capital punishment in America. Well, many of my white neighbors that is.
Others though acknowledge that this is an epic fuck up on many levels. The best I think I can hope for is that this puts a few more nails in Gov Hair’s political coffin. Kay Bailey Hutchinson will be just a slight bit better and that’s a start.
DougJ
The big problem is that there is a death penalty and there are a shit load of motherfuckers out there who are too eager to apply it in dubious circumstances.
Sure, I agree with that.
But, regardless of whether one is for the death penalty or not, I don’t find the case against Willingham convincing.
Jane_in_Colorado
@calipygian: Why would you have voted for jail? The New Yorker article makes it pretty clear that there was no arson. If there was no arson, there was no crime–just an accident. Space heaters cause fires all the time. What would the “jail” be for?
General Winfield Stuck
No shit. And that doesn’t even get close to the beyond a reasonable doubt needed for a conviction and even more evidence of innocence well before the ghools murdered the poor man.
Human imperfection suggests the death penalty is wrong
Politics demands that it is evil
calipygian
And that is where I am.
None of us were sitting on the jury.
None of us know what the jury was instructed to do or what to take into account by the judge.
All we know as people on the jury is that children died and their daddy was in court and experts testified that the daddy probably did it.
Emma Anne
To me this is the central mystery of conservatism. If I find out I was wrong about something, it *matters* to me, and this is typical of us libs. Heck, look at that thread last night – much fretting over what if Tancredo really was depressed* and we were being unfair and mean?
But conservatives just don’t seem to see it that way. If you point out that they are wrong about an important fact in their argument they evade, or call you names, or come up with some reason why some other similar fact might be true, or tell you Clinton was worse. How can it not matter to them if the fire was probably caused by the space heater and not arson? I can’t comprehend the mindset. But I am not surprised, after seeing this mindset in full living color so much lately (most recently at the “tea parties.” Ugh.)
* I don’t agree with this particular fret. If Markos was being unfair, Tancredo should have defended himself. But I still find it sort of endearing that anyone on our side would even hesitate or question the attack.
calipygian
@calipygian: Oops. I meant the crime was evil.
I too think the death penalty is evil.
Until I start to think about people like Timothy McVey or Osama Bin Ladin or Nadal Hasan.
What is the proper penalty for those people?
calipygian
Look at the casualty list from Ft Hood. I see overaged reservists who really dont have to be there, young white kids from the mythical Middle America and look at that – Kham Xiong looks like an immigrant to me, using the army as a step up to fulfill the American Dream ™.
What IS the proper penalty for Hasan?
The good liberal in me says “life in prison, no parole”.
The out of control, reptile brained Republican in me says, “they shouldn’t keep the fucker alive in a coma”.
Brachiator
@Ash:
Yeah, I hear this argument all the time from some conservatives (Dennis Prager, for example). But even here, they would not be for suppressing evidence or trying to cover up an error.
What is most sickening about this crap in Texas is that prosecutors and the governor are trying to cover their asses. Rather than admitting that a mistake was made, they want to drape a cloak of infallibility around themselves. This is pointless since ultimately the entire justice system, not just a defense of the death penalty, depends upon a honest gathering and assessment of the evidence.
General Winfield Stuck
@calipygian:
For me. You can’t be against the death penalty on principle because it is a punishment that calls for the non existent human perfection and then make calls on which you think are guilty then it”s ok. I just accept the simple fact that I will shed no tears for some who receive the ultimate punishment , and call it a day.
Yutsano
@calipygian: This may sound vindictive of me, but the last thing you should ever do to a Muslim, especially a devout one, is execute them. This is why I thought the sentence for Moussaoui was pure genius: let him rot, but in a Supermax prison for a very very long time. Deny them any chance of martyrdom.
AnotherBruce
What is the proper penalty for those people?
Extreme isolation, Never let them have visitors or see daylight again. No entertainment of any kind. I would also tape the photographs of their victims on the ceiling of their cells protected by thick plexiglas so that every day they got to look at those they murdered. Beyond that I would wish them a long life.
JK
@calipygian:
Thanks for posting the names of the shooting victims. I’m content to have Hasan rot in the Supermax prison in Colorado.
Your screen name is very cool. I thought the proper spelling included 2 l’s.
Dudley Sharp
It would have been easy to post what I sent you.
I never defended Perry. My writing is quite coherent.
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/16/why-gov-perry-shook-up-the-texas-forensic-science-commission.aspx
Keith G
@calipygian: I have no problem with the execution of those convicted of what used to be called premeditated murder. But the process must be spotlessly fair with equal amounts of resources available to both sides of the court room and the severest of sanctions to any officer of the court who impedes due process.
J. Michael Neal
You don’t seem to understand the
rulebookprocedures of law. Once thecall is made on the fieldjury reaches a verdict, it requiresindisputable video evidencedemonstration of incorrect application of legal procedures for thereferee’s calljury’s verdict to be overturned. If you don’t like it, you’ll need to get a majority ofthe ownersCongress to change therulelaw.I don’t know whether or not the US public or the NFL should be more embarrassed by this.
jwb
@Keith G: “Kay Bailey Hutchinson will be just a slight bit better and that’s a start.” Don’t bet on it. She has to run the gauntlet of the wingnut primary and if she survives she’ll be just as much beholden to the wingnuts as Goodhair. No, Texas is screwed until the demographics catch up, probably in about a decade—if it doesn’t secede first.
J. Michael Neal
Possible, but it wouldn’t be my first guess. The Hmong were originally resettled to St. Paul more than 23 years ago. Others have continued to arrive, but the first native born generation is adults now.
calipygian
@J. Michael Neal: Yeah, you’re probably right.
Still…
Mark S.
@Dudley Sharp:
Your argument seems to be that Perry isn’t covering anything up because a cover up would look bad.
You know what else looks pretty bad? Putting an innocent man to death.
Keith G
Mr Sharp, I read your stuff. There are a lot of “what ifs” buttressing your thesis. I am an Occam’s razor kind a guy. When I hear hoof beats I think horses not unicorns.
Mark S.
@Dudley Sharp:
And no, your writing is not very coherent. Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Terri
@calipygian
The out of control, reptile brained Republican in me says, “they shouldn’t keep the fucker alive in a coma”.
Living in Florida, where it seems to be sport to kidnap, rape and murder little girls, I feel the same way. John Couey was a prime example. I’m not sure however, I would call it the “reptile brained Repub” in you. I think it’s a human response to want someone who commits such heinous acts to suffer and die, as if an eye for an eye leveled the karmic field somehow.
Delia
@Keith G:
This, of course, is the kicker. If human courts could always pull this one off, if the motives of judges, prosecutors, and juries were always pure, and the verdict carefully considered and arrived at after all due diligence, then maybe the death penalty would be okay. But in a society like that, there probably wouldn’t be any crime in the first place.
General Winfield Stuck
@Dudley Sharp:
I don’t know but reading your piece seems to me it could have been pared down to a single paragraph and maybe a single sentence.
Perry is scared the old commissioners would say he executed an innocent man and for obvious reasons wouldn’t be good for his campaign, or him in general. Once that fear is present, any other analysis becomes that of a panicked person. And not all that rational in his actions.
It is the only explanation that makes any sense.
Nellcote
@jwb:
I am so looking foreward to the Texas primary. Dick! Cheney is supporting Hutchinson and Palin is backing Gov. Goodhair.
Keith G
@jwb: KBH is no moderate, but she is no wing nut and she is on the ebb of a pretty descent political career – for a conservative. Once elected she may feel the room to be her own person, a Goldwater conservative, and for Texas that’s really an improvement.
DougJ
It would have been easy to post what I sent you.
I gave a link. What I did was fair.
General Winfield Stuck
@DougJ:
But was it balanced. You decide. Bwaaa haaaa haaaa.
Spiny Norman
“To their minds a few innocent dead people is small price to pay for “justice”.
No. They just don’t understand that there is a difference between order and justice, and the thing that they crave is order.
Yutsano
@DougJ: Actually the link he gave goes somewhere completely different. It’s still massive asshattery that tries to make the same point (that Perry is just doing the right thing here) so now I’m totally confused.
DougJ
Actually the link he gave goes somewhere completely different. It’s still massive asshattery that tries to make the same point (that Perry is just doing the right thing here) so now I’m totally confused.
I fixed the link.
Sorry for the mistake.
Yutsano
@DougJ: I meant the link Dudley gave in comments. It’s a totally different article. It still makes similar points in an even more convoluted fashion.
gwangung
Which justifies the death penalty for wankers who think like that.
Silver Owl
Never trust a conservative of today with your life. Ever. Nothing makes them happier than dead people.
Pug
Dudley Sharp is associated with a group here in Houston called Justice for All. They are pro-death penalty in every case and refuse to admit there may be problems with the application of capital punishment in Texas.
I think the death penalty is appropriate in some horrific cases. What you see in Texas, though, is almost blood lust in support of it.
Personally, I think it is obscene if an innocent man was executed, which appears likely in this case. Most people here couldn’t care less. Millions of Texans will support Governor Perry’s efforts to just sweep this under the rug. Frankly, they think the system is perfect and the only people complaining about it are opponents of the death penalty.
prufrock
Dudley, Sharp, uses, a, lot, of, superfluous, commas, when, he, writes.
Honus
You don’t not execute people because the killers don’t deserve it. You don’t do it because it’s barbaric and inhuman. It reduces you to the level of the killer. It’s a demonstration of weakness, not strength.
Mark S.
@prufrock:
It, is, to, force, you, to, ponder, every, word.
Mnemosyne
So because we can’t be sure if Perry did cover up the state’s mistake without further investigation, we shouldn’t investigate because shut up, that’s why.
ds
Republicans (and 39 Democrats) think it’s a good idea to allow 40,000 people to die every year in order to take a strong stand against soshulism.
Of course they have no problem with a few innocent people getting executed now and then.
Just like with health care, they take solace in the fact that most of those people are minorities, or from poor backgrounds, so they’re not important anyway.
Dudley Sharp
Pug:
I haven’t been with Justice For All for many years. Fact check.
The only thing that really matter are fact and opinion and how those facts and opinions may be supported – or not.
If you folks are going to be critical, criticise that facts and arguements, don’t just be silly and attack the writer. If that’s your shallow thing, go for it. But for those who want to be productive, as opposed to silly babies (productive hey?), make specific contributions, which are things that actually contribute to the discussion.
Dudley Sharp
General:
You might be right. MIGHT. That was the primary point of my article. Most folks are presuming that they have enough facts and evidence to correctly conclude why Perry did what he did. I speculate the other way. There is no way we have all the facts as to why Perry did what he did.
None of the critical studies can conlude that the fire wasn’t arson or that it was an accident. So, based, strictly on those, there wil never be a factual conclusion that it wasn’t arson. Ever.
Outside of the forensics, there’s a pretty solid case for arson. If the forensics are neutral, which those 3 critical reports say it is, then the other evidence will break the neutraility.
Plus, we don’t even have the full rebuttal, from two reports, which few sem to want to wait on, prior to reaching conclusions.
Then you have the tiral transcripts and the police/witness statements, which very few have read. In other words, most folks reaching conclusions without a huge percentage of the infomation.
I say wait a while.
Dudley Sharp
Reconsider the New Yorker article.
Cameron Todd Willingham: Media meltdown & the death penalty:”Trial by Fire: Did Texas execute an innocent man?”, by David Grann
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/04/cameron-todd-willingham-media-meltdown–the-death-penalty.aspx
Dudley Sharp
thie links are not registering correctly.
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/04/cameron-todd-willingham-media-meltdown–the-death-penalty.aspx
Elvis Elvisberg
You must really be outraged at Rick Perry for disbanding the forensics board right before they went to review the facts of the case, then, Dudley.
Scott
I’d be willing to bet that Dudley is a loyal Nancy Grace fan. All suspects are guilty, all suspects are EVIL, all suspects should be executed. It’s a viewpoint that’s generally born from personal tragedies, but it’s also a deeply damaged way to look at the world.
aimai
On the subject of Hassan and his multiple murders I actually swing the other way from most people. I oppose the death penalty in his case not because he is the same as other murderers but because he is different. he should do life in prison *because he has the capacity to suffer for what he did* morally and emotionally. The guy entered the military voluntarily in 1996 long before life had been turned into a war between muslims and non muslims. He was a psychiatrist not a trained killer. Its pretty clear that he snapped and tried to committ suicide by cop when they wouldn’t let him out of the army when he’d tried to tell them, everyway he could, that he was under too much pressure.
Unlike Tim McVeigh and other mass murderers of that ilk he doesn’t seem to be a person who really wanted to hurt the people he did hurt. If he ever wakes up from his coma he, like his family, is going to be devastated by what he has done. Life in prison where he can contemplate that harm is a greater punishment than execution. I doubt very seriously that he would, in any event, truly think of execution as a welcome martyrdom. Because I don’t think there’s real evidence that he really thought of his act as jihad. I think he had a psychotic break from which he may recover.
aimai
numbskull
Dudley,
Pug did not state that you have been with ‘Justice for All’ for years. Where did you get that from?
As to your stating that the General MIGHT be right, good for you. Now, the next step in your evolution is asking: What are the most probable motivations for Perry’s actions and the actions of the prosecution? That will take investigation. OOPS! Perry has shut that down. OK, so what are the most probable motivations for doing THAT? Well, answering that will take investigation…
You whined in one of your growing number of posts here that people are ‘critising’ you and not arguing the points. Some cheeze with that fine whine, sir?
I can’t remember what all they said, but it boils down to you’re stupid and your writing sucks.
The stupid part MIGHT come from your making statements like: “None of the critical studies can conlude that the fire wasn’t arson or that it was an accident. So, based, strictly on those, there wil never be a factual conclusion that it wasn’t arson. Ever.”
See, Dudley, that’s a stupid statement on two levels. First, it’s not a question of whether we can conclude that the fire wasn’t due to arson or that it was an accident. The legal, moral, and just question is: Can the prosecution prove that the fire WAS due to arson, and if so, who committed the crime?
Second, it’s a stupid statement because those running the critical studies HAVE concluded that the fire was not due to arson.
Dudley, it’s a sad fact that when a person writes stupid things, people think that person is stupid, and often call him stupid. Hardly seems fair, huh?
As to your writing sucking, well, dude, sorry, to, tell, you, but, if, you, write, the, way, JimKirk, CaptainoftheEnterprise, delivers, …a…, line, then, people, are, goingtosaythatyourwriting,…, sucks. It also doesn’t help to write that way AND introduce yourself here by dinging the host and whinging “My writing is quite coherent.” Like Fox news telling us everyday that they are fair and balanced, if ya gotta brag about it, it probably ain’t true.
Hope this helps your understanding of the world,
Numbskull
PS: If this seems condescending to you, you gets bonus points for further evolving!
Wilson Heath
As an adoptive Texan who knows something about the capital system in the state, it’s rules are byzantine, bloodthirsty, and stacked against getting to the truth. And the fish stinks from the head.
On capital punishment, I get the impulse to embrace the moron’s paradox of killing because life is sacred. But it’s a bit too easy. Including on the one punished. Take Tim McVeigh — I wanted that scumbag to live long enough to realize what he had done wrong and regret it every last miserable, incarcerated day he lived into his old age. He probably went out thinking he was a martyr to a cause. Imagine if he had seen the 9/11 attacks and their aftermath instead of being put to death three months short.
Paris
experts testified that the daddy probably did it.
That’s not really good enough, not for me. We execute people too casually.
There was a decision in Georgia (?I think) a year or two ago, limiting the length of time for appeals for – just because. Justice be damned. Someone needs to die and we can’t wait around to make sure we got the guilty person.
Kind of like invading Iraq.
Dudley Sharp
numbskull:
Thank you. You may have misunderstood.
The 3 newer forensics reports, based upon forensics alone, cannot dertermine the origin of the fire.
That may mean that it was arson, but that the evidence of arson may have been made indistinguisahable from an accidental fire, because of a flashover.
If the evidence of the fire is neutral, by forensics, alone, that does not indicate that the other evidence does not establish arson.
If you do not know how that may occur, I will tell you. An arson fire has a flashover, which makes the arson evidence indistinguisahble from an accidental fire. However, the arsonist is caught on tape accepting the payment for commiting the arson. Or, the arsonist implicates himself by a serious of lies which are so outlandish, that he provides the necessary evidnec to get convicted, eg the Willingham case.
Reading the trial transcrips and the police/witness statements appear to be minimum requirements to be somewhat knowledgeable on this, or any, case
In addition, you may be unaware that there are, at least, two reports, regarding forensics, that have yet to be fully presented.
The Corsicana Fire Dept, (CFD) which had a very limited report, because of a lack of time and access to the evidence, was very critical of the Beyler Report, which was the official report critical of the trial forensics. The CFD report was limited both by time and access to all of the evidnece. They now have more time to finish a full report.
The Texas Fire Marshall’s office, an officla responder to the Beyler report, has already stated that they will be standing by their expert, Vasquez’, original fire forensics, meaning they will be highly critical of Beyler.
Several important problems in the Beyler report have alread come to light.
It is best to wait for the evdience to all come in, prior to reaching any final conclusions.
Ignorance is, always, worse than knowledge.
Dudley Sharp
Mnemosyne, in your post 46, you may have missed the important “not yet”. Having full knowledge does matter. We know that we do not have all of the facts, yet.
Dudley Sharp
Elvis, I thought Perry’s replacement of the 4 members was politically stupid. If you read my link on my speculations as to why Perry did what he did, I conclude that I probably don’t have all the facts.
I doubt anyone on this blog does, either.
Will this delay help or hurt the truth? Probably help it. There is now more attention, more suspician and more focus on this case and on Perry, than there would have been, had the orginal hearing date of 10/2 been realized.
If you are interested in the truth, you know the timing doesn’t matter. The timing only matters, politically. The truth is the truth, whatever the timing may be. I, like most, would like to find out sooner than later. But, if a brief delay, may bring out a more thorough review, that would be a good result, for everyone.
brantl
No, asshole, this isn’t what happened. You choose to say that “some series of lies” provides evidence of arson. Any “series of lies that provided evidense of arson” would have been direct evidence of arson, which you don’t have. You’re either lying, or as dumb as a post. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. STOP LYING.
brantl
God damn it. Evidence, not evidense. Sure wish I could freaking edit. At least I didn’t leave “evidnec” unedited like the Sharp pinhead.
brantl
If you don’t have the forensics, and you don’t have a confession, you don’t have shit.
brantl
Remember reasonable doubt, asshole?
brantl
Remember reasonable doubt, asshole?
bjacques
@60 Dudley Sharp:
I think Cameron Willingham would have liked very much for the truth to come out sooner rather than later.
The rest of us would like the truth of the (alleged) coverup to come out soon enough to do Perry some righteous political damage. As welll, it should expose the shoddiness of the Texan machinery of death before Perry can arrange another human sacrifice to show off his “tuff on crime” chops (or Hutchinson to display similar bloodlust).
Anon.
As far as I can tell, the only need for the death penalty is to get rid of very dangerous people who are *too powerful* to be locked up. The same people who routinely manage to avoid being prosecuted for their crimes.
In other words, if you manage to capture, say, Stalin, on the battlefield, you should execute him — he may be freed by his loyal thugs, and you may never get another chance to arrest him. But other than the unusual circumstance where you fear a gang breaking their leader out — and the martyrdom factor is less important than the leader’s personal competence — I see no function to the death penalty.