If the unimaginable occurred, would you support the death penalty?
Industry colleagues often tell me they appreciate the ballsiness of The Good Men Project. Not only do I love the phrase “ballsy”, I love the fact that every person who writes for The Good Men Project is not afraid to put themselves (and their reputations) on the line by telling the world how they truly feel.
We don’t bullshit around here; we boldly speak what’s in our hearts and our minds. The Good Men Project is a visceral experience. We passionately write about what it means to be good, a lack of goodness, individual darkness, morality, gender, equality and everything in between.
What I’m about to tell you is not good. However, it is a good conversation to have, and The Good Men Project is the ideal forum. (Even though it’s frightening to publicly admit my feelings on this topic.) I wrestle with what I’m about to say. Perhaps someone will change my mind? Or maybe you privately identify with my truth and it will be cathartic to hear your sentiments spoken by another?
♦◊♦
Days after the Aurora movie theater shooting, my husband and I hosted a dinner party. The topic of conversation eventually made its way to capital punishment and the possibility of James Holmes receiving the death penalty.
I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t a proponent of the death penalty. Yes, I believe in putting someone to death if they have unequivocally committed a heinous, unconscionable crime. I don’t believe a sadistic sociopath has the right to life. I don’t want my tax dollars keeping him or her alive in a maximum security prison. I don’t care that there is a tacit code amongst prisoners and that they “take care of” the worst of the worst in lock down. Furthermore, I don’t care that certain guards look the other way and allow prisoners to eliminate those deemed most vile. I wouldn’t want to take that chance. I would need to know that my loved one’s killer was put to death by the state – after a trial and conviction.
At times, when I’m shaken by the brutality of my emotions, I push myself further to confirm my truth. I delve deeper into my soul and consider these scenarios: if I had a child, and my son or daughter was raped and murdered, would I honestly want the perpetrator put to death? Yes, I would. If my daughter or sister was a victim of Ted Bundy’s inhumane atrocities would I have sincerely wanted him put to death by the electric chair? Yes, of course; I would have wanted him electrocuted. If one of my loved one’s was a victim of the Aurora movie massacre, would I seriously want this madman to face the death penalty? Yes, I definitely would.
What I’ve confessed is not good, but it’s my truth. Given my upbringing – and my attempt to live altruistically each day – I’m tormented by my thoughts. Cognitively, I know I should not feel this way; yet emotionally, I can’t ignore my primitive disposition.
I will always feel conflicted by my views on capital punishment. If you feel differently, I’m in awe of your goodness. I wish I could be more like you.
Editor’s note: This post will be highly moderated. Please keep the commentary respectful and on topic.
I wonder how appropriate it is to expect the justice system to provide closure for the family of victims. Is this really supposed to be a function of the courts and prisons? That sounds like overburdening a system with something that it is not very good at and which is better found elsewhere. It also sounds like letting third party feelings dictate the course of a legal case between the state and an individual. I think we already have enough emotional subjectivity built into our political and judicial systems as it is.
The whole idea of having a justice sysem is to substract the emotional component in morality so it’s more just.
Emotion clouds our sense of morality and justice.
I still believe Justice is revenge. The justice system is there only to give the victims a Just revenge.
The whole idea of having a justice sysem is to substract the emotional component in morality so it’s more just. Emotion clouds our sense of morality and justice. All well and good, but you are the one saying that because you think punishment does not reduce or alleviate emotion pain and exacerbates bad emotions, then that should be an argument for abandoning it. I still believe Justice is revenge. The justice system is there only to give the victims a Just revenge. So what is a “Just revenge”? If justice and revenge are the same, isn’t that like saying “vengeful… Read more »
I wonder how appropriate it is to expect the justice system to provide closure for the family of victims. Is this really supposed to be a function of the courts and prisons? For the record, wellokaythen, I do not demand that the justice system fulfill “closure” or emotional resolution for victims and families. That is not its function. Due process and justice should reign supreme. However, sometimes closure can be a collateral result when the justice system functions properly. I was responding to the contention that victims and families absolutely never ever get a sense of closure from trials and… Read more »
A valid question, if the goal is to empathize with people who have lost loved ones to violence. Or, as a thought exercise to talk about people’s perspectives on the death penalty. However, there’s a good reason why people who have lost loved ones to an accused murderer are not allowed on the jury of that accused murderer and are not allowed to set the penalty for the murderer if there’s a conviction. We generally would not expect them to be objective or treat the case fairly. I assume if I lost a loved one to a murderer I would… Read more »
Most jurisdictions that permit “victim impact statements” or “family impact statements” engage in a sort of doublespeak as to the purpose and role of these statements. They try to discount that these statements will affect or change the punishment and insist that their true purpose is for the victim or family to “be heard” in court. Basically, these statements are written off as some kind of catharsis for the victim or family, with no real impact on the judicially determined punishment. And in most cases, that is how it works, especially if the punishment has been fixed by statute or… Read more »
I forgot about the sentencing guidelines that most states have. In a lot of places, the sentencing has very little room for any person to affect one way or the other. The sentencing has really all been worked out before the victim’s family says anything. I’m guessing the family statements also work as a kind of safety valve for the court system. Besides possibly being a cynical ploy to appease the community, it could also be a quite practical internal security measure. Family members who may feel like jumping over the seats and attacking the defendant in court may be… Read more »
Your Thomas Aquinas quote is an appeal to authority. If that where a valid argument then everything that Thomas Aquinas said would be completely correct, including his conclusion that something that moves without moving itself is the christian God, not the God of any other religion or a group of Gods and certainly not a blueberry muffin. I am not saying it is wrong but rather that quoting him (or anyone else for that matter) does not reinforce your argument. You talked about how someone who has no morality will go around hurting everyone and getting pleasure from it, giving… Read more »
Your Thomas Aquinas quote is an appeal to authority. If that where a valid argument then everything that Thomas Aquinas said would be completely correct And your insistence that taking satisfaction in another person’s pain is always condemnable, no matter what, is an appeal to yourself. I am not claiming that Aquinas is necessarily or indisputably correct on that subject (much less every subject). I only cited his statement as a historical and philosophical example of someone suggesting that satisfaction in another’s suffering is not per se bad and is dependant upon context. You talked about how someone who has… Read more »
Strange that you would ask this. In your August 2, 2012, 6:45 P.M. post, you said:
So, you know that it can help achieve closure, but you just want it explained?
Closure is when the traumatic experience stops affecting you. Some people do achieve closure from revenge. They are ok with the act of morally reducing themselves to the level of the criminal and in a way give the criminal a reason why they should of been victimized. They achieve closure in the least healthy of ways, by becoming similar to the criminal. Most cases however people do not achieve closure from revenge. It’s these cases that I wanted your explanation onto why you think it helps them achieve closure. Closure by this last group of people is achieved through forgiveness.… Read more »
My arguments against the death penalty have almost always been that i am in favour of it in extreme cases but against the governments who make the decisions. In both the cases listed in the above article i would have no problems with it. However if you were to add say Vince Li, who killed a man on a greyhound bus, cut him up and ate parts of him I would vote no. To put it bluntly I honestly believe he is repentant, a man who can be saved rather than a man not worth saving. I also have a… Read more »
“Yes, you’d want to see him put to death. You’d want it to be cruel and unusual, which is why it’s probably a good idea that fathers of murder victims don’t have legal rights in these situations.”
-Toby Ziegler, The West Wing, Aaron Sorkin & Paul Redford
it’s probably a good idea that fathers of murder victims don’t have legal rights in these situations Really? No rights at all? Well, in most of the US today, victims and relatives of victims are afforded some minimal legal rights, despite what Ziegler wants. These rights are just things like being informed about the charges against the defendant, being informed about the status of the case, being informed when they have to testify, being informed about what kind of punishment the defendant may get if he is convicted, being consulted if the prosecutor is thinking about a plea bargain, having… Read more »
There is a reason that we don’t let victims or victims’ families decide the punishment of those who commit crimes against them. The legal system is not designed to be a vehicle for personal vengeance. Yes, if my child or husband were the victim of a violent crime, I would happily dismember the person who hurt them with my bare hands…which is why I’m glad that I wouldn’t bear the responsibility for that decision. Examining the DNA evidence of prior convictions has demonstrated that we as a society make a lot of mistakes in determining guilt: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/21/criminal-exoneration-convicted-released-23-years-study_n_1531908.html. The death penalty… Read more »
One of the comments makes an interesting point that hadn’t occurred to me: executing an innocent person also means that the guilty party will never be brought to justice.
Not necessarily true. The fact that an innocent person is punished for something he did not do does not preclude the punishment of the actual guilty party. The guilty party could be subsequently discovered and punished after the wrongful punishment of the innocent person. Or sometimes an innocent person may be false accused of being an accomplice to the guilty party and they are both similarly condemned. Though it is bad that an undeserving person would get punished, the guilty party would still be getting punished as well in that scenario.
There is a reason that we don’t let victims or victims’ families decide the punishment of those who commit crimes against them. The legal system is not designed to be a vehicle for personal vengeance. Indeed, but that is not the only reason. Crimes are not solely private grievances between the offender and the victim(s). On the flip side, even if the victim or victim’s family is entirely forgiving and want the offender to go free, that will not excuse or exempt the offender from punishment. The state and the community are affected as a whole and have jurisdiction over… Read more »
Ok Monkey. Case in point. Elmer Wayne Henley accomplice to the Candy Man Murders in the 1970’s. “This man delivered into the hands of two serial killers his childhood friends for $ 1500.00 each . They were his friends from childhood who he played with as a child and was in and out of his their homes since infancy. He participated in the torture, but not rapes until Dean Coril turned on him and Henley shot him and confessed. Henely is going up for parole hearding on 08/14/12. You know this is a good example on the argument on this… Read more »
That is truly horrible. It still doesn’t justify a death sentence that disproportionately executes poor black and Latino men, and has been proven to result in innocent people on death row or even executed.
If my boyfriend were to be killed I think I would feel as though I were betraying him if I wanted the perpetrator to be put to death. I might want the individual to die or suffer –but I don’t think it would alleviate any of my grief and would probably only make me feel worse in the long run for betraying the memory of my beloved who aspires to harm no living creature that has interests.
That is why we need new laws to deal with Killers such as Duncan and others on a one to one basis. These are people that have been proven by evidence and eye witnesses. There is no question that they are guilty. There can be a difference in handling these cases in a trustworthy and timley matter. If we can send people to the moon why can’t we do this? We have extremely intelligent people in our country that can do this. We can protect the innocent while bringing swift justice to these killers. It can be done. Their are… Read more »
No… We really, really can’t.
No one is convicted if there is any doubt about their guilt *at that time*. Ifsomeone is found innocent later, it’s because new evidence has been found, sometimes decades later.
There’s no way of making a legal distinction between guilty and double-plus guilty. As long as you have the death penalty there is the chance that innocent people will be executed.
“As long as you have the death penalty there is the chance that innocent people will be executed.”
Not so much “chance” as “certainty”
One might as well ask: “If you discovered that the person you thought had killed your loved one was actually innocent and faces the death penalty for a crime they didn’t commit, would you want them to be executed.”
I’m guessing that alot of people would want someone who hurt someone they love dead, but that doesn’t change the fact that innocent people will end up on the same chair.
One might as well ask: “If you discovered that the person you thought had killed your loved one was actually innocent and faces the death penalty for a crime they didn’t commit, would you want them to be executed.” I am sure that most people would answer “no” to that question. However, that does not mean that they are all going to jump to the conclusion that nobody must ever be executed for the sake of those who may be wrongfully executed. Or that nobody must ever be punished in any way, for the sake of those who may wrongfully… Read more »
I suggest we realise nothing good ever comes from revenge and instead of using prisons to punish we use them to reform and in the worst of cases, isolate with the intention of protecting society. Who are you to decide the life or death of a person? We all have a right to live, no matter how big of an asshole we think it’s clever to be. This person could be reformed into a very valuable person for our society. I’m not saying it can be easily done and maybe it’s not possible, but we don’t know wether or not… Read more »
I suggest we realise nothing good ever comes from revenge Of course you can suggest that, and people can reject your suggestion. Even if we accept that revenge and retribution are the same, which they are not, lots of people find a moral good and moral imperative in punishment. When persons harm and violate their fellow persons, we think that there is an imperative that the malefactors suffer some kind of harm and loss commensurate to what they did to their victim(s). Perhaps you may dismiss this notion as ridiculous, and other people may dismiss your rehabilitation argument as naïve.… Read more »
I guess you’ve never heard of ad populum fallacies. You really should learn to debate my stance as a whole instead of picking it apart and even separating parts of the same argument and misunderstanding some of these parts as a result.
I believe you are not a person who knows himself and who thus thinks they are never biased. I refuse to debate with you because I feel like your phychological defences (created, I’d speculate, during childhood by abusive parents) prevent you from thinking in an entirely logical way.
I guess you’ve never heard of ad populum fallacies. Actually, I have. I happen to agree with most of the principles that I have presented, or at least find them worth consideration. I do not think that they are true simply because lots of people subscribe to them. But I also care to point out that lots of people do subscribe to them, and most of them are not sadistic, stunted people in need of the light of your teachings. You really should learn to debate my stance as a whole instead of picking it apart and even separating parts… Read more »
The fact that you thought my speculative comment on how your childhood may have caused you to be biased in this debate was an ad homien says alot about yourself. I don’t wish to punish you for being illogical. I’m just pointing out what I feel when I debate with you in the hope that you get some help because I’ve been where you are and I know that deep inside you are just scared. Fear is the root of all evil. Being proved wrong won’t make people reject you. Being prooved less than perfect won’t make people reject you.… Read more »
The fact that you thought my speculative comment on how your childhood may have caused you to be biased in this debate was an ad homien says alot about yourself. When you tell a person that their statements or arguments are beneath consideration and must be the product of psychological damage and abuse, then that constitutes an ad hominem attack. If you truly believe that rational people are obliged to kindly accept your condescending appraisals of them, then your arrogance is as boundless as the sun. What if you actually confronted a real crime victim or an abuse victim who… Read more »
You could become a successful politician if you could give that ammount of spin to any subject. Or maybe it’s just lack of comprehension. I suggest you re-read my comments in that case. My favourite example of your spin ( to give evidence this is not an ad homien): “So you refuse to exchange with people unless they have undergone preemptive rigorous therapy and meditation to know their own “psyches”?” I never mentioned medication and I said debate, not all social exchange. Another example of your spin: Your anecdotal argument of some people getting something good out of revenge does… Read more »
You could become a successful politician if you could give that ammount of spin to any subject. Thanks, but no thanks. And it is not spin, just because it happens to be contrary to your platitudes. Or maybe it’s just lack of comprehension. I suggest you re-read my comments in that case. Read them time and again. Read them over and over every time I respond to them. I guess I am just thickheaded. Or maybe you do not realize that just because somebody is not persuaded by what you say, does not mean that they do not comprehend what… Read more »
“I am sure that most people would answer “no” to that question. However, that does not mean that they are all going to jump to the conclusion that nobody must ever be executed for the sake of those who may be wrongfully executed.” If your answer is no, the only way to prevent that from happening is not to execute people. Otherwise it *will* happen, just as it has done in the past. “Or that nobody must ever be punished in any way, for the sake of those who may wrongfully punished.” Red herring. Lesser punishments can be commuted in… Read more »
If your answer is no, the only way to prevent that from happening is not to execute people. Otherwise it *will* happen, just as it has done in the past. You are assuming that because they do not want an innocent person to be punished, then they must necessarily value that priority above all else. And they will just tell you, “I would not want an innocent person to be punished for murdering my relative. But I do not think this person is innocent and I do not think the risk of executing the innocent is compelling enough to abolish… Read more »
This Holmes guy who did the shooting. Killing him would not reduce the pain created by his acts. Killing him would be reducing ourselves to his level and using violent rage to make ourselves feel better, just like he used violent rage to feel better. If you support the death penalty you are also a murderer. We need to give our children a better example of what justice is than this archaic “an eye for an eye” revenge mentality or they too may believe going on a shooting spree a form of justice. You don’t want to pay his imprisonment?… Read more »
Killing him would not reduce the pain created by his acts. So you have asked all of the surviving victims and relatives of victims? Certainly they would have preferred never to have been shot and for their family members never to have been maimed and killed. But when these irreversible acts are done, lots of wronged people claim that they want to see the perpetrator punished, and if he is not punished (or sufficiently punished), then they often claim to find that distressing and painful. You would be surprised how long victims and family of victims wait to see the… Read more »
It’s true that victims can get closure from taking this form of revenge. It’s also true that such a slow legal system only prolongs the pain and it might be years before you get closure. Years full of rage towards this person. I know this because I have been in that situation and let me tell you, if you hold a container full of sulfuric acid waiting to throw it to your victims face, when you finally throw it over them you’ll feel good but the container you held that acid in for so long will have been damaged. You… Read more »
Some of the Aurora survivors don’t just want the death penalty. They want a firing squad.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/dark-knight-massacre-victim-accused-shooter-james-holmes-death-firing-squad-totally-justified-article-1.1126565
Michael, So true. I will have to read that book. That being said. When you read the case about Duncan there is no question at all that he did it and would do so again. We need the DP against these types of individuals to protect the innocents. To think how those children suffered. I could not sleep for weeks after reading it. What do we do about monsters like him? Why should he live one moment longer, why should we the tax payers have to support him in prison for the rest of his life. The verdict was the… Read more »
There are two many prosecutors who prosecute for personal poltiical benefit, and all too often they accuse a law abiding citizen and then cover up or ignore evidence that exonerates the innocent they accused. Read _One Innocent Man_ by John Grisham. This book is biography of a heinous and vile miscarriage of justice. A prosecutor put four men on death row to close out two separate cases, and all of them had not been involved in the crimes in any way. Unless guarantees can be put in place to protect the law abiding from such prosecutions which are themselves crimes.
Jeezus. I can’t believe I type “two” instead of “too” and didn’t notice it.
I don’t agree. Cases such as Duncan are clear cut and if you read Bonnies Blog of Crime you will see that violence and murder are out of control in this country. Something has to be done about it. I feel for our poor Police Offfices out there every day putting their lives on the line, only to have the crimminal released, it must be very frustrating for them and mentally debilitating on a daily basis. I refuse to believe that the system is going to deliberately sentence and innocent. to death based on the fact that murderers are given… Read more »
The issue here is not about the innocent conviicted wrongly. That is far and few between. What we are seeing now is blantant murder and disregard for life such as Duncan. We are talking about these crimminals who clearly deserve the DP not ones that are in question?
They are actually not few and far between – check the Innocence Project if you don’t believe me.
The point is that you cannot separate the two, as hard as you try. There will always -ALWAYS- be someone who is found guilty who will in fact be innocent.
Yes, JJ I do agree absolutely! The cost is secondary compared to what the innocent victims have suffered, but considerationof the costs does help when making decisions regarding the DP.
as long as there is disputable evidence I feel they should be executed for murder and forced rape. Its not about the cost of keeping them in prison but the cost of the emotional and physical harm they caused their victim. I also feel that they victim or if deceased the victims family should have a say in the punishment. Too many criminals make themselves out to be the victim when the real victim is the one they raped or murdered.
It seems strange to value the life of a convicted murderer while taking it for granted that more than a million Americans have died by being put into war. We maintain a DoD to be prepared to have more killed in national interest. Apparently, being a convicted murderer is kind of special. Richard you are so correct. US Soliders die every day to protect the country, they get nothing really, a small stipend and the promise of good education, that is IF they make it! While these murderers kill helpless, innocent people at will. When caught they get housing, food,… Read more »
Monkey that was at the turn of the century. Here is what you seem to have a problem with : many innocent people have been sentenced to death based on “clear cut” cases. There is no separate law for people who we “really really really know did it.”
You are correct and the fact is that we need one! Thank you
turn of the century? There have been cases in the past 10 or 20 years of people who were executed on questionable evidence.
The vast number of executed in the US are poor African American or other minorities who are saddled with inadequate or even corrupt defenses.
Read anything by Sister Helen Prejean, and tell me that the death penalty works.
We’ll read stuff by her when you read stuff by Robert Blecker.
The vast majority of those executed are male which evidently does not rate a mention.
Sadly, that is true. Because of gender stereotypes and socialization, juries and courts often sympathize more with female defendants and give them lesser sentences, even though they may rightly deserve harsher ones.
His point isn’t that we need a separate law for convicting people who we are really sure did it and those we’re not so sure about but decided to throw away anyway.
His point is that the justice system isn’t perfect and such a distinction isn’t possible. No matter how the law is written juries will get things wrong. If the death penalty is involved the victims of the screw up will be dead.
His point isn’t that we need a separate law for convicting people who we are really sure did it and those we’re not so sure about but decided to throw away anyway. Yes, I think that his true, ultimate point is to disqualify the state from punishing any criminal for any crime. His point is that the justice system isn’t perfect and such a distinction isn’t possible. States could simply write laws saying that the death penalty will not be an option unless the defendant admits commission of the crime or if there is something like a videographic record of… Read more »
“Yes, I think that his true, ultimate point is to disqualify the state from punishing any criminal for any crime.” No it clearly wasn’t. “States could simply write laws saying that the death penalty will not be an option unless the defendant admits commission of the crime or if there is something like a videographic record of the defendant committing the murder or such.” People have falsely admitted crimes before because their case was hopeless, video footage can be, and has been, faked or misinterpreted. “That does not require the involvement of the death penalty. People sentenced to life in… Read more »
No it clearly wasn’t. Once one accepts the premise that the risk of wrongful punishment should proscribe the use of that punishment entirely, it just becomes a question of which punishment one can accept sometimes being applied to a wrongfully convicted person. “Well, I cannot accept the risk of an innocent person being executed, but I can tolerate the risk of an innocent person spending the rest of his life in prison.” Then it becomes “I cannot accept the risk of an innocent person spending the rest of his life in prison, but I can accept the risk of an… Read more »
Blurpo, I see you are lurking. I was sure you would show. We cannot allow people like Joseph Duncan III to just go around killing people at random. He is a danger to society and a burden to the tax payers not to mention dangerous to less violent criminals in prision. “Lets forget all the socio-economical issues, lets forget all the time the state has let a person down, lets forget the power dynamics i the country, lets forget the cultural support to violenc” We are not forggetting them, these legitimate issues that affect us all. The system cannot continue… Read more »
Sorry, Here is my question. How does excuting someone like Duncan affect innocent people? It dosen’t! The fact that he killed before and was let loose to do so again was mind boggling to me! Yes, Innocents were affected! Yes innocents suffered terribly! I have no problem with the Dealth Penalty fo these types of individuals. (and there seems to be a lot of them in the news lately) Its the right thing to do. It is justice pure and simple. Victims families can get some form of relief from justice served, although their lives will never be the same,… Read more »
Dead sentence is barbaric, and denote more the society that support it than the criminal. Honestly you live in a country where its ok to kill criminals, then how can you blame assasins? Violence only bring violence, and dead sentence is kinda useless since it doesent prevent nothing. It doesent stop the killings it doesent scare criminals, it doesen protect people…then what the h*ll is that good for? Its like using war to make peace. A big fat lie. Its easier to kill people rather than fix what has gone wrong, just like authoritarian regimes suppress dissence with brute force… Read more »
Honestly you live in a country where its ok to kill criminals, then how can you blame assasins? Because we think there is difference between an assassin paid to murder a person for whatever reason (personal, political, monetary, religious, etc.) and executing a criminal who committed severe crimes and who has been legally condemned. But honestly, if you live in a country where its ok to imprison criminals, then how can you blame kidnappers? But honestly, if you live in a country where its ok to fine criminals, then how can you blame thieves? It doesent stop the killings it… Read more »
We’ve discussed this before: apparently we need to discuss it again.
It affects innocent people because there is no way to implement a death penalty law in such a way that you can guarantee that innocent people will not be executed.
The “cost” of not executing innocent people is that the state cannoy kill the likes of Duncan. It sucks, but it;s the only morally sane way.
It affects innocent people because there is no way to implement a death penalty law in such a way that you can guarantee that innocent people will not be executed. Really? Even if we limited the death penalty to people who openly and freely admit their crimes and their depravity, like Duncan? The “cost” of not executing innocent people is that the state cannoy kill the likes of Duncan. When an innocent person is punished for a crime that he/she did not commit, that is an injustice. When a guilty person is not punished (or not sufficiently punished) for a… Read more »
We can’t limit it to people who freely admit or brag about their crimes. Te law doesn’t work that way.
Te law doesn’t work that way. The death penalty is not mandatorily imposed in this jurisdiction (as opposed to the Asianc countries). Prosecutors decide whether or not they will pursue it and juries usually decide whether or not to impose it, after they have listened to a fight between the “aggravating factors” and the “mitigating factors.” If they want to limit the possibility to perpetrators who” freely admit or brag about their crimes” (though they should not have to do so), then what is to stop them. And just for the record, most death penalty cases are not “whodunnits.” It… Read more »
Actually, the “cost” is more dead innocents, of which you were informed but chose to pretend was not an issue.
Absolute nonsense.
Yes. But people like Monkey cannot understand the concept of Justice. All he can see is that innocent people will be killed? We can relate to clear cut cases, that Moneky cannot seem to comprehend, as in the case of Jospeh Duncan III. In his closing statement in that trial in 2008, Duncan told the jury, “You people really don’t have any clue yet of the true heinousness of what I’ve done.” While on the run from a child-molesting charge in Minnesota in 2005, Duncan said he’d plotted terrible crimes targeting random children, from invading day-care centers to kidnappings at… Read more »
Comprehend this:
Where is the justice in executing innocent people, including a 14 year old boy who was only saved because sanity prevailed and his sentence was commuted?
Here is what you seem to have a problem with : many innocent people have been sentenced to death based on “clear cut” cases. There is no separate law for people who we “really really really know did it.”
The assertion is that, because the judgment process leading to DP is not perfect, we must stop DP. If perfection is the issue, then we must question the tactic of letting murderers go–see earlier posts about the lies regarding LWOP as a substitute for the DP. The individual murdered by a released murderer, or another prisoner or a guard killed in prison, is actually dead at the hands of the state because the state released a known murderer which it had the means to keep. Thus it’s at the hands of the state, as the state could have prevented it.… Read more »
Monkey,
The Central Park Five did not get the automatic appeals and all the other avenues available to capital punishment cases.
It is not likely that anything run by the government will be perfect, the question is what happens to the no-murderer, non-criminal at the hands of the murderer who will be released. If the DP is not perfect, and thus must be eschewed, must not the release of murderers be eschewed if it is not perfect?
No, because one is permanent while the other is not.
It’s not a matter of “if.” people found innocent after the fact have been executed. And these people were non-murderers and non-criminals.
If a person is released and commits a new crime, it is on their hands. If an innocent person is executed, it’s on society’s hands.
No, because one is permanent while the other is not. When a person is imprisoned (wrongfully or rightfully), that person suffers a permanent harm and change to his/her life. It is not reversible. If a person is imprisoned for 30 years, he/she has permanently lost those years, forever. Even if he is subsequently vindicated and released, he is not going to got those years back. I suppose he can be monetarily compensated for the loss of time from his life, but that does not undo the loss, anymore than monetary compensation to the family of wrongfully executed person would undo… Read more »
And yet he (or she) will still be alive.
Are you seriously suggesting tha because being falsely imprisoned is bad, killing isn’t so bad?
Yes, he will still be alive. That just means that the wrongful punishment inflicted did less damage than a wrongful execution would have done. It is only a matter of degree, not a qualitative difference in my view.
Of course not. It is very bad, worse than a wrongful imprisonment. But I do not think it is bad enough that capital punishment must be abolished and proscribed from the outset just for the sake of avoiding that risk.
Fortunately only a handful of countries agree with you.
In terms of numbers of nation states, yes. But in terms of population and jurisdiction, no. Monaco is one country, and China is one country. They are not equivalent in terms of how many people they control and rule. Then add India. Then add most of the Muslim countries. Then add Africa (aside from South Africa). A substantial portion, if not a majority, of the people of the world live under death penalty jurisdictions.
Death penalty supporters disgust me. By their own logic, they deserve to have specious and unsound arguments thrown at them for all of eternity as punishment for constantly making specious and unsound arguments. Even murderers have mothers; not a life is lost that isn’t mourned or felt in some respect, which is why we criminalize the intentional taking of life in the first place. If you accept that life is deserving of special protection against its willful termination (read: the spirit of any homicide law), then you have no business advocating the willful termination of life. Any other position is… Read more »
Death penalty supporters disgust me. Nobody is forcing you to engage with them, so you can spare your stomach the anguish. they deserve to have specious and unsound arguments thrown at them for all of eternity They already have to suffer that, dealing with melodramatic death penalty opponents who rehash every tired refrain on CNN or MSNBC every time that a semi-prominent execution is about to happen. If you have to listen to them, and they have to listen to you, then call it even. Even murderers have mothers; not a life is lost that isn’t mourned or felt in… Read more »
Megalodon, Touring Ft. Sumter last spring, I asked the ranger about some research I’d seen raising the total dead in the Civil War to about 800,000. He said that was probably valid. Given the population increase, that would be the equivalent of about 8,000,000 young men dead in four years today. That brings the total dead in our wars to about a million and a quarter. They died at the behest of the government for purposes our elected officials thought worthy. Ditto large portions of the population. They were not there, did not die, because they committed a crime against… Read more »
Actuall, they died to prevent the further enslavement of American citizens. That us, frankly, worth dying for.
“inevitable deaths?” is there some study that shows 100% recidivism?
Actuall, they died to prevent the further enslavement of American citizens. That us, frankly, worth dying for. Fighting slavery was not the predominant justification for the war, at least not from the outset. It was sold as a fight against seccession from the Union. And frankly, a lot of them died because they were drafted and forced to fight and die. They did not want to risk their lives to fight slavery or to quell a rebellion. In some cases, we had to use violence to make them fight in the first place (The Draft Riots). “inevitable deaths?” is there… Read more »
The difference being that the actions of the murderers are theirs alone. The state kills on our behalf. If you really cant see the difference…
The difference being that the actions of the murderers are theirs alone. Really? Ever notice that when there is a hate crime, we are told that society is partly responsible for this crime because of its societal racism and such? Or when a man murders a woman, we are told that society is involved because of our cultural misogyny and such? Or when a man murders his wife or family, we are told that the state is responsible too because they should have enforced that restraining order? Is that all nonsense? The acts of any murderer or malefactor may be… Read more »
“Really? Ever notice that when there is a hate crime, we are told that society is partly responsible for this crime because of its societal racism and such? Or when a man murders a woman, we are told that society is involved because of our cultural misogyny and such? Or when a man murders his wife or family, we are told that the state is responsible too because they should have enforced that restraining order? Is that all nonsense?”
Metaphorical responsibility is very different from actual responsibility. In all thsoe cases, the perpetrator is the only one who is punished.
But hate crime laws are being based on those metaphorical responsibility. It’s like it’s “we don’t know/care why he did it we are going to push this motive into it and then prosecute him on that motive”.
I’m all for the per getting punished but I don’t like the idea of forcing a motive/responsibility on them just to have something to punish him for.
The reponsibility does not sound so metaphorical whenever we hear these protests. Whenever an infamous crime happens, we are told that society is obligated to pass new laws, we need to purge ourselves of our racism, we need to unlearn our misogyny, the police should enforce restraining orders quickly, etc. Anyway, the money that California paid to Jaycee Dugard for what a parolee did to her was not metaphorical money.
Does this only apply to murderers or to all malefactors? Phillip Garrido was sentenced to 50 years in prison for kidnapping and raping a woman in Nevada. But he was paroled after 10 years. Then he kidnapped Jaycee Dugard and kept her captive for 18 years. Were his recidivist actions solely his responsibility? Well, the State of California paid Jaycee Dugard 20 milliion dollars, so maybe they were worried they were going to be blamed too.