Death Penalty Open Thread
Have At It
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in Law — Comments (40) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I am probably not alone in having decidedly mixed views of the death penalty. On the one hand, I've always had a gut-level affinity for applying the maximum penalty to the worst crimes, and while I am pro-life I recognize that there is a world of difference between executing the guilty after due process and exterminating the most innocent of lives without any legal defense at all. Certainly the State has every right to take a life for a life, by any measure; that's almost the definition of the purpose of the State. And my support for the death penalty tends to rise in direct proportion to my exposure to its opponents.
On the other hand, the Catholic Church has long been at best deeply skeptical about the death penalty (call me a theocrat, if you will, but that does matter), and one does have to bear in mind at all times that this is, after all, the deliberate taking of a particular human life. There are problems with administering the death penalty on a broad scale to ordinary criminals - not least that it's frightfully expensive - it's potentially unfair if applied selectively to such criminals, and the deterrent effect is questionable if you limit it to the really spectacular cases of gleeful and unambiguous evildoing.
The strongest case for the death penalty would seem to me to be where it is used as a weapon of societal self-defense to incapacitate members of an organized group - terrorists especially, but arguably members of organized criminal syndicates. Such organizations are notoriously effective at continuing to use imprisoned members as an asset. And - at least for those who are in the crime business as opposed to religious fanatics - executing members of a particular organization may have a more focused deterrent effect on their remaining cohorts.
One argument that sometimes gets made by death penalty opponents is that life imprisonment is worse punishment than death. But there's an obvious response to that: if it really is a more effective punishment, it should be viewed that way by people who are sentenced to death. And yet, virtually without exception, the vast majority of death row inmates take every possible avenue of appeal to overturn their sentences. If you count how they 'vote with their feet,' they vote overwhelmingly that they would prefer life in prison to execution.
Anyway, that's my two cents - how about yours?
« Rethinking War Powers — Comments (1) | Sixth Circuit Rejects EEOC's Weight Discrimination Theory — Comments (6) »
Death Penalty Open Thread 40 Comments (0 topical, 40 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I posted on this from a religious standpoint a while back, and it provoked some good discussion, I think.
As a public policy matter, it seems clear that the modern application of the death penalty has ceased to serve any meaningful utilitarian ends. And, with the ridiculous and convoluted eighth amendment jurisprudence that has sprung up around the death penalty, I think we do a systematically poor job of determining which offenders are truly the most culpable and therefore most deserving of the death penalty. However, I support it in principle (as a retributivist), but I'd like to see some reform happen.
The problem, sadly, is that the more safeguards we put in place, the more expensive and cumbersome the system becomes, until you reach the Platonic ideal of NY's death penalty, which was passed in Pataki's first term and has never been used.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
And, almost inevitably, the few who do get through do so not because their crimes were truly the most heinous, but rather becuase they were unfortunate enough to not slip through the many, many loopholes.
to which the death penalty is applied. and get judges that end the 8th amendment farce
"If they attack us, it means we're winning." - Rush Limbaugh
for reasons of public policy.
1. Execution of the sentence takes too long. Even in Texas, you could expect to live 7-10 years on death row.
2. I do not buy into the "closure" argument for victim's families. If anything, endless appeals and publicity would seem to me to be worse.
3. My major objection, however, is that I believe that the lengths to which dp opponents have gone to stop executions have degraded the law in general. There is no argument too silly and somewhere there is a federal judge just silly enough to accept what passes for legal reasoning. Ergo, we have a constant flow of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" arguments and I think that mode of operation has overflowed into other areas of the law.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
penlty for the same reason I oppose abortion, ie reverence for God's gift of life. The long term benefits of the existence of the death penalty is incalculable in inculcating a respect for life in children. To grow up knowing that life is so precious that one can lose their own if they take anothers.
"If they attack us, it means we're winning." - Rush Limbaugh
If the death penalty could be administered quickly and the courts could find a way to block spurious arguments (cruel and unusual punishment, etc), and the focus of appeals was limited to actual guilt or innocence - which would eliminate about 95% of appeals, IMLTHO - then I'm in favor of the death penalty.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Ayn Rand's case against the death penalty starts with the premise that there are no such thing as group or collective rights. Der Volk does not have rights; the state does not have rights; the Soviet does not have rights; unions do not have rights.
Individuals have rights, but individuals can delegate those rights to other actors, including the state. One such right is self-defence. You can protect yourself and your property, up to the point of killing the aggressor, under appropriate circumstances. For example, you may not kill someone to prevent a relatively minor assault such as shouting in someone's face, nor if other reasonable means exist to prevent the crime in progress or about to become so.
This means that it is permitted for police officers to shoot dead perps who are in the act or even fleeing the scene, but once someone has been restrained, this becomes impermissible.
Quite simply, you cannot delegate to the state your right to kill someone, because you do not possess that right in the first place. You can only delegate your right to self-defence.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
Her premise was wrong, consequently, her conclusions were wrong. The only "right" that an individual has is that which he can obtain and defend. This can be done by his own strength of arm or verbal persuasion or, by aligning himself with others who seek the same right through collective force. Hence, tribes/nations.
It is for the holder of the right, either individual or collective, to determine the punishment for violating these obtained rights. If death is deemed an appropriate punishment, so be it.
By example, individuals may have difference tolerance levels for response in the realm of self defence. For some, if someone kicks in their door, they may say, "What do you want?" or, "Take anything you want, just don't hurts us.". I would say " Look at the size of the hole the 12 gauge made".
As for a collective death penalty, there needs to be a defined and efficient review process that would take no more than 12 months. Whether this results in deterrence, justice for the wronged or just economic expediency is of little consequence. All are acceptable.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
So Tbone am I right to suppose that you disagree with the Declaration of Independence that "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with cerain inalienable Rights..."
- JG
suppose the signatories to the Declaration could have enjoyed or extended to others without Washington's army?
Unless you can pray down a host of angels, you better be ready to stand and fight for every right to which you think you are entitled.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
>>The only "right" that an individual has is that which he can obtain and defend.
An interesting case, but a plain contradiction of the founding premise of the United States (as mentioned below). Indeed, you are disputing the whole notion of rights per se and arguing that there is only power.
To take the example of the American Revolution, the reductio ad absurdam of your principle would be that if the Revolution had been defeated then it would have been wrong in principle. The Revolution not only made good the rights of American citizens, but created them.
I agree with Ayn Rand and Thomas Jefferson: there are natural human rights.
But this is something of a threadjack. I am not sure how your power over rights analysis relates to the principle of capital punishment. Presumably that capital punishment is right in any state that allows it and wrong in any state that doesn't. Mmmmm. Not convinced by that!
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
...in some respects. On the domestic front, I like the idea of life in prison in lieu of the death penalty, with inmates doing hard labor six days a week, provided there is no chance of escape.
For an illegal combatant, put him before a competent military tribunal, and if judged to be one, feed him a nice halal meal before sending him to a firing squad.
It's not obvious to me that governments have the right to deter crime. I'm sure $50,000 speeding tickets would be a great deterrent, but they would be unjust.
But I think it's clear governments have the obligation to execute justice for the common good. As a Christian, I think that's a God-given duty. But I think even most secularists consider justice a positive virtue in a government. At the very least it cuts down on the number of crimes, without doing obvious wrong.
Well, what's justice when one man murders another? If you want justice, you must accept the consequences. If you don't, what would you replace justice with?
For Christians concerned that the death penalty is unnecessarily cruel, even if just, remember that this life is not the end. A person who dies by lethal injection can have every advantage of preparation. It was once a proverb that more people went to heaven from the executioner's block than from the Christian graveyard. Removing this advantage in favor of the burden of long-term imprisionment is a questionable blessing at best.
In practical terms, the extraordinary costs of execution would go away if the death penalty became more common and expected. There's little more reason to attach all these special appeals to death than to life imprisonment. It's not as if either isn't a monstrous injustice if falsely determined. Nor is it possible to construct a workable justice system with a false positive rate of 0.
Even the right to impose severe penalties for acivities that only occasionally result in harm to others, like speeding, drug use, or dropping bricks from interstate bridges. But I mainly agree with the rest of what you say, very strongly, and am glad you said it.
God demanded that his chosen people be just, which required a life for a life and an eye for an eye, ect
"If they attack us, it means we're winning." - Rush Limbaugh
The Victorian idea "reforming" offenders or simply imprisoning murderers and rapists to keep society safe from them is nonsense that turns 3000 years of jurisprudence on its head. The death penalty was never about keeping society "safe" (as if one ever could rid the world of evil through human means), it was about exacting just retribution upon the heads of those who break society's most sacred laws. By choosing to live under our law and enjoying the fruits of the stability it brings, you agree to forfeit certain rights if you violate the charter, among them the rights to life and liberty. Any other rights you maintain after due process and conviction come from the charter (our Constitution) itself, not from any inalienable source. That is why it is called the death "penalty", not the death "safeguard".
On a theological note, I believe that one can fully reconcile Christian and Catholic teaching with the just use of capital punishment. St. Paul endorses it in Romans in no uncertain terms. "Let every person be subject to the governing authoriries...for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer." (Romans 13:1-4). Alternative ideas of the death penalty, in my view, spring from a utilitarian rationalism that denies God's very existance.
The short version is this: The government needs a way to decisively deal with severe threats to public safety. The death penalty is the best method to do so. After Ted Bundy went to the electric chair, he was incapable of harming anyone else ever again.
I think the death penalty is appropriate for first-degree murder, murdering a cop, or treason (among other crimes). I think it's also appropriate in rape cases where the victim contracts HIV (the victim's dead - it will just take 10-15 years) or when the perp is convicted of multiple rapes of children or is convicted of manufacturing child pornography.
They're just too dangerous to have running around.
I agree that it is the only form of legal punishment that is sufficient for some of these "people".
I agree that it helps protect society from repeat offenders that have once been caught.
But mostly, I just don't think that we should spend $50,000 a year keeping each of these individuals alive and comfortable and teaching them a trade. Call me a little crass, but I see millions of dollars a year that could be directed to people that actually Need it being wasted on individuals who should have been hung.
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
I think any crime that currently warrants a prison sentence that can be described as wharehousing rather than rationally punishment/rehabilitating should be be converted to a capital crime and the money re-invested elsewhere.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
i don't know exactly where i stand on it in many cases. however...when it comes to people like OBL and cop-killers i am defenatly for it. it's all the other times that i have to think about it
"Suppose you were a congressman, and suppose you were an idiot. But I repeat myself." - Mark Twain
Why them?
How do you feel about punishing corrupt cops?
--
The Presidency is a position more easily critiqued than attained.
Any public official convicted of taking bribes?
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
Any public official who has served more than two terms in an elected office.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
If you're willlling to kill a cop, you're willing to kill a prison guard. Especially if you are in for life and have nothing to lose. Not to mention it's treasonous. We shouldn't put our corrections officers into unnecessary risk like that.
which to date only one lefty has been willing to accept.
Here it is; We amend the constitution to remove the death penalty for any crime. However, at the same time we codify a list of heinous crimes commonly carrying a death penalty, and we take all of these offenders and put them on an Island prison in the Artic sea. Lets call it the Gulag. There is no TV or library
in the Gulag, no work out room, no nuthin.
Also, you get one appeal, then you go in and there is no review or parole unless NEW evidence in your case comes up.
The fact that most on the left will not take such a compromise is a strong indicator that they are not concerned so much with the value of human life, but rather are criminal lovers as we have always suspected.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Amendment to outlaw capital punishment combined with outlawing abortion except to save the life of the mother.
I don't get any takers either.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
I'll take this except that the Island is Manhattan and you have to put a big wall around it. Then use Liberty Island as the Warden's Office and Processing Center. Oh, wait...
England tried the island idea. The island they use is now called Australia. No offense to anyone that lives there.
If the death penalty was truly a tool used to prevent crime, why are we not executing pedophiles automatically upon their first conviction. Pedophilia is an uncurable psychological disease. If "crime prevention" was truly needed, what better place to start then the scum that prey on our children?
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"If they attack us, it means we're winning." - Rush Limbaugh
Pedophilia is an uncurable psychological disease.
That is a myth. What's more, even if it were true, killing the pedophile seems a little harsh for a first offense, since it would be an impediment to reporting.
With child molestation, what you want is maximum reporting without false positives. A first-offense death penalty would decrease reporting of real offenses (since pedophiles typically build relationships with their victims and could build that into a clandestine game-playing: "You wouldn't want me to be hurt, would you?"
Just as bad in its own way is the false positive: hell hath no fury, etc.
--
The Presidency is a position more easily critiqued than attained.
Many molestation accusations are a quagmire, especially when you start talking about manufactured stuff surrounding particularly ugly divorces and whatnot.
But in a case of a kid suffering a kidnapping and rape, or kidnap and murder, or any combination like that, then the perpetrator ought to get death, and we ought to sell tickets to it to defray the expense.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
The stereotypical case, tailing a kid home from school, offering candy, followed by atrocity, seems like a nice use of the chair.
My trouble with it is the witch hunt and mandatory sentencing mentality, and its potential for abuse. Uncle Johnny plays Marco Polo with the kids when something suspicious happens, and suddenly he's on death row.
The death penalty should be reserved for actually murdering someone. My question is whether it should be used in all murder cases, or only those with special circumstances.
--
The Presidency is a position more easily critiqued than attained.
...illegal combatants, including al Quaeda operatives and their wannabes *wherever we find them* are entitled to a swift drumhead court martial, a cigarette and blindfold while awaiting sentence, and a mercy shot after sentence is carried out. That is all.
Just like the SS troopers caught wearing American uniforms during the Bulge. "Seig Heil!" "BANG!".
This from a Death Penalty opponent who subscribes to the "Seamless Garment" doctrine otherwise. When Church doctrine sanctions War in certain cases, then the generally-accepted Rules of War trump all.
--furious
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
I've posted on this topic before. Below is my response to a liberal who wanted to "understand" how I could support the death penalty but oppose abortion. As you can see, to me the problem is that our justice system has gotten so far away from the old traditional definition of justice that the whole system has broken down. Of course, the lawyers and judges think that the system is so much more just now that primitive ideas like "eye for an eye" have been replaced by Rawlin "social justice". They think that we are more just than we used to be. I don't buy that. I don't believe that American law has become more just than it was in 1800's- except for the removal of racial prejudices. That's the rub, they keep talking as though racism can't be overcome without throwing out the whole traditional definition of justice. I don't see why the two are connected- In fact, a return to the old ways would help with racial inbalance in death penalty cases- "white" murders should be eligible for the death penalty too.
Why do I support the death penalty? For deterence? No. For prevention? Not really. I support the death penalty because it is just and it is an enourmous injustice to allow these murderers to live. You want to quote the Bible at me? I can do it too. It is written: "Thou shalt not suffer a murderer to live." People today have no respect for true justice. They try and claim that justice is some Rawlian form of fairness. That is not justice. Justice is the punishment of the guilty, and the protection of the innocent. Our "Justice" system today doesn't do either! A good start would be to impose the death penalty on all murders, not just "heinous" ones- and castrastion for rapists, (not chemical, the real thing!) Then maybe we wouldn't have to be scared of criminals all the time.
That said, I am appreciative of the concerns over making a mistake with the death penalty. I am open to suggestions of requiring a higher standard of proof. Under the law of Moses, a death penalty conviction required two witnesses who agreed, not just one. I would agree to some form of instruction to the jury to after determining guilty to disregard what they consider the major piece of evidence and only implementing the death penalty if the jury would still find him guilty. (So as you can see, I'm not a total barbarian.)
Yes, justice is the reason. My argument is that children growing up in a culture that so reveres and respects life that it requires a life that takes a life has a long term deterrant effect by raising more people that would not murder.
amen
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"If they attack us, it means we're winning." - Rush Limbaugh
First you have to get parents that will teach their children the differnce between right and wrong. Then you need schools that will back up what the parents teach and teach that there are consequences for your actions.
Even if life in prison without parole were a worse punishment, I don't favor it for the worst criminals, because of the safety issue involved.
These animals are a threat to their fellow prisoners, to their guards, to anyone else who has to work in prisons, and to the surrounding communties in the case of a prison break.
Death may be too good for them, but it's not too good for us.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.