Capital Punishment: Is it right?

[Boerseun]

Good post, Celeste - and I'm sorry to hear about your cousin.

 

However, one flaw often repeated in the pro-Death Penalty debate is your saying "why should we respect the murderer's right to life, if he didn't respect the victim's right to life?"

 

When someone denies a victim mercy or takes away his right to life, i.e. commits a murder, one (or several) of the following applies:

 

1) The murderer's a bona fide nutcase.

2) The murderer's acting in the heat of the moment, not thinking of the consequences.

3) The murderer's a mean bastard, and enjoys watching his victims suffer.

4) The murderer's a serial killer, and gets his kicks out of seeing his victims die.

5) The murderer killed his victim because the voices told him to do it (refer to 1)

6) The murderer was acting under the influence of alcohol or any other kind of neurological stimilant/supressant which made him act out of character, and would turn a murder into culpable homicide.

 

There are countless other reasons why someone would kill a person, but the above illustrates the point.

 

The point being, if we want to return the favour in denying the killer's pleading for mercy and his right to life, in other words invoke a 'quid pro quo' justice system, we have to understand the killer's motives in the first place. And if we genuinely want to act according to the "why should we grant the killer mercy when he didn't grant mercy to the victim" argument, then we would reduce our justice system to the same barbaric levels of these scum.

 

I would not want to live under any form of government that acts according to any of the points mentioned above, under any circumstances.

 

Humans are emotional animals. States and Governments are Human Beings writ large, with more of the strengths and less of the weaknesses. Civilization came from humble beginnings, where people were buried to their necks and stoned to death for uttering things that the Ruling Class didn't quite agree with. People were killed for being in love and having sex before a self-appointed priest approved of the union. And don't even get me started on using the Christian Bible as justification - King David once hacked a few hundred Philistines to death in order to cut off their foreskins for his bride-to-be's father, as a gift in exchange for his daughter's hand. He, however, didn't get the death penalty for this completely whacko, irrational act. The Bible is inconsistent in a vast array of matters, including the Death Penalty and in how to treat murderers and killers. As far as I'm concerned, King David was a certifiable nutjob, but his foreskin collection was an accepted cultural feature of the day.

 

I would like to believe that as a civilization we have transcended these bloodthirsty sentiments.

 

Governments aren't serial killers or bloodsucking nutcases (except the IRS - but we're working on that) or irrational weirdos or under the influence of mind-altering drugs. Civilized governments have an obligation to give every single individual the benefit of the doubt in all cases, regardless of what that specific individual might have done. And in the case of a Capital Crime, even more so - because the penalty for being wrong is irreversable.

 

I also think we should forget about the cost argument. Wether killing the inmate or letting him sit in jail for the rest of his life is more expensive than the other, is immaterial. What lies at the core of the argument is Civilization, and that's not something I'm willing to put a price on. I'm personally in favour of life inprisonment, which happens to be the cheaper option, but I still think its an invalid argument.

 

Also, I think we need to think 'out of the box', so to speak. There's a newfangled gadget out for people out on parole. It's an ankle-brace, which cannot be removed. It's connected via GPS, and gives off an alarm at the controlling station when the parolee goes out of a predefined radius from the station. The guy is limited to a few miles from the police station.

We can surely adapt this to more serious matters. Say, for instance, a guy is convicted of some Capital Offense, like murder. Then, tie one of these things to his ankle and program a specific 'corridor' in which he can move. The moment he moves outside the 'corridor', he gets a few thousand volts up his fundamental orifice. The size of this 'corridor' can be programmed according to the severity of the crime. Lifers can be confined to their houses, for instance, whilst someone in for some light offence has a corridor which limits him to his house, the main street, the road he takes to his work, a few shops, and back home again.

 

This will reduce the cost of incarceration, the guy's family will end up having to feed him etc. No cost to the taxpayer, except for an initial few hundred bucks for the hardware. Besides, they can be reused as well.

 

The killer is confined to his house. Sure - he's gonna get bored and will try getting out. But he will will only try it once. Thereafter, he will be terrified of going out.

 

We are NOT limited to Life in Prison and/or Executing the bastards. We have to keep track of our cultural and technological evolution, and factor that in to how we deal with criminals.

[Cedars]

There are already 100s of inmates at the Florence Supermax facility serving their time in exactly these conditions. There are more at other facilities. They are in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day and they never see anyone but a prison worker, the one that opens the gate to let them outside, alone, for one hour a day. They have no access to anyone, ever. Follow the links to t he Florence facility above and the inmates serving there.

 

Exactly these conditions....

 

The psychological effect of long-term solitary confinement is profound, leading to prisoners suffering from hallucinations, anxiety, depression and self-harm.

From this link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2165430,00.html

 

So your ok with state sponsored insanity. Until death does the inmate escape.

 

At least on Death Row the convict knows it will end/has a choice about its ending.

[Zythryn]

Celeste, thank you for sharing, I am can only imagine how difficult that was for you.

 

I applaud the thinking outside the box Boerseun. However, I can only imaging the twisted glee that some techno bad guy would get infecting the control software to allow free movement (or worse yet, unshacling remotely) all of the bad guys at once.

 

I love the idea for its creativity and agree that some outside the box thinking is our best bet. Just that specific idea, with current technology, will make for more escapes/releases than we currently have.

 

I think our best current tact is to address the issue at youth. The fewer unwanted children we have the fewer criminals we will have. Thus providing support for families, especially single parents will likely pay off in spades.

 

The problem with this is you can't point to a program that prevents crime and say "look, because we supported single parents we have 23 fewer murders in the city".

[Chacmool]

We are NOT limited to Life in Prison and/or Executing the bastards. We have to keep track of our cultural and technological evolution, and factor that in to how we deal with criminals.

Excellent post, Boerseun! You make some very valid points, and I like your idea of alternative incarceration.

 

I would like to add that spending more money on education will probably lead to reduced need for prisons. We should perhaps focus more on the cause than the symptoms.

[Boerseun]

I agree, Zythryn, as it is now the technology is insufficient for what I propose. But that shouldn't stop us from investigating it further and discussing alternatives to the incarceration/death penalty problem.

 

Further, I agree completely that we should be more proactive in the prevention of crimes. Such as the glorification of violence by mass communication platforms such as Hollywood, and the objectifying of sexuality by the internet and the porn industry that also contributes to broken families. The hiphop culture that promotes the 'gangsta' lifestyle is a particularly blatant vehicle for transmitting the cultural idiom of "being bad is good", and an extremely big pain in my neck.

 

But what we're discussing here is what happens after the fact, after the murder has been committed. In this argument, whether there are a hundred or a hundred thousand murders doesn't matter - what matters here is: Do we kill the killer?

[Qfwfq]

Your argument as far as I can see is based on the assumption that a serial murderer has an absolute right to reform and 'accomplish great things' if he is capable of doing so. That assumption is in my opinion highly questionable. Just because he can pick up a few self help books does not give him an instant pardon for what he has done.

I don't know what you mean by "an absolute right" but I'm assuming no such thing, nor am I talking about "an instant pardon for what he has done". As far as I can see you are clinging to straws in order to attack my point, which you have utterly skewed.

[Zythryn]

But what we're discussing here is what happens after the fact, after the murder has been committed. In this argument, whether there are a hundred or a hundred thousand murders doesn't matter - what matters here is: Do we kill the killer?

 

Point well taken, I got off track.

 

I have no hesitancy in saying that killing to protect another's life is right and just. And I see a major problem that SOME people that kill and get out (parole, escape or whatever) kill again. The biggest reason I am not a full fledged proponent of the dp is we can't know for sure if someone will kill again. Just as we can't be 100% sure of someone's guilt when we incarcerate them for anything.

 

We make judgements in our justice system every day. We do our best and have built in all sorts of checks and balances to insure we get the right person. We have to weigh the persons rights againts the right to life of innocents.

 

Currently there are problems with the dp. There are also problems with life sentances which really turn out to be 20, 17 or 13 years. Both need to be fixed if they are to be used. Perhaps if anti-dp people got the incarceration issue fixed, that would tip the opinion balance. Or, if the pro-dp people got the issue of putting the wrong person to death that would tip the balance in their favor.

 

All I know is it is an imperfect system and my head is starting to hurt trying to untangle it all:eek_big:

[Qfwfq]

I have no hesitancy in saying that killing to protect another's life is right and just. And I see a major problem that SOME people that kill and get out (parole, escape or whatever) kill again.

Defence can be necessary and in some circumstances it may make killing inevitable, to avoid being killed. But DP isn't inevitable defence. Convicts out on parole, or escaped, might not have been successfully reformed, of course they might commit further crime.

[Zythryn]

But DP isn't inevitable defence.

 

I agree completeley, which is what I stated in the second half of the paragraph you quoted:) That is one of the main reasons I am still on the fence regarding the dp.

[C1ay]

I googled most of the names from your link.

Great. Try some of these too. To date 123 people have been exonerated after finding themselves on death row. Here are some examples from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/:

 

The Florida Supreme Court unanimously overturned the conviction of death row inmate John Robert Ballard (pictured) and ordered his acquittal in the 1999 murders of two of his acquaintances. The Court concluded that the evidence against Ballard was so weak that the trial judge should have dismissed the case immediately. The primary evidence presented against Ballard was a hair and a fingerprint, both of which he could have left during his many visits to the victims' apartment. Bloody fingerprints and 100 other hair samples were found associated with the crime scene, none of them belonging to Ballard, who has always maintained his innocence. One of the victims was a known drug dealer.

 

Ernest Willis became the eighth person exonerated from Texas's death row on October 6, 2004, and the 117th person freed nationwide since 1973. Willis was sentenced to death 17 years ago for allegedly setting a house fire that killed two people.

 

U. S. District Judge Royal Ferguson held that the state had administered medically inappropriate antipsychotic drugs without Willis' consent; that the state supressed evidence favorable to Willis; and that Willis received ineffective representation at both the guilt and sentencing phases of his trial. He ordered the state to either free Willis or retry him. The state attorney general's office declined to appeal, and prosecutors dropped all charges against Willis.

 

The district attorney hired a new fire expert to examine the evidence, and his conclusion was that "[t]here is not a single item of physical evience in this case which supports a finding of arson." (San Antonio Express-News, Oct. 5, 2004).

 

and

On Monday, August 9, 2004, Ryan Matthews became the 119 death row inmate to be freed, and the 14th exonerated with the help of DNA evidence. Matthews was sentenced to die in 1999 and spent nearly five years on death row before being cleared of a murder that occurred just two weeks after his 17th birthday.

 

Matthews' appellate attorneys had physical evidence from his trial re-tested for DNA, and the results excluded Matthews, pointing instead to another inmate at Angola Prison. A new trial was ordered in April 2004 based upon the new DNA results and findings that the prosecution withheld evidence. Released on bond in June, Matthews was exonerated when prosecutors dropped all charges against him.

 

I wonder how many are railroaded onto death row and how many never lived long enough to be cleared....

[Zythryn]

Those particular cases actually show that the system works, not that it doesn't.

The automatic appeals are there to make sure that the person is indeed guilty.

I don't disagree that there may have been someone put to death that should not have been. However the cases you list don't support the idea that this happens often. Just that the appeals process has worked 123 times.

[C1ay]

Those particular cases actually show that the system works, not that it doesn't.

The automatic appeals are there to make sure that the person is indeed guilty.

I don't disagree that there may have been someone put to death that should not have been. However the cases you list don't support the idea that this happens often. Just that the appeals process has worked 123 times.

That's only one way to look at it. Another is that so far we have located 123 inmates railroaded onto death row for crimes they didn't commit. How many more are there? Again, how many innocents is it OK to execute?

[Cedars]

That's only one way to look at it. Another is that so far we have located 123 inmates railroaded onto death row for crimes they didn't commit. How many more are there? Again, how many innocents is it OK to execute?

 

Of the 123 you list here NONE of them was executed.

Of the list you posted with actual executions I took the time to review them and one possibly was innocent (no other person has been named as a suspect) and another has DNA to be tested which may show an absolute on Yes/no if this crime was committed by the person executed. So far, you have not shown one single case of an innocent being executed for a crime they didnt commit.

 

I have also posted before that I havent a problem with changing the system to try to ensure that persons are not wrongfully convicted or worse put to death for a crime they didnt commit. I also think prosecutors and police who commit crimes of perjury or withhold evidence indicating a person is innocent should be charged with felony's and put in the very prisons they attempted to fill themselves.

 

But there are crimes so horrific that death of the perpetrator is the correct sentence for the crime. And it is these horrific crimes that changed my mind to the position that I hold now. I once held the position that the risk of executing an innocent was too great to chance. But we dont take the DP lightly in the USA. Most who could be charged with a capital crime are not. Appeals processes do negate the death sentence in many convictions, including convictions that do deserve the DP but are changed via appeal won for technical reasons and not by the reason of 'innocent of the crime' they were convicted of.

 

So pleas towards those few (if any) who may/may not have been executed have to be balanced by those who commit these crimes which defy human compassion and leave the rational person bewildered, horrified, enraged by the brutal actions, these actions which allow for so many to understand that while in a perfect world these crimes shouldnt exist, they do; and innocent persons are protected by the laws which allow for the execution of the few who have taken human lives in such a violent manner, whether by the deterrence factor or by the factor that a dead man kills no more people.

[Zythryn]

That's only one way to look at it. Another is that so far we have located 123 inmates railroaded onto death row for crimes they didn't commit. How many more are there? Again, how many innocents is it OK to execute?

 

As I have said before, none.

In my opinion it is also not acceptable for any innocents to be murdered by a murderer that has been released/escaped from jail.

 

Do you think it is ok for innocents to be killed by a person known to have murdered in the past?

[C1ay]

So far, you have not shown one single case of an innocent being executed for a crime they didnt commit.

Yes I did, Jesse Tafero was in a link I posted earlier.

[C1ay]

Do you think it is ok for innocents to be killed by a person known to have murdered in the past?

No but that's irrelevant. Are you suggesting that it's OK for the system to kill innocent people in order to protect innocent people from others that might kill them? Shouldn't we first give priority to not killing innocent people ourselves?

[C1ay]

But there are crimes so horrific that death of the perpetrator is the correct sentence for the crime.

A position I've held for years but, the harder I look the more incompetence I find in the system. As long as there are cops and DAs that get brownie points for nabbing someone for a crime there will be cops and DAs that will fabricate evidence if they have to in order to convict someone, guilty or not. What good is vengence if it costs more lives in the process?