A Question for Opponents of the Death Penalty
[Guest post by Jack Dunphy]
For those who believe life in prison is an adequate punishment for murder, regardless of the circumstances, how do you propose to punish a man who, while already serving a life sentence for murder, kills his cellmate? From the Los Angeles Times:
A Compton gang member already sentenced to life in prison for murder and awaiting trial in a second slaying is being investigated for allegedly strangling his Twin Towers jail cellmate.
Jamar Lavon Tucker, 28, was found Thursday morning inside a two-man cell next to the body of William Levell Hansbrough during a security check at the county jail in downtown Los Angeles, officials said.
Tucker allegedly told deputies that he had just killed his cellmate, said Steve Whitmore, a spokesman for the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department. A coroner’s autopsy determined Hansbrough’s death was homicide by strangulation . . .
Tucker was being held at the jail because he is slated to go on trial May 10 for the 2005 murder of Kevin Watts. Prosecutors are pursuing the death penalty against Tucker if he is convicted in that case, officials said.
Tucker was convicted two years ago of a murder and attempted murder along with three other men, court records show. During the trial for the April 2005 home invasion robbery and carjacking in Redlands, Tucker pleaded guilty to murder and attempted murder. Tucker received a life sentence.
When Redlands police arrested Tucker, they described him as a member of the L.A. gang the 107th Street Hoover Crips who goes by the name “Baby Hoover Ray.” Tucker, along with three other men, carjacked a car restoration expert and then forced him to drive them to his Redlands home.
Once there, the men fatally shot the carjacking victim’s 28-year-old cousin and wounded his 51-year-old mother. They then stole thousands of dollars in cash, according to police. As they drove back to L.A., Tucker shot the carjacking victim, according to authorities. The man faked he was dead and was dumped in Fullerton.
California still has the death penalty, at least in theory if not in actual practice, and if Tucker hasn’t demonstrated his worthiness for execution then surely no one has. If you oppose the death penalty, how would you propose he be punished for his second and third alleged murders, and how would you protect other prisoners and prison staff from a man for whom the law holds no punishment beyond that to which he has already been sentenced?
–Jack Dunphy
Sounds like they managed to sentence that Hansbrough guy to death. I wonder what he was accused of, that they put him in a cell with this guy?
Of course, the government cannot be held responsible for it’s decisions.
Gesundheit (6acc51) — 3/9/2010 @ 10:36 amI say put DP opponents in with this guy until the guy stops killing, we run out of DP opponents, or Hell freezes over.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 3/9/2010 @ 10:38 amThe strongest, most violent, best trained in violence, prisoner can be incapacitated with enough guards, bars and chains. Guantanamo has proven that. (Unless our government has been lying to us about that.)
The reason for the death penalty is that the crime is so horrible that unless society responds with the ultimate violence society becomes an accessory.
nk (db4a41) — 3/9/2010 @ 10:39 am“jail cellmate”
There’s your problem.
The jail should tighten its security. This doesn’t have anything to do with the death penalty. Some prisons and jails I know do a crazy thing: They actually put dangerous people in cells by themselves.
I don’t know if you’re asking a serious question, but I suspect you know that many of us who oppose the death penalty don’t do so on situational grounds. We believe state-sponsored murder is wrong in all cases, barbaric and puts the U.S. in with the same countries we tend to criticize for their own human rights violations.
Meeting barbarism with barbarism is still barbarism. The death penalty is on the way out, with even a conservative Supreme Court moving to restrict it and states tiring of investing the time and money in prosecuting capital cases and dealing with all the other legal resistance. I say good riddance to bad rubbish.
Myron (998393) — 3/9/2010 @ 10:42 amUh, what are you gonna do? Kill him twice?
On a more serious note, you keep him away from other prisoners. hell, send him to that Supermax Federal pen, since y’all are too scared to put KSM there.
Besides even death penalty fetishists must realize he was only convicted two years ago. Death penalty or not, his execution date would still be a few years in the future.
For those who favor the death penalty, Jack, how do square the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham? Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet?
timb (449046) — 3/9/2010 @ 10:45 am> If you oppose the death penalty, how would you propose he be punished for his second and third alleged murders, and how would you protect other prisoners and prison staff from a man for whom the law holds no punishment beyond that to which he has already been sentenced?
Well, we could torture the guy, but I think the anti-death-penalty people oppose that, too. /sarc
Btw, if we are going to talk about arguments for the DP, when i deal with a person who says the DP is always wrong, i say this: so, we were wrong to hang all those nazis at Nuremberg?
I would say 9 out of 10 say they will make a nazi exception. “So,” I say, if that is the case, “you’re not really against the death penalty. You just have higher standards for when you are willing to apply it.
its like that old groucho marx joke. Groucho is talking to a socialite and he asks her, “if i paid you a million dollars, would you sleep with me?”
She thinks about it, remembering that back then a million dollars was alot more money, and she says, “yes, i would.”
“Okay, then how about for $5,” he replies.
She is shocked. “Of course not. What kind of woman do you think I am?”
And he replies, “I already know what kind of woman you are. We are just negotiating a price.”
Same deal if you claim to be against the DP, but support it for the nazis. You aren’t really opposed to the DP, we are just negotiating your “price.”
And to give a deeper thought, on my first day in law school, in contacts class, we went over a case about rememdies. The professor said that he wanted to talk about damages, remedies, etc. becuse he wanted to make it clear that the value of a right is only worth the remedy given for its violation.
When we put a man to death, for killing another, this is not for a lack of respect for life. No, it is out of respect for the life he has taken. A society that doesn’t have the death penalty cheapens the value of life.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 3/9/2010 @ 10:48 amTell that to William Levell Hansbrough…oh wait, you can’t—Moron!
People's Front of Judea (44bf37) — 3/9/2010 @ 10:48 amFor every Cameron you come up with I can present you with a thousand or more victims that poor misunstood cretins decided they needed the death penalty. So let’s stop with the “what abouts” shall we?
Bottom line is that there are those animals that just need killing. Apparently not only to protect the innocent but to also allow criminals to serve out their sentences and maybe, just maybe, become productive members of society. And when you do it, do it quickly and not wait 20 years.
PatriotRider (103218) — 3/9/2010 @ 10:59 amI’ll believe that California has a functioning death penalty when the execute Richard Ramirez, AKA: the Nightstalker.
Formerly known as Skeptic (73446e) — 3/9/2010 @ 11:09 amI have several friends that worked on the Cruz and Hernandez appeals in IL, so my view of the death penalty is in flux.
JD (3b62be) — 3/9/2010 @ 11:09 ambtw, i have always wondered how many people became supporters of the death penalty because of comic books. I remember watching the joker die at the end of burton’s batman thinking, “i like that. don’t screw with him. don’t put him in arkham assylum. kill the guy and be done with it.”
Of course in the comics, the guy gets out, kills a few people, paralyzes Commissioner Gordan’s daughter, and then goes back to jail only to break out a gain. heck in the game arkham asylum, joker gets purposefully captured, so he can wreak havoc in the asylum. From a business standpoint, this makes sense. if you keep killing off your villians then you will have to keep make up more and more (at least more than you would otherwise). And if the kids like to see Batman smack the joker once, they might like it the second, third, fourth time, etc. but the message they send, which surely would be appalling to alot of them, is that Batman and Gotham would be alot better off if he just smoked the Joker.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 3/9/2010 @ 11:22 amI have been 100% for and 100% against capital punishment. The more situations I hear/read about, the more I am sure that I will never be wise enough to know what is right.
Corwin (ea9428) — 3/9/2010 @ 11:26 amThou shalt not kill. How hard is that to understand? And yet what is the point of housing, feeding, etc. someone convicted of murder, for decades, while they do nothing to contribute to society?
At the very least, bring back chain gangs and 18-hour work days for the convicted.
If anyone deserved the death penalty twice, this guy does. Some prisoners have nothing to lose. At Marion here in Illinois, people in the law enforcement community used to talk about prisoners committing crimes in prison so they could go to court,kind of like a little field trip. With the advent of better communication systems that allowed them to be arraigned remotely, I understand some of that dropped off. More jail time isn’t going to do anything to prisoners like this.
Rochf (ae9c58) — 3/9/2010 @ 11:34 amRochf – I will be in Cham-bana tomorrow.
JD (3b62be) — 3/9/2010 @ 11:37 amAll of those against the death penalty
don’t seem to be too concerned about the
rights of the cell mate he killed.
Get sent to prison, get killed by a fellow
Jack (e383ed) — 3/9/2010 @ 11:40 aminmate. Seems as though some one got the
death penalty here. But it wasn’t the
person who deserved it.
Was the inmate who killed Jeffrey Dahmer in for murder?
Jaynie59 (18e5d1) — 3/9/2010 @ 11:50 amA.W.: The joke you attribute to Groucho Marx is more commonly credited to Winston Churchill. But in this age of the reality dating show, the punch line has lost its punch.
L.N. Smithee (b048eb) — 3/9/2010 @ 11:52 amCorwin
> Thou shalt not kill.
Well, the better translation is thou shalt not murder.
But if you read that to be against the death penalty, then how is that also not against any and all war? How is it a violation of the biblical command to execute Hannibal Lecter, but not if you storm the beaches at normandy.
And bluntly true pacifism is really free loading on freedom. the only reason why we are free today to be pacifists is because practicioners of violence are protecting them. Its bluntly a decadence purchased with the blood of revolutionaries and patriots.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 3/9/2010 @ 12:00 pmIf Jerry Brown returns to Sacramento, get ready for more of these type of questions.
L.N. Smithee (b048eb) — 3/9/2010 @ 12:03 pmHow many times will Jerry Brown be reincarnated? Is he a zombie?
JD (3b62be) — 3/9/2010 @ 12:15 pmI believe that much of the controversy over the death penalty is due to fuzzy thinking about its purposes. I think the reason for CP is to remove somebody from society who is clearly unfit to stay.
For those who argue you can’t bring back the victims of the person who is the potential subject of CP, I would note that means that the price exacted from the perp is too low, not too high.
Keeping dangerous people caged, especially with a cagemate, some of them are bound to kill the nearest available person. Not mentioned here, though, are guards that die at the hands of inmates. As long as these bad people are alive, the good ones are at risk of being the bad guy’s next victim. We shouldn’t be allowing that kind of risk. By the way, I was unable to find any statistics on how many prison employees are killed by inmates, so if anyone knows, please post.
Deterrence would be more effective if CP were administered reasonably quickly. I don’t know how many deaths are avoided by deterrence, but deterrence is a side effect of removing people from society who don’t belong. At the moment, its a weak argument since most convicted murderers never even face the death penalty. It might be worth something if we’d execute more convicted murderers.
I think too many people worry about killing innocent people. People subject to CP go through a rigorous judicial process before being executed. The likelihood of killing an innocent person by execution is always going to be greater than zero, but, considering that on average over the last decade 16,000 innocent people are murdered every year, the trade off for the occasional mistake (or even deliberate malfeasance of officialdom) should be made on a cost benefit basis. I’m not a subcriber to the idea that its better to let a bunch of perps go rather than execute an innocent. If letting that bunch go costs more than the one innocent, its a bad choice. Either choice is deliberate, and I’ll always go with the one that results in fewer innocent deaths whichever side of the argument wins that.
jeff (0204be) — 3/9/2010 @ 12:18 pmMeeting barbarism with barbarism is still barbarism.
What is barbarism? Some people would say, with good justification, that locking people up for life is barbarism. Once the left gets its way on the death penealty, life without parole will be the next target. The left’s standards of “barbarism” are forever in flux.
Why, it would not totally surprise me if, fifty years from now, the left finally gets around to attacking the barbarism which is abortion.
But the reference point the left navigates these moral waters with is its own shifting emotions, not any rational and consistent standard.
Subotai (701012) — 3/9/2010 @ 12:28 pmWhat to do with someone in prison for Life, who commits a murder?
In this case, I would erect a gallows at Will Rogers Park (pretty much in the heart of the 107th Street Hoover Crips territory IIRC),
and hang him at High Noon, leaving the body swaying until sundown.
Actions have consequences.
AD - RtR/OS! (12a74e) — 3/9/2010 @ 12:29 pmSome prisons and jails I know do a crazy thing: They actually put dangerous people in cells by themselves
Twenty-four hours a day, three hundred and sixty-five days a year? Such a thing would be attacked by the left as cruel and inhuman.
Subotai (701012) — 3/9/2010 @ 12:34 pmI am not against the death penalty, but I would have the price on the high side.
I knew a fellow who had spent time in Leavenworth. According to him, one way of being relatively safe while in prison was to be in good standing with the “lifers”. The lifers had no/little deterrence against further crime. So if they had your back, others knew they would be in trouble to hassle you.
So, I agree with the folks who say that the most violent offenders be kept seperate from other inmates.
If the dead cellmate did not have a life sentence, does his family have a case to sue the state/facility for wrongful death?
MD in Philly (70a1ba) — 3/9/2010 @ 12:34 pmThat’s it, mister! Effective Thursday, you are on Double Secret Probation!
iowahawk (e633c3) — 3/9/2010 @ 12:39 pmLET THE GAMES BEGIN!
mojo (8096f2) — 3/9/2010 @ 12:39 pmIf the dead cellmate did not have a life sentence, does his family have a case to sue the state/facility for wrongful death?
Perhaps they can do something unthinkable in modern America, and sue his killer instead.
Or, since his killer was his fellow gang member, they could sue the gang.
Or, if they want to try to sue the state, they could try to sue the California courts which created this mess.
Subotai (701012) — 3/9/2010 @ 12:42 pmAW #18, if I was to just follow the bible, then I could take it a step further and say, yes, that is exactly what Christ teaches. No Killing (you may read the interpretation as murder, depends on the book. I won’t argue one translation is better than another).
You wrote: “the only reason why we are free today to be pacifists is because practicioners of violence are protecting them.”
I disagree. We are always free to be pacifists. I would simple end up as a slave if not for our country and those who protect me. And I am very thankful to be where I am and permitted the freedom to practice my beliefs and struggle with issues like this on a public forum (without fear).
But that is not what I was trying to convey. This will never be a simple issue of total yes or total no, for me. The deeper I’ve argued for one way or the other, the more obvious it became, for me, that I am not wise enough to know the best answer.
Corwin (ea9428) — 3/9/2010 @ 12:44 pmI say nk gets introduced Mr. Tucker on Wednesday, imdw on Thursday, and timb on Friday.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 3/9/2010 @ 12:46 pm“Well, the better translation is thou shalt not murder.”
– A.W.
A.W. and Corwin,
The verse I focus on (when thinking about capital punishment) is not “Thou shalt not kill”, but “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” (Romans 12:19)
I agree with the dissents of Justices Brennan and Marshall in Gregg v. Georgia: if the death penalty has no legitimate deterrent function, in light of life imprisonment sentences, then its only purpose is retributive, and that’s wrong (in my mind).
Vengeance is the Lord’s; if our only justification for applying the death penalty is societal vengeance, then we’re off the reservation.
With that in mind, I would not be opposed to adding life imprisonment in solitary confinement as a sentence for those killers who demonstrate a capacity and desire to continue their killing in prison.
Leviticus (b987b0) — 3/9/2010 @ 12:46 pm“If you oppose the death penalty, how would you propose he be punished for his second and third alleged murders, and how would you protect other prisoners and prison staff from a man for whom the law holds no punishment beyond that to which he has already been sentenced?”
You’re asking how we punish people who have committed more than one life’s sentence worth of crime? This is a real stumper.
imdw (4d654e) — 3/9/2010 @ 12:49 pm“This will never be a simple issue of total yes or total no, for me. The deeper I’ve argued for one way or the other, the more obvious it became, for me, that I am not wise enough to know the best answer.”
– Corwin
I agree with that. I just have faith that God is wise, and that justice will be done in the end, whether I get the answer right or wrong or miss the point entirely.
Leviticus (b987b0) — 3/9/2010 @ 12:50 pm“Kill” v. “Murder”
If the commandment is to not kill, why does the Old Testament refer to executions?
Would they have not been prohibited?
Executions are retribution by society against the body of the transgressor;
Judgement is the retribution by the Lord against the soul of the transgressor.
Render onto Ceasar…and render onto the Lord.
AD - RtR/OS! (12a74e) — 3/9/2010 @ 12:56 pmI agree with the dissents of Justices Brennan and Marshall in Gregg v. Georgia: if the death penalty has no legitimate deterrent function, in light of life imprisonment sentences, then its only purpose is retributive, and that’s wrong (in my mind).
It is not the role of Supreme Courts justices to be our moral instructors. (I know this would come as a great shock to many of them) The only question they are called on to answer is whether the death penelty is constitutional. It clearly is, so clearly that a justice who said otherwise should be impeached for being unable to read.
Vengeance is the Lord’s
It’s funny how imposing ones religious beliefs on others is considered a good thing when the left does it.
Subotai (701012) — 3/9/2010 @ 12:57 pmWell, they are so much more enlightened than we knuckle-draggers.
We must be told what is in our best interests, since we are so deprived.
But then, the operative standard for the Left has always been:
AD - RtR/OS! (12a74e) — 3/9/2010 @ 1:04 pmDo as I say, not as I do!
When the facts are against you, quote the law. When the law is against you, quote the facts. When both the facts and the law are against you, quote the Bible.
Corwin, the same book of the Bible which says “Thou shalt not kill” lists dozens of cases where death is commanded as punishment for a crime.
Leviticus, if the death penalty were about more than strictly vengeance, would that change your opinion?
I am generally in favor of the death penalty, if it is applied properly. I am in favor of a lengthy appeals process, which allows us to be sure the convicted really is guilty. I think Texas, with its relatively short process, opens itself up to error.
That said, I don’t think one innocent wrongfully executed invalidates the whole concept. If that were the case, then one innocent wrongfully convicted who somehow dies in prison would invalidate the concept of imprisoning convicted criminals.
As far as what to do with someone already on death row who murders again, take away some of his appeals. His penalty for another murder would be even less time drawing oxygen.
Mostly, I stand with nk: there are some crimes so great that the only possible way for the guilty to atone for them is to forfeit his life. The death penalty shouldn’t be for all murders, just for the truly heinous ones. I would add that someone who murders many times, even after being imprisoned, has shown he must atone for his additional crimes by forfeiting the remainder of his life.
Some chump (050674) — 3/9/2010 @ 1:06 pmLeviticus
> if the death penalty has no legitimate deterrent function, in light of life imprisonment sentences, then its only purpose is retributive, and that’s wrong (in my mind).
First, its complete crap to say that the death penalty doesn’t deter. If killing the guy doesn’t deter others, what good would threatening him with life in prison do? Sheesh. If the ultimate punishment is ineffective, why do you think we would be successful with the penultimate punishment?
Second, there is also the purpose of disabling would-be killers. You know, by killing them. maybe that’s not technically deterrence, but there you go.
> With that in mind, I would not be opposed to adding life imprisonment in solitary confinement as a sentence for those killers who demonstrate a capacity and desire to continue their killing in prison.
Sheesh, like you could ever guarantee that they wouldn’t be able to kill again.
Here’s a hint. The only way to stop a killer from killing again, is to kill him. And if we as a country had the gonads to do that, maybe a few others would back off, too.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 3/9/2010 @ 1:07 pm“It’s funny how imposing ones religious beliefs on others is considered a good thing when the left does it.”
– Subotai
This a blog, man. I’m not “imposing” anything on anyone – I’m expressing my own personal opinion, and giving an answer to the question which was asked. Mellow out.
Leviticus (b987b0) — 3/9/2010 @ 1:08 pmBut, by expressing your opinion, you are advocating the imposition of your belief system upon others.
AD - RtR/OS! (12a74e) — 3/9/2010 @ 1:11 pmLeviticus
Well, funny, but i bet if we were talking about, say, gay marriage, you would shout down anyone citing the book of, well, leviticus, as “imposing their religion” on others. I mean there is that.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 3/9/2010 @ 1:12 pm“Leviticus, if the death penalty were about more than strictly vengeance, would that change your opinion?”
– Some chump
If the death penalty were not at all about vengeance, that would change my opinion.
Leviticus (b987b0) — 3/9/2010 @ 1:13 pmi bet if we were talking about, say, gay marriage, you would shout down anyone citing the book of, well, leviticus …
Zing!
Subotai (701012) — 3/9/2010 @ 1:15 pmIf the death penalty were not at all about vengeance, that would change my opinion.
What if the death penalty was explcitly called for in the same text which says that “Vengeance is the Lord’s”?
Subotai (701012) — 3/9/2010 @ 1:17 pm“Well, funny, but i bet if we were talking about, say, gay marriage, you would shout down anyone citing the book of, well, leviticus, as “imposing their religion” on others. I mean there is that.”
– A.W.
Yeah? What would you bet? Anything good? Cuz you’d lose.
“But, by expressing your opinion, you are advocating the imposition of your belief system upon others.”
– AD-RtR/OS!
No, I’m simply stating what I believe to be right. Although (off-topic) you could draw some interesting parallels from my position to things like punitive damages which might force some inconsistency on my part.
Leviticus (b987b0) — 3/9/2010 @ 1:17 pmI’m simply stating what I believe to be right.
But what you believe to be right is based on some religious text. And as the left never tires of telling us, we have separation of church and state in this country. Therefore, you’re just like the Taliban.
You don’t like the reasoning, take it up with the left, not with us.
Subotai (701012) — 3/9/2010 @ 1:22 pmIn my view, and the view of many others including those with much more theological education than I possess,
is that the DP is not about vengence, but is a punishment for violation of the social contract that life is precious,
and should not be taken without due process.
Those that cannot respect the lives of others have no place in our society…
That is why we execute them (or should).
Those that are executed have a 0% recidivism rate.
AD - RtR/OS! (12a74e) — 3/9/2010 @ 1:24 pmLeftists are nothing if not inconsistent!
AD - RtR/OS! (12a74e) — 3/9/2010 @ 1:25 pm“What if the death penalty was explcitly called for in the same text which says that “Vengeance is the Lord’s”?”
– Subotai
I would say that the purpose of the Law was to illustrate beyond refute the fallibility of man, and that Christ came to take its place as the way by which men are saved. Though there is guidance to be found in the Law, no man is bound by it, except insofar as it aligns with the commands of Christ, as witnessed by the apostles. So, for instance, I’ll eat shellfish or a cheeseburger or whatever, even though it’s forbidden by the Old Testament, because I doubt Jesus cares.
“15”We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’ 16know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.”
– Galatians 2: 15-16
Leviticus (b987b0) — 3/9/2010 @ 1:25 pm“But what you believe to be right is based on some religious text. And as the left never tires of telling us, we have separation of church and state in this country. Therefore, you’re just like the Taliban.
You don’t like the reasoning, take it up with the left, not with us.”
– Subotai
Maybe I’ll just ignore both of you, on the grounds that neither or you are debating in good faith.
Leviticus (b987b0) — 3/9/2010 @ 1:27 pmThat’s an interesting statement, and I need you to clarify it. Are you saying that if vengeance had absolutely nothing to do with capital punishment, you’d be in favor of it? Because it’s impossible to prove that there is no component of vengeance to any punishment.
Does your objection to a vengeance component extend to any other punishments, or is it just the death penalty?
Some chump (050674) — 3/9/2010 @ 1:31 pmFolks – Leviticus is not imdw, or timmyb, or Myron, or Idiotology.
JD (3b62be) — 3/9/2010 @ 1:32 pmI don’t actually object to your citing the Bible, Levi.
Bus as you damn well know, if somebody on the right tried to invoke scripture in defence of their prefered public policy views the cries if “theocratic Taliban!” would ring out from sea to shining sea. So the hypocrisy I do object to.
As for the views of Jesus Christ on the death penalty, I don’t believe they are very clear cut. At least, he never invoked any anti-death-penalty arguments on the road to Calvary.
Subotai (701012) — 3/9/2010 @ 1:33 pm“That’s an interesting statement, and I need you to clarify it. Are you saying that if vengeance had absolutely nothing to do with capital punishment, you’d be in favor of it? Because it’s impossible to prove that there is no component of vengeance to any punishment.
Does your objection to a vengeance component extend to any other punishments, or is it just the death penalty?”
– Some chump
See, that last part is the difficult one – the potential for inconsistency I mentioned in my response to AD. Take punitive damages: the entire point seems to be some sort of vengeance, and would seem to fall under a similar sort of restriction. But I’ve always thought of punitive damages as legitimate in certain cases (as is my typical, limp-wristed liberal wont).
I dunno. I’ll have to think about it for a bit. I’ll try to stay on this thread, and come up with an answer as soon as I have a chance to phrase it right.
Leviticus (fb9c46) — 3/9/2010 @ 1:36 pmJust what kind of society do you think we would have if those that break the law are allowed to maintain a presence within it?
We use Penal Institutions to encourage penitence; but, certain crimes so rend the social fabric, that the only possible penance is the permanent removal of that life-force from existence.
That is why we, and the God of the Old Testament, call for the execution of murderers.
That which a society taxes, it gets less of; and,
That which a society subsidizes, it gets more of.
Just what do you want more of:
Crime or Goodness?
If you are not willing to punish crime, you will get more of it and make life more course, difficult, and dangerous for all.
These are the judgements that we must make.
AD - RtR/OS! (12a74e) — 3/9/2010 @ 1:37 pmSo California’s dithering over Capital Punishment allows another innocent be killed. Of course I don’t know what Hansbrough did to be there, so perhaps he needed killing. Some do.
Thomas (b7fe33) — 3/9/2010 @ 1:38 pmThe problem is that Romans was not written in order to instruct the leaders as to how they should govern, but was written to the body of believers in Rome as to how they should lead their lives. Can you reconcile your use of scripture in light of what Paul writes in the following chapter?
13:1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
Dagwood (248d09) — 3/9/2010 @ 1:43 pm2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;
4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.
Punitive damages are Caesar’s Judgement, and are not a theological question.
Just as the DP is “Rendering unto Caesar”, while the judgement of the soul is “Rendering unto God”.
There is no conflict except in the heads of the fuzzy-minded who feel that it is wrong to be judgemental.
“Those that believe in nothing, will believe in anything.”
AD - RtR/OS! (12a74e) — 3/9/2010 @ 1:45 pmLeviticus – I am curious as to why you have different standards on criminal and civil punishments, given the drastically different standards of proof required. Additionally, in criminal issues, they punishments are defined, at least within ranges, where in punitive there is no such thing. To this clown, they seem dramatically different to the point of not really being comparable.
JD (3b62be) — 3/9/2010 @ 1:47 pmIs there a difference between vengeance and justice?
I think there is. If I revenged myself upon someone who has wronged me, say shot a man who killed my brother, then I’m in the wrong.
If I apply to the State for justice in the case, and after a trial the killer is sentenced to death, that’s not wrong.
That’s one of the reasons we even have a State, to push those issues off of the individual and onto the community.
Or am I wrong to think of DP in terms of Justice?
Pious Agnostic (b2c3ab) — 3/9/2010 @ 1:52 pmI have never thought of punishment (or punitive damages) as vengeance. I think it’s a debt that a guilty person owes to society (or to an individual, in the case of a civil wrong) for having a committed a crime against it. It’s not society demanding its pound of flesh per se as it is society requiring that the guilty atone for his crime.
Some chump (050674) — 3/9/2010 @ 2:11 pm“For those who favor the death penalty, Jack, how do square the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham?”
Career criminal who was tried convicted and executed for burning down his house with his kids in it.
Among his numerous prior convictions, he was twice convicted for giving inhalants (paint) to minors (an eleven year old and a twelve year old). Pretty obvious that he had no compunctions about putting the lives of children in danger, and in fact did so deliberately.
Both his ex-wife and one of his defense attornies claimed he did it, after he was executed.
Needless to say the Chicago Tribune story makes no mention of any of this, and also neglects to mention Cameron Todd Willingham’s ACTUAL last words.
According to the Tribune, Willingham’s final moments went like this…
‘When he was strapped to the gurney to be executed, Willingham said, “I am an innocent man, convicted of a crime I did not commit.”‘
But, in fact, Willingham’s final moments were a little more like this…
‘”The only statement I want to make is that I am an innocent man convicted of a crime I did not commit. I have been persecuted for 12 years for something I did not do. From God’s dust I came and to dust I will return so the Earth shall become my throne. I gotta go, Road Dog.” He expressed love to someone named Gabby and then addressed his ex-wife, Stacy Kuykendall, who was watching about 8 feet away through a window and said several times, “I hope you rot in Hell, bitch.” He then attempted to maneuver his hand, strapped at the wrist, into an obscene gesture.’
Wonder why the Tribune story leaves that out? Because they don’t want to report anything that doesn’t support their fairy tale of a poor, meek and mild, innocent guy wrongly accused, that’s why. So they leave out the part about poor old Willingham’s actual final words.
If you want the truth, don’t bother looking in the Chicago Tribune or on the websites of anti-death penalty groups…because you ain’t going to find it there. You can get a better picture of the factors surrounding the Willingham case here…
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/willingham899.htm
Dave Surls (b23ce7) — 3/9/2010 @ 2:12 pm“I am curious as to why you have different standards on criminal and civil punishments, given the drastically different standards of proof required. Additionally, in criminal issues, they punishments are defined, at least within ranges, where in punitive there is no such thing.”
– JD
I’m wondering, too – why punitive damages should be fine within the context of “Vengeance is the Lord’s”, but capital damages should be out of bounds. My own position seems contradictory. Again, I need to think about it for a bit before I answer at any length – I’m running about, at the moment.
“Just as the DP is “Rendering unto Caesar”, while the judgement of the soul is “Rendering unto God”.”
– AD-TrT/OS!
That’s an interesting way to think of it. I’ll think about that for a bit.
Pious Agnostic,
I’ll think about that distinction, too – between vengeance and justice. But is it true that the State cannot be motivated by vengeance?
Interesting questions, all around.
Leviticus (890614) — 3/9/2010 @ 2:12 pmLeviticus-
My understanding is that the passage in Romans 12 is instruction for someone’s personal conduct. If someone steals my stuff I should not respond by breaking and entering and getting it back, or physically assaulting the person to get it back; and that it has no bearing on whether or not a policeman can investigate and get the stuff back for me.
A few years ago I was in a discussion on non-violence/pacifism and one person said their Mennonite faith held to a strict pacifism, that he would not even be able to be a police officer in good conscience. A friend of mine who is a Mennonite pastor said such a view is actually a departure from the pacifist position of Mennonites and others in that stream of Christianity. He said that historically to be a servant of the public as a police officer, including using lethal force if required, was felt to be honorable. He said the view of “total pacifism” was more a view from the left than from historical Christianity.
As I understand it, non-violence as a Christian responsibility is largely motivated in the context of eternal destinies and does not expect pacifism to result in temporal peace. That seems to me to be a major difference between “Christian non-violence” and “political pacifism”. It seems that most “anti-war” activists, secular or Christian, operate from an idea that “if we would just be nice then everybody else would just be nice”. Such an idea should be seen as heresy within Christianity, and not supported by evidence for the secularist.
When non-violent tactics of protest have been successful it has been where individual citizens have protested injustice in a culture which had a moral framework to appeal to, such as the Civil Rights movement in the US. I think few people would think that non-violent protests in Germany in 1940 would have stopped the Nazi’s, nor in Japan changed the mind of the Emporer.
Back to the capital punishment issue, I agree with the sentiment:
“When we put a man to death, for killing another, this is not for a lack of respect for life. No, it is out of respect for the life he has taken. A society that doesn’t have the death penalty cheapens the value of life.” Comment by A.W.
That is why I think those who say that if you are “pro-life” you should be anti-CP as well are wrong (like many of the “religious left”).
MD in Philly (70a1ba) — 3/9/2010 @ 2:13 pmRemove his eyes.
Mark Knepley (f3c4ab) — 3/9/2010 @ 2:13 pmLeviticus
> Cuz you’d lose.
Then I would stand corrected, sir.
But I actually about 100% agree with subutai at 1:33. While we believe in freedom of religion, that means the right to believe. But when it comes time to forge laws, we can and should look to our morality, which is based for many Americans on their faith. I have a lot of lefties claim that this is somehow an affront to the constitution and freedom of religion.
So I am not really upset that you cited the bible. I just disagree with your interpretation of it.
But then maybe you aren’t a lefty after all. Maybe you are more like Bill O’Reilly who is mostly conservative, but anti-death penalty. I would be curious to hear how you felt about what he proposes as the alternative.
I don’t think it is correct to say that there is no deterrent value to the death penalty. I think it does do more to stop a person than merely life in prison. First it stops that particular criminal from committing any more crimes. Second, I simply cannot believe that criminals have no response to incentives. The fact that most prisoners would prefer to be alive in prison over death is attested by the fact that they haven’t chosen death—i.e. committed suicide.
200 years ago, prison barely existed. We executed people for stealing horses. As time went on, out of humanitarianism we instituted our modern prison system. This was meant to be humane. But at the same time, our society has been rife with crime, murders, robberies and rapes. Are we really better off? In disabling the harsh hand of the state, have we instead subjected ourselves to the hands of criminals? Do you look upon these reforms and say, “Gosh, isn’t it great we are so civilized?” I think we are in many respects less civilized than ever. And I am not saying we should go back, but I am certainly not terribly interested in further liberalizing our criminal justice system until I get a better handle on whether the liberalization we have already seen is a good thing.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 3/9/2010 @ 2:18 pmIMHO, he should have been swinging from the end of a rope years ago, but then again, i think DFG should issue gang banger permits on an “open season, no limits” basis, as you would with any other out of control species of noxious varmint.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/9/2010 @ 2:18 pmI think the OT law that prescribed “punishments” for various crimes was not based on “vengeance” per se, but on just recompense for harm done. If someone is harmed by my actions, I have a responsibility to do what I can to make up for the trouble I have caused. This can be done justly and without anger, at least theoretically. That is far different from the attitude that says, “I’m going to make you pay!”, which is not about justly dealing with the consequences of our actions, but about venting anger (vengeance).
MD in Philly (70a1ba) — 3/9/2010 @ 2:21 pmThere may be a difference on the deterrent effect of CP if it is carried out 10 years later after many appeals and in a secluded spot as opposed to within a year of conviction as a public display of some type.
MD in Philly (70a1ba) — 3/9/2010 @ 2:24 pmI should point out that the death penalty in the Bible explicitly says that the court shall not issue a lesser sentence under any circumstances when the death penalty is mandated. This is not a matter of “vengeance” but of following the Lord’s command. Thus, “vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord” is not a valid quote to abandon the death penalty. In fact, it is a quote that could be used to validate the death penalty.
Sabba Hillel (dd522e) — 3/9/2010 @ 2:32 pmSo much fuzzy theology …
Thou shalt not kill, as has been pointed out, is in the Old Testament, wherein the death penalty was *required* for all sorts fo things … ask the Amalekites …
As best as I can understand them, the Left handles history badly (or inconveniently) … the causes supported by the Left choose particular periods in history, and fight for someone from that period with functional amnseia as to what led to the situation … hence, the Left doesn’t care how someone became rich – they just know that someone isn’t rich and that’s not fair …
With the Death Penalty, the inconvenience of history is shown by the way opponents of the death penalty (even for murderers) focus on the rights and situation of the murderer while seeming to ignore the same things for the person who was murdered …
A rational person realises that a murderer who has been executed is going to find it a real challenge to murder again … that is true deterrence, is it not ?
My own ‘line in the sand’ for Capital Punishment goes roughly like this …
A person who doesn’t choose not to kill when he has a choice not to kill, puts himself at risk of the death penalty with the first such killing … with the second (or more) such killing, that person has EARNED the Death Penalty … such a person has doubly (or more) forfeited their own right to Life …
When the situation is with a person who committed a crime which was not fatal to the victim, I have a harder time with the Death Penalty …
And, of course, on a related yet separate topic, I don’t want Justice – I want Mercy … (grin) …
Alasdair (e7cb73) — 3/9/2010 @ 2:41 pmI say nk gets introduced Mr. Tucker on Wednesday, imdw on Thursday, and timb on Friday.
Comment by PCD — 3/9/2010 @ 12:46 pm
Keyboard gunslinger. One of my feral sixteen year olds, armed with a sharpened screwdriver, would have you on your knees praying for mercy (in a Deliverance kind of way) while his homies were inventorying your guns for how much crack they would buy them, PCD. You’d all last maybe three seconds without law.
nk (db4a41) — 3/9/2010 @ 3:20 pmThe problem with the death penalty is the demonstrated fact that innocent people are convicted of heinous crimes. Its rare but it happens. Beyond a shadow of a doubt is too low a standard for a death penalty sentence.
richardb (0283e2) — 3/9/2010 @ 3:23 pmIf a higher bar is set and passed by the prosecution, I’m all for death penalty.
That leaves few punishments of death though, which is as it should be.
The problem with the death penalty is the demonstrated fact that innocent people are convicted of heinous crimes.
Innocent people are convicted and sent to jail, but (so far) I have not seen anyone argue that this requires us to scrap all jails. Logically, they should so argue.
Subotai (701012) — 3/9/2010 @ 3:31 pmI say warm up Sparky.
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/9/2010 @ 3:42 pmFor me, the question is not whether or not life imprisonment is “an adequate punishment.” It’s whether or not I trust government to make the call.
After government demonstrates its ability to balance a fucking checkbook, I might reconsider the question of whether or not it’s qualified to decide who lives and who dies.
Thomas L. Knapp (f1a580) — 3/9/2010 @ 4:02 pm72, try it, nk. Local funeral homes need new clients, and sounds like you and your spawn are prime candidates.
PCD (955d37) — 3/9/2010 @ 4:08 pmAs an aside, it’s been shown in repeated studies that a properly publicized death penalty execution reduces the crime rate for about three weeks.
So, obviously, the thing to do is to time our executions to one every two to three weeks depending on whether or not there is a pipeline of sufficiently adjudicated criminals available, and make sure their deaths are properly publicized.
luagha (5cbe06) — 3/9/2010 @ 4:13 pmAfter government demonstrates its ability to balance a fucking checkbook, I might reconsider the question of whether or not it’s qualified to decide who lives and who dies
We don’t give that power to the government. We give it to a jury of our peers.
They do a poor job of it sometimes, no doubt. But that’s one thing the government can’t be blamed for.
Subotai (701012) — 3/9/2010 @ 4:44 pmTo Thomas L. Knapp: I don’t know what the process for death sentencing is in the state where this vile fiend is being tried, but in my state the jury decides his fate, not the government. If a jury of my peers decides this guy deserves the death penalty, I may not like it on principle, but I am generally trusting of the system that puts the jury in charge of these decisions…much more than I am trusting of a bureaucrat. I guess you can have it both ways and say you distrust juries in general and the government in general, but that just says more about you (imho) than it does either your peers or your government.
CT Lostaglia (b64b49) — 3/9/2010 @ 5:02 pmThey’re not my spawn, PCD. They’re Cruelty’s and Neglect’s. And I need to protect myself against them just as much as you do. But internet toughguy bluster won’t do it.
nk (db4a41) — 3/9/2010 @ 5:05 pmthey are their own spawn. no one made them choose crime, they did it all on their own. screw them….
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/9/2010 @ 5:10 pmIf any of you are Catholic, then you know or should know that this case is exactly the type of case in which the death penalty is justified.
Just as using deadly force in self-defense is not a sin, because the focus is not on killing but on protecting life from an unjust attack, neither is the death penalty when used in societal self-defense. You simply can not stop some people from killing.
If you’re confused on any of this, learn about the just war doctrine. The principles are very similar. It isn’t that the Catholic church is a fan of war, or the death penalty. But as a last resort in some circumstances, both are justified.
The death penalty when used properly is neither used as a deterrent (although if the knowledge the death penalty exists has that effect, well and good) or a tool of vengeance. It is simply to protect society from people who are too dangerous.
And, yes, prisoners are members of society. Being sentenced for a few years behind bars for burglary isn’t supposed to be a death sentence. And guards certainly are members of society. You can argue that not many are killed. But there are a lot of attempts made upon their lives, often with crippling result.
It’s similar to individual self-defense. If you were attacked by somebody who intended to kill you, it would be lawful, moral, and ethical to use deadly force to protect yourself against death or grievous bodily harm. Obviously, when the attack starts you don’t really know how it’s going to end up; with you in a wheelchair or a morgue.
Society doesn’t have to live with the continuing threat of death or greivous bodily harm either. Deadly force is justified.
Also, it’s important to remember that some people will order killings from prison. They’ve got to be stopped as well.
There is no way to cut people off entirely. No, Gitmo doesn’t prove that even the strongest prisoner can be safely restrained. There have attacks on guards there, too.
Steve (7d8b00) — 3/9/2010 @ 5:13 pmI oppose capital punishment because in a human justice system, there will always be imperfections and inequities. Unless you can implement it fairly and without error, the irretrievable act of taking one’s life is unacceptable as a state-sanctioned response to crime. The wealthiest defendants never go to death row; innocent people have been executed. The system will never be perfect, so the best we can do is improve prison culture to make it more secure, use isolation for high-risk prisoners, and emphasize prevention and rehabilitation when feasible. The current system is broken; it just breeds more violence. Capital punishment, though, is not the answer.
RobynG (658591) — 3/9/2010 @ 5:14 pmWhere others see problems I see opportunities. I wonder if Charle Manson would like a new cellmate.
glenn (757adc) — 3/9/2010 @ 5:21 pmAD – RtR/OS!, you are on a roll today! Very much enjoy your posts.
GeneralMalaise (04e9c2) — 3/9/2010 @ 5:26 pmI believe in restitution, however it is impossible to make restitution to the deceased so how about to society at large as follows:
Once convicted of a capital crime, the felon is taken to a heavily guarded facility a la SuperMax. Every amenity is provided for. Food and medical quality are top of the line. However, once there the incarcerated individual is tissue typed. Here’s where the “pay it forward” comes into play. His organs will be harvested to provide for transplants. Literally everything will be used up to his last scream for mercy. If an organ is taken that results in death, then medical technology will be used to preserve everything that is left over.
Unfortunately the courts won’t allow this – it is “cruel and most definitely unusual”. Of course, if passed as a Constitutional Amendment that prohibits lower court review…
Horatio (55069c) — 3/9/2010 @ 6:02 pmUnless you can implement it fairly and without error, the irretrievable act of taking one’s life is unacceptable as a state-sanctioned response to crime.
Can you explain why locking that same innocent person up for life is not unacceptable? The people making this argument seem to assume that, if we discover Jonn is innocent after his spending sixty years in jail, we’ll just send him back in a time machine. Otherwise, sending somebody to jail is not a “retrievable” action.
The logic of your position argues against any punishment, not merely against the death penalty.
Subotai (701012) — 3/9/2010 @ 6:24 pm.
Kill ’em all.
Let < Insert Diety or Higher Power Here> sort ’em out….
.
IgotBupkis (79d71d) — 3/9/2010 @ 6:33 pmComment by luagha — 3/9/2010 @ 4:13 pm
To paraphrase the CA Almond Growers:
“Just one a fortnight is all we ask!”
And, at that rate, CA will clear up its’ backlog in 27-Years!
It hurts too much to cry.
General…Thanks!
AD - RtR/OS! (12a74e) — 3/9/2010 @ 6:34 pmLovely. Dumbass preview engine knows what to do with those ( > < ), but the actual comment engine doesn’t!?!?!?
IgotBupkis (79d71d) — 3/9/2010 @ 6:35 pmLeviticus is not responsible for all positions held by the left. He is responsible only for his own positions.
We should not talk about nk being locked up with a killer so he can be killed.
Let’s stop personalizing the arguments and start listening to one another.
Patterico (c218bd) — 3/9/2010 @ 6:36 pmKnapp:
After you demonstrate a better knowledge of who is entrusted to determine who lives and who dies, I might reconsider the question of whether your opinion is worth listening to.
Patterico (c218bd) — 3/9/2010 @ 6:59 pm“After government demonstrates its ability to balance a fucking checkbook, I might reconsider the question of whether or not it’s qualified to decide who lives and who dies.”
Consider as much as you please, and when you’re done, this will still be true:
Governments always have killed people and they always will…and that’s going to be true whether heinous murderers are executed or not.
If you don’t believe me, here’s how you can test the theory. Go to a state that has abolished punishing murderers with death, pull out your popgun and fire a round at a cop…then see what happens to you.
You can either live in a place where people who shoot at the cops are killed by the government, or you can live in a place where guys who murder little girls AND people who shoot at the cops are killed by the government…but, you can’t live in a place where the government never decides who lives and dies. Governments ALWAYS do that.
Dave Surls (d2fbf1) — 3/9/2010 @ 10:13 pmI guess I’ll try to clarify my position (somewhat) by trying to define some of the terms we’re using in this discussion; if these definitions strike you as off base – and their not clear-cut, I don’t think – please say so.
1. Deterrence is preventative. It is a threat of an unpleasant punishment designed to keep someone from committing a wrong in the first place.
2. Punishment is corrective. The goal of punishment is to apply a proverbial stick to someone in hopes that they’ll change. (Incarceration is a type of punishment, which has the dual purpose of being corrective and protective, to the rest of society).
3. Vengeance is retributive. The goal of vengeance, to my mind, is to cause pain to someone who has caused you pain.
The important distinction between punishment – which I think is a legitimate tool in the hands of just authority – and vengeance – which isn’t – is the motivation: one seeks to correct, the other to harm. Thus, while punishment may incidentally cause pain to a punished individual, the goal of punishment is to correct the punished individual’s behavior.
I don’t think the death penalty can be called punishment, insofar as it isn’t corrective – it obviously doesn’t seek to correct the individual’s future behavior, because it will be the last thing that ever happens to them in this world. I think that places it into the realm of vengeance – the goal is to inflict what many view to be the ultimate harm onto an individual, as payment for their offense.
Obviously, this is a fuzzy and debatable set of definitions/positions. Sorry. Pious Agnostic’s question as to the difference between vengeance and justice still stands – that’s still the most difficult question to answer, to my mind, because it’s so hard to pin down an operative definition of justice.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 3/9/2010 @ 10:59 pm#87 Comment by Horatio — 3/9/2010 @ 6:02 pm
you might wanna ask Larry Niven how that idea w*rks out…..
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/9/2010 @ 11:02 pmpunishment is scalable, in that the worse the act, the more you get.
by imprisoning people, restricting their acts and their access to pastimes and other things they find enjoyable, we seek to deter criminal acts from occurring, and to punish those not deterred by the prospect of punishment.
therefore, executing someone for a particularly heinous crime is simply maximum punishment for maximum transgression.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/9/2010 @ 11:08 pmLeviticus,
I think you overlook the most important aspect of capital punishment as deterrence that saves lives.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/9/2010 @ 11:49 pm“2. Punishment is corrective.”
No, I’m afraid it isn’t. A punishment is simply a penalty meted out in response to a transgression. It’s so defined in the dictionary.
“1 a : to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation b : to inflict a penalty for the commission of (an offense) in retribution or retaliation”
#96
I also thought of Larry Niven’s organlegger stories when I saw that post.
Dave Surls (d2fbf1) — 3/9/2010 @ 11:59 pmDave: i was thinking more about the part where almost every offense becomes a death penalty offense, due to the demand for organs….
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/10/2010 @ 12:25 am“Dave: i was thinking more about the part where almost every offense becomes a death penalty offense, due to the demand for organs…”
I thought exactly the same thing.
Dave Surls (d2fbf1) — 3/10/2010 @ 12:34 amI think Leviticus should be put in charge of addressing convicted killers in prison. There, he can wag his finger at them and hiss: “Someday God is gonna get you for what you’ve done!”
How is taking away a person’s life not a punishment? It’s the ultimate punishment!
How many untold numbers of people consider committing murder, but do not — due, at least in part, to their knowledge and fear of the punishment they may receive as a result?
We believe state-sponsored murder is wrong in all cases.
Comment by Myron — 3/9/2010 @ 10:42 am
— Unless it’s the state-sponsored (by virtue of funding Planned Parenthood & not according Constitutional protections to the unborn) killing of babes in the womb; right?
I do not want to see nk locked up with a killer . . . but I would like to see him interview that mother whom he so passionately defends; the one that performed a post-partum abortion on her newborn. I’m curious to see what perspective he would come away with on the need to punish those that terminate the lives of innocents.
Icy Texan (71322f) — 3/10/2010 @ 3:57 amI know I’m very late in trying to defend what I wrote so many hours ago… but I was not quoting the bible to use it as a defense against the death penalty. I was using that to underscore my own struggle with the issue. The bible does talk about killing and executions (etc.) and there are many seemingly contradictory verses. It’s not about me trying to impose the bible, Christ’s teachings or my own beliefs on anyone.
This article is about the death penalty and how the author wonders how people could be against it.
I was simply stating that I, like many others, have struggled with the issue – and I have concluded I am not wise enough to take a stand. I’m not ignorant of the arguments on either side. The attempts to belittle the bible or Christianity will not sway my opinion on the matter.
Corwin (ea9428) — 3/10/2010 @ 5:21 amThis issue is about how our society deals with those that don’t play by the rules, specifically the rule that says you can’t knowingly & deliberately rob an innocent person of their life.
It is an important question, the answer to which is not above anybody’s pay grade.
Icy Texan (71322f) — 3/10/2010 @ 5:30 amLeviticus
> if these definitions strike you as off base – and their not clear-cut, I don’t think – please say so.
Well, there is a problem, there. None of your discussion covers the case of a killer who apparently will do his damnest to keep killing.
In other words you don’t even address the facts that set off this discussion. Yeah, yeah, maybe the state can take steps to protect the guards and the other inmates who are not slated for death, and they can even take steps to make sure the al capones of the world are not running their empires from behind prison walls, but things can still go horribly, horribly wrong.
Take the blind shiek in NY. he was in prison and held incommunicato, except for his lawyer and her translator. it was eventually proven that the lawyer used the shield of attorney client privilege to allow him to order people to be killed even as he rotted in prison. So we don’t even allow them a lawyer? I would be much more supportive of the concept of life in prison as an alternative to death if we treated you much more like you are dead–that is, not granting you the right to excercise, conjugal (sp?) visits, or even attorney visitation… let alone cable TV and a playstation.
But even if we did everything we could to prevent the killer from killing again, even if we could reduce the chances that he would kill again to 1/10000, that is still higher than his chances if he was simply dead.
Why can’t you focus on that question? How do you stop a man who has demonstrated that he will keep killing even in prison, from killing anyone else?
A.W. (e7d72e) — 3/10/2010 @ 5:58 amYeah – I read that story years ago…everything is a capital crime…
Horatio (55069c) — 3/10/2010 @ 6:11 amIn arguing for a Biblical prohibition against the death penalty, Leviticus and those who share his philosophy (like, unfortunately, my own Catholic Church) show a complete misunderstanding of Christ’s message.
Leaving aside the fact that numerous translations of the Ten Commandments, especially Catholic transations, quote the commandment as “Thou shalt not murder,” Christ himself acknowledged that there were differing roles for the individual and the government. The most famous example is when He said “render unto Casar what is Caesar’s; render unto God what is God’s”: the Biblical basis for the separation of church and state. But it goes much further than that.
The individual controls his own conduct. If the individual was perfect and infallible then we would not need a government, but he is not, so we do.
The State’s job is to protect its people from the predations of others, both foreign and domestic. It has both a legal and a moral responsibility to do so, inasmuch as under the social contrqact the people give up some of their rights to have a government protect them. That means it can and must take actions that are unchristian at the individual level.
To use an example, an individual “turning the other cheek” in the face of abuse by others only affects the individual, but when a government turns the other cheek in the face of abuse by criminals or other governments, it affects (usually negatively) the people it is morally and legally charged with protecting. No earthly society can long survive if the government does not take action in these circumstances. Thus, the government must take action, which can include the death penalty and even war. (And remember St. Augustine’s discussion of the “Just War.”)
Christ acknowledged this dichotomy all along. God will judge the criminal’s soul, but the government must determine that to do with the criminal on earth to protect society. It is perfectly possible and even reaesonable to believe that a criminal who is sincerely sorry for his conduct can be taken into Heaven while he is executed here on Earth as a message that his conduct cannot be tolerated. A human cannot know what is in an individual’s soul, but a human can determine unacceptable conduct.
Finally, there is the obvious message of Christ’s own conduct at the time of His crucifixion. If Christ had any objection to executions by the State, the perfect time to express those objections was when he was being executed by the State.
Yet He did not do so. The opposite, in fact. Christ implicitly endorsed executions by the State. One of the criminals who was being executed with Christ said that he and his cohort deserved their punishment, but acknowledged that Christ was innocent. Christ did not correct him as to the wrongness of the death penalty, but only said he would see Christ in paradise.
The individual and the state have different interests and different responsibilities. Christ acknowledged that. Death penalty opponents should acknowledge that as well.
Pro Cynic (28710a) — 3/10/2010 @ 6:50 amIcy Texan – “This issue is about how our society deals with those that don’t play by the rules…the answer to which is not above anybody’s pay grade.”
I will choose to not make a choice. By omission, I accept our current system (with all the flaws it contains).
Pro Cynic – “Christ implicitly endorsed executions by the State.”
Corwin (ea9428) — 3/10/2010 @ 7:22 amI find that offensive. Why not state “Christ endorsed violence”, depicted by his driving the money-changers out of the Temple? I don’t believe Christ endorses executions by any man (or men). You have your opinion, but I find that statement offensive.
92, Pat, you’re the only one to see part of my issue with NK and other DP opponents. All of them are perfectly happy to have people administratively sentenced to death by being housed with Tucker.
Many of these same DP opponents would also be screaming bloody murder if Tucker was put in solitary for the rest of his life.
Also, there is no real life thing as LWOP. You have a Governor or President who can always free such a person for little or no reason. Look at the Lockerbie Bomber as one example of someone who should have been killed, or the door to his cell welded shut with him in the cell.
Yes, I personalized the argument because NK is the type of person who can’t see the problem unless he experiences it “Up Close and Personal”, as ABC used to say.
One other thing I noticed. No one chose to defend imdw or timb at all.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 3/10/2010 @ 7:31 amI think killing people as a matter of practicality and convenience is a bad habit.
I disagreed with the Supremes’ decision in Kennedy vs. Louisiana. I think anybody who rapes a two-year old baby should be hung upside down over a slow fire. That’s what I meant when I said that some crimes are so horrible that society must respond violently otherwise it becomes an accessory.
As for the lady who failed to tie off the baby’s umbilical cord and clear its airway, you could not find twelve people to vote unnanimously to convict if you picked them from the College of Cardinals.
nk (db4a41) — 3/10/2010 @ 8:16 amPat, I see that your reference to the fact that it is juries, not the government flew by these people.
Pro Cynic, the Catholic Church is not against capitol punishment. Yes, popes have expressed their personal opinion (i.e John Paul II) and said it is no longer necessary, but that does not mean the catechism has changed.
It is not through deterrence that we save lives. It is by killing unrepentant killers before they can kill again, even in prison, that we save lives.
Steve (7d8b00) — 3/10/2010 @ 8:17 amAnd as for the religious discussion, we’re kinder than Abraham’s God. He demanded ten people to acquit.
nk (db4a41) — 3/10/2010 @ 8:20 amYou might as well argue that in real life there is no such thing as the death penalty, because you have a Governor or President who can commute the sentence or even pardon someone on death row.
Seriously, your statement is sophistry.
Some chump (050674) — 3/10/2010 @ 8:41 amWhy would they, pcd? You’re an asshole who has suggested I be killed twice in a week (for my political opinions, no less!). Correcting all of your frothing rage would take so much time, he would his lose his job.
I do like your assertions of breathless inanity:
which you somehow magically divined from two DP opponents on this very board saying he SHOULD be in solitary for life (or are you too stupid to know that’s what a Supermax is?)
You follow that with a paragraph on how sad mercy is. You sure are a good guy!
Still, no one takes the cake for disgusting as much as Surls. He’s fine with the innocent being murdered by the State, he does recognize how an imminent right of self defense is different from judicially imposed sanctions, and, I’m betting, he calls himself a “small government” conservative.
You know, that whole Illinois death row (20 innocent people saved from execution in Illinois alone!). No big deal to Surls. Some of those people committed other crimes, so killing them is “all good.” All that “small government” conservative needs is a State employee telling him someone else deserves to die and he’s pretty sanguine about the whole thing.
Nice work, Surls-ly. On a thread where PCD is again wishing for the deaths of other commenters, your hardened heart can out-do him for hypocrisy and blood lust.
timb (449046) — 3/10/2010 @ 8:42 amSteve,
It’s a distinction without a practical difference. The Church only uses that sleight of hand to cover up the fact that the Vatican basically changed its mind.
For two thousand years, capital punishment was OK. Now, to them, it isn’t. What changed? As you state, the Vatican believes it is no longer necessary. Based on … what? They never say with definity.
The Vatican can’t admit that it changed its mind because that would open up questions of papal infallibility (which in fairness has never been invoked here), the accuracy of the Cathechism and the Curiae becoming hopelessly politicized (read: “infused with leftists and/or Marxists”).
But as a practical matter the Vatican changed its mind, even if they can’t or won’t admit it. It is a change that in my opinion is unjustified.
Pro Cynic (28710a) — 3/10/2010 @ 8:48 amSteve, first the Constitution and now Catholic doctrine!* Wow, is there nothing this polymath isn’t an expert on?
*Besides the Constitution (“where is written Courts interpret treaties?” Uh, they have since the founding) and Catholic cannon law (The Church isn’t against the death penalty! It’s just their infallible spiritual leaders who are. Besides who are Popes to tell us what Canonical law means?).
timb (449046) — 3/10/2010 @ 8:49 amCorwin,
You help prove my point, albeit unintentionally. Christ did not want “men” killing other “men.” But men, being imperfect, will kill. That’s why we need government. Government can kill “men,” if by doing so it protects the health, safety and well-being of its citizens.
Christ understood this dichotomy of roles and responsibilities perfectly. Those of your opinion apparently do not.
And, yes, Christ did use violence in driving the money changers out of the Temple. Contrary to popular belief, He was not a pacifist. He espoused pacifism on a personal level, but knew that a government could not practice pacifism if it intended to protect its citizens. Hence its need for violence, including wars (remember St. Augustine) and the death penalty.
If you’re “offended” by the facts, that’s your problem. If you want to prove me wrong, just cite an example of where Christ condemned state-sponsored executions. Otherwise, your “offense” is meaningless.
Pro Cynic (28710a) — 3/10/2010 @ 9:05 amTimb,
Courts have not interpreted treaties since the founding. Remember that judicial review did not become law until Marbury v. Madison. Judicial review is not in the Constitution, but Marbury says it is implied. Even so, Marbury is basically self-perpetuating inasmuch as it represents SCOTUS giving itself power.
Courts are also, at best, very wary of interpreting treaties, or at least they used to be before the William Brennans and Stephen Reinhardts became commonplace. Treaties invoke issues of separation of powers. Private parties can enforce treaties against each other, but against the government is another matter.
Pro Cynic (28710a) — 3/10/2010 @ 9:11 am“Finally, there is the obvious message of Christ’s own conduct at the time of His crucifixion. If Christ had any objection to executions by the State, the perfect time to express those objections was when he was being executed by the State.
Yet He did not do so. The opposite, in fact. Christ implicitly endorsed executions by the State. One of the criminals who was being executed with Christ said that he and his cohort deserved their punishment, but acknowledged that Christ was innocent. Christ did not correct him as to the wrongness of the death penalty, but only said he would see Christ in paradise.”
– Pro Cynic
You’re going to take the unjust and unwarranted execution of Christ at the hands of the Romans as an implicit endorsement of capital punishment by Christ himself? I would’ve thought that the execution of Christ would be as good an example as any of why human beings are not cut out to administer the death penalty in good conscience – because we screw it up, or (worse) intentionally execute good people for bad reasons (not in this country, I don’t think – not for a while, anyway).
I will say this: there certainly are crimes that strike a person as abhorrent beyond belief, and seem to demand capital punishment (at an intuitive gut-level). I struggle with that, too: sometimes it seems like a particular horrible criminal just… deserves to die. But that’s not for me to decide, and I don’t think it’s for the State to decide, either.
To turn the other cheek is not to ignore an offense, but to refuse to stoop to the level of the perpetrator.
Leviticus (b987b0) — 3/10/2010 @ 9:14 amTo turn the other cheek is not to ignore an offense, but to refuse to stoop to the level of the perpetrator.
Unfortunately, Leviticus, that is not the way the world works, and Christ knew that. Turning the other cheek just invites more of the same conduct. Perhaps for an individual that is OK if he so chooses, but for a government charged with the moral, ethical and legal responsibility for protecting its people, it is not only incorrect but immoral.
Using your logic, Britain should not have fought back against the Nazis but should have just waited for the Wehrmacht to cross the channel and add Britain to the Reich. Hundreds of thousands of British civilians would be dead, but at least they wouldn’t have stooped to the level of actually fighting. What’s a few hundred thousand lives where moral vanity is concerned?
Using your logic, we cannot use force or even threat of force to apprehend criminals. After all, we don’t want to stoop to their level.
When people voluntarily give part of their liberty away to a government for the purpose of the government protecting them, that government protection becomes not just a legal, but a moral and ethical responsibility. The people depend on the government to protect them because they cannot do it themselves.
At some point that protection will involve force and violence. It is unavoidable. If the government refuses to use that force, then it voluntarily leaves the people it is charged with defending defenseless.
This is why pacifism is an illogical and bankrupt philosophy. It has never worked and it never will work. Christ knew that. His message was, instead, for people to strive for that. He knew governments could not. That is not their job.
As for Christ’s execution showing how people cannot be trusted with the death penalty, using that logic, people cannot be trusted with any law enforcement or adjudicative proceedings. People are imperfect and any system people come up with will be imperfect. You can’t avoid that. That is no justification eschewing a law enforcement system out of, again, moral vanity.
Nor does it mean it is OK to execute an individual for scurrilous reasons. But if there is a good faith effort made at determining the criminal’s guilt or innocence, and the criminal is determined to be guilty, there is no legal or moral reason to not have that criminal executed. God will judge his soul, but government can and must protect its people. The interests and considerations involved are separate, as even Christ himself recognized.
Pro Cynic (28710a) — 3/10/2010 @ 9:34 amLostaglia and Patterico,
I don’t distrust juries as such — but it’s naive to believe that juries decide who gets executed and who doesn’t.
Before a jury is even selected, the prosecutor decides whether to pursue it as a capital case or not. At that point, there’s ample opportunity for both personal biases and variable criteria to enter into the decision.
Before the jury is seated in a capital case, it is tampered with in the voir dire process to weed out any jurors who won’t impose the death penalty.
I admit that I’ve never sat through the trial of a capital case. In the court proceedings I have sat through (in more than one court, and in more than one jurisiction), judges have frequently acted as de facto members of the prosecution team, including in their pre-deliberation instructions to juries.
Once the jury has decided a capital case, automatic and optional appeals of various issues filter through multiple layers of the court system.
Unless you believe that 98% of people accused of crimes (98% is the rate of conviction/guilty pleas) are guilty of those crimes, then it should be pretty clear that our “justice” system has a poor record of actually reaching just results.
It’s bad enough when some guy spends decades in jail only to be proven innocent, but at least he gets what’s left of his life when that happens. If he’s killed, he’s robbed even of that possibility. And I do not trust the system that exists to avoid killing the innocent.
Your mileage may vary.
Thomas L. Knapp (f1a580) — 3/10/2010 @ 9:41 am“Using your logic, Britain should not have fought back against the Nazis but should have just waited for the Wehrmacht to cross the channel and add Britain to the Reich.”
– Pro Cynic
Wrong. Using my logic, the British should not have systematically exterminated German civilians just because they were horrified that the Germans systematically exterminated the Jews. And they didn’t.
Whether you realize it or not, I’m not arguing for pacifism. I believe in just war, and in the propriety of self-defense. What I’m arguing against is societal vengeance, and I’ve yet to see anyone argue that the administration of the death penalty is not just that; that is, I’ve yet to see anyone make a satisfactory argument that capital punishment is a form of self-defense which cannot be attained in any other way.
“As for Christ’s execution showing how people cannot be trusted with the death penalty, using that logic, people cannot be trusted with any law enforcement or adjudicative proceedings.”
– Pro Cynic
Wrong again. Obviously, people are going to make mistakes in adjudicative realms; the trick, then, is to keep them from making mistakes which can’t be remedied. If the mistake can be remedied, it ought to be worth the risk of making it to carry on the pursuit of justice. If not… then perhaps not.
Leviticus (b987b0) — 3/10/2010 @ 9:50 amIt’s bad enough when some guy spends decades in jail only to be proven innocent, but at least he gets what’s left of his life when that happens. If he’s killed, he’s robbed even of that possibility. And I do not trust the system that exists to avoid killing the innocent.
You are never going to have a 100% perfect system. Using your logic, we shouldn’t have a system at all. That is simply unacceptable.
Finally, 98% is probably a bit high, but not overly so. Remember that prosecutors are not likely to bring a case unless they are pretty certain they can win. In the civil litigation sector, most lawyers won’t bring cases to trial if there is even a chance that they will lose.
Pro Cynic (28710a) — 3/10/2010 @ 9:54 am“Christ did not want “men” killing other “men.” – Pro Cynic
Yes, completely agree
“But men, being imperfect, will kill. That’s why we need government. Government can kill “men,” if by doing so it protects the health, safety and well-being of its citizens.”
If you believe he wanted institutions created to carry out executions based on the morals of any given society, I believe you are wrong. The final authority is God and God alone. We can go on quoting the Old Testament and New Testament and various versions all day long. I concede there are plenty of examples to imply nearly anything (including all the points you have raised). I don’t like using Implicit simply because no other evidence exists (Referring to “Christ implicitly endorsed executions by the State”). I believe Christ’s intentions (God’s intentions) are for us to make Heaven on Earth: where killing is not done by anyone. Impossible? Probably. Certainly not going to happen any time soon. But making excuses like needing a government to carry out executions because the rest of our system is flawed (governors or presidents may commute a sentence, for example) is a cop out. Fix the flaws and protect the health, safety and well-being of its citizens, as you put it, by locking them up.
But you are missing my original point. I am merely saying that my understanding of the Bible makes it impossible for me (not saying you or anyone else), for me, to make a determination as to the merits or lack thereof concerning Capital Punishment. I have, at times, been all for it. For the same reasons many people here are for it. I have also been completely against it. Call me a flip-flopper.
Now, I cannot bring myself to choose either side. I am not ignoring facts, I am pleading ignorance.
I have no problem accepting Capital Punishment as the rule of law here in America. But I would not oppose nor support a movement to change that law either.
Is it not OK for me to choose not to choose?
Corwin (ea9428) — 3/10/2010 @ 10:07 amA question for timb, imdw, and other lefty liars: How does making false statements, peverting quotes, and denying absolute truths advance your position?
PCD (1d8b6d) — 3/10/2010 @ 10:12 amLeviticus,
Your analogy is flawed. A government cannot “turn the other cheek” for the reasons I have stated. Hitler’s murder of the Jews, though abhorrent, was not an attack on Britain per se, did not imperil the British people and thus there was nothing for which to turn the other cheek. The Battle of Britain and the U-Boat campaign was something else.
What I’m arguing against is societal vengeance, and I’ve yet to see anyone argue that the administration of the death penalty is not just that; that is, I’ve yet to see anyone make a satisfactory argument that capital punishment is a form of self-defense which cannot be attained in any other way.
First, I do not see what the problem necessarily is with societal vengeance, either practically or philosophically. But let’s say for the sake of argument that societal vengeance is wrong. What other reasons are there for the death penalty? Reasons that cannot be met in some other way? I’ll give you a few. In no particular order and recognizing the overlap here.
1. Recidivism. The recidivism rate for criminals against whom the death penalty has been applied is rather low. Yes, I am being sarcastic here, but it is a point that seems to go ignored. Once you execute someone, there is no chance they will ever commit a crime again.
The criminal that is the subject of this article killed while in prison. Just be happy it was another prisoner and not a guard or staff member getting shivved.
2. Slippery slope. Once you eliminate the death penalty, then the next step becomes eliminating life imprisonment. Already we have irresponsible parole commissions and governors (Mike Huckabee, anyone?) letting dangerous felons go free. And even they are following such judicial thugs as William Brennan. If a criminal is dead, there is no chance an insane governor like Huckabee or a rogue jurist like Stephen Reinhardt will let them go free.
3. The death penalty saves lives. One study (the link for which escapes me at the moment) said that each criminal executed saved 20 lives, through the criminal’s lack of recidivism and deterrence.
4. Money. The expense of the death penalty is well documented, but much of that expense is due to frivolous legal challenges. If the criminal is dead, you are not paying for room, board, medical care and guards for that inmate for the rest of their days.
That’s off the top of my head.
Pro Cynic (28710a) — 3/10/2010 @ 10:12 amIf you believe he wanted institutions created to carry out executions based on the morals of any given society, I believe you are wrong. The final authority is God and God alone. We can go on quoting the Old Testament and New Testament and various versions all day long. I concede there are plenty of examples to imply nearly anything (including all the points you have raised). I don’t like using Implicit simply because no other evidence exists (Referring to “Christ implicitly endorsed executions by the State”). I believe Christ’s intentions (God’s intentions) are for us to make Heaven on Earth: where killing is not done by anyone. Impossible? Probably. Certainly not going to happen any time soon. But making excuses like needing a government to carry out executions because the rest of our system is flawed (governors or presidents may commute a sentence, for example) is a cop out. Fix the flaws and protect the health, safety and well-being of its citizens, as you put it, by locking them up.
God is not government. God does not have the earthly responsibility for protecting the lives of people; government does. God gives us guidance as individuals, but there must be an earthly remedy against individuals who stray and hurt others, or else more will be hurt. That is where government comes in.
Jesus would not have acknowledged Caesar’s role if Caesar did not have a legitimate role.
Pro Cynic (28710a) — 3/10/2010 @ 10:16 am‘You know, that whole Illinois death row (20 innocent people saved from execution in Illinois alone!). No big deal to Surls. Some of those people committed other crimes, so killing them is “all good.”’
LOL.
I never said a word about Illinois’ Death Row.
Like pretty much all lefties…you’re a pathological liar.
Dave Surls (3d8cb2) — 3/10/2010 @ 10:29 amDo you admit that it is possible that an innocent man could be sent to prison and die there? That’s a mistake that can’t be remedied. In that case, would you argue that it’s wrong to imprison people because it is possible to make an irretrievable mistake?
Some chump (050674) — 3/10/2010 @ 10:42 amHow could execution be barbaric if so many civilized nations, like China, Rome, and Egypt, did that?
Furthermore, what is wrong with barbarism?
We could simply put them into a coma or persistent vegetative state like what happened to Terri Schiavo, I suppose.
What is wrong with vengeance?
Some Muslims avenged the honor of the prophet Muhammad; look how that turned out.
I prefer that the state follow Islamic doctrine on this matter.
Michael Ejercito (526413) — 3/10/2010 @ 10:58 am“God gives us guidance as individuals, but there must be an earthly remedy against individuals who stray and hurt others, or else more will be hurt. That is where government comes in.”
Fine. Lock them up. Or kill them. Either serves the purpose you have stated.
God’s guidance, you say. You interpret that to mean Capital Punishment is permissible. I have trouble with it – not denying it, just troubled by that as the only solution. I believe Christ wants us to try a little harder to find other solutions beyond putting someone to death (it’s just my opinion).
Corwin (ea9428) — 3/10/2010 @ 11:04 amAnd Mohammed taught us to slay them.
Why Christ instead of Mohammed?
Michael Ejercito (526413) — 3/10/2010 @ 11:20 amTo turn the other cheek is not to ignore an offense, but to refuse to stoop to the level of the perpetrator.
If we imprison somebody for the crime of kidnapping (holding somebody against their will), then we are “stooping to the level of the perpetrator”, according to you. And that’s a bad thing, again according to you. So what punishment do you suggest is appropriate for kidnappers?
Subotai (5556bb) — 3/10/2010 @ 11:21 amI have trouble with it – not denying it, just troubled by that as the only solution. I believe Christ wants us to try a little harder to find other solutions beyond putting someone to death (it’s just my opinion).
I think we can agree that the death penalty is not the only solution, just a legally and morally permissible one. I believe it makes the most sense in the case of predatory crimes, but reasonable minds can disagree on that point.
Pro Cynic (28710a) — 3/10/2010 @ 11:25 amSome chump
> Do you admit that it is possible that an innocent man could be sent to prison and die there?
More than that, if you are sent to prison and cornholed, how is the government going to take THAT back?
Until someone invents a time machine, NOTHING is reversable.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 3/10/2010 @ 11:27 am“Why Christ instead of Mohammed?”
Who are you? imdw? Be serious. If you read all my comments and not just that, you wouldn’t ask. I have chosen Christianity. (or, to be more accurate, Christ chose me).
Corwin (ea9428) — 3/10/2010 @ 11:29 amYou’re gonna have to get in your time machine and tell Justice Holmes about it, Pro. All of this Marbury venting was humorous on the earlier thread. I mean the RNC told me you guys were reactionaries, but I didn’t know that went back to 1803!
timb (449046) — 3/10/2010 @ 11:31 am“I think we can agree that the death penalty is not the only solution, just a legally and morally permissible one. I believe it makes the most sense in the case of predatory crimes, but reasonable minds can disagree on that point.”
Yes. Agree. (and thanks for bearing with me)
Corwin (ea9428) — 3/10/2010 @ 11:31 amThe possible execution of an innocent leads to a whole new realm: namely, how do you remedy mistakes in the penal system?
We allow police officers to carry weapons. Sometimes cops shoot and kill innocents by mistake. Mercifully, this does not happen often, but it happens. What is the solution to this? Do we take guns away from cops, because we cannot risk the death of an innocent? I haven’t heard anyone suggest that. No, we train the cops better so that in the future such mistakes are avoided. And we compensate the families of those who are wrongfully killed. Sometimes we even put the cops on trial to defend their actions.
What do we do with an innocent who spends many years behind bars once wrongfully convicted? It’s not like we can give those years back. What is 20 years in prison worth? Is it worth the same to a 20 year old and a 40 year old? And, as has been pointed out by me and others, an innocent can be the victim of violence in prison: how do we compensate for that? Also, and innocent can die in prison of natural causes before his name is cleared: what is the remedy for that? Do we stop locking up convicts because an innocent might be locked up? Or do we find ways to make the system more perfect, and compensate those wrongfully punished (or their families, if they have died)?
So, why should it be any different with capital punishment? We shouldn’t be dismissive of instances when someone on death row is found innocent; by the same token, we should not use that as a reason for abolishing the death penalty. Rather, we should look for ways to improve the system, to insure that mistakes like this are not made in the future. And we should look to punish those who deliberately send innocents to death row (in Nevada, for instance, perjury by the prosecution in a capital case is in itself a capital crime).
Some chump (050674) — 3/10/2010 @ 11:45 amComment by Pro Cynic — 3/10/2010 @ 9:34 am, & 10:12 am
Well said!
And, in one of the better responses to early judicial activism, I quote Pres. Andrew Jackson:
“Mr. Marshall has made his decision now let him enforce it.”
There should be more such as “Old Hickory”.
AD - RtR/OS! (190d31) — 3/10/2010 @ 12:22 pmLeviticus:
I made the argument. What about it do you find unconvincing?
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/10/2010 @ 12:27 pmYou’re gonna have to get in your time machine and tell Justice Holmes about it, Pro. All of this Marbury venting was humorous on the earlier thread. I mean the RNC told me you guys were reactionaries, but I didn’t know that went back to 1803!
Saying they can and they do are two different things. Until the Warren Court, SCOTUS was generally wary of involving itself in matters of international relations as that was seen as an function of the executive branch. With the recent spate of justices citing foreign legal precedent and involving itself in the capture of Islamists on foreign battlefields, that may be coming to an end.
Call me reactionary all you want; there is no disagreement that Marbury was judge-made law. Not an unreasonable decision given the ambiguities in the Constitution, but judge-made law nonetheless.
If you recall, Marshall’s reasoning for writing the decision as he did was that if he ruled against Jefferson, Jefferson would simply tell SCOTUS to try and enforce the decision and SCOTUS would be powerless and embarrassed. Given the abuses by SCOTUS and the federal courts since the 1960’s, don’t be surprised if SCOTUS comes up with another outrageous decision and POTUS tells them to “enforce it.”
Pro Cynic (28710a) — 3/10/2010 @ 12:27 pmAnd we should look to punish those who deliberately send innocents to death row (in Nevada, for instance, perjury by the prosecution in a capital case is in itself a capital crime).
This is entirely a reasonable policy. Most places have no remedies against the Mike Nifongs of the world.
Pro Cynic (28710a) — 3/10/2010 @ 12:30 pmUnlike all the other posters here on the forum I actually knew William Hansbrough as a friend & colleague, which disqualifies me as an impartial observer but allows me to add some detail to the discussion.
steven hopkins (31f5a2) — 3/10/2010 @ 1:01 pmYes, William Hansbrough was a recidivist criminal with a long arrest record and lifelong gang membership, although not active since his youth. He had little-to-no formal education and never held a proper job. He spoke street slang and fluent ebonics and was frequently loud and profane. He was what most of us would quite accurately dismiss as a ‘bad egg”.
But that’s hardly the entirety of the story. He was also a hugely hilarious rascal with a great love for life and living, a tremendous musical talent (rapping and lyrical), an obvious innate intelligence, and a wide network of friends and admirers from all strata of society (many of whom he met though the entertainment industry).
Bottom line – William was a good and intelligent person who did a lot of bad and stupid things.
He deserved to be in jail.
He did not however, deserve to be murdered. And the circumstances continue to be murky. William was known as a “soldier” in gang parlance, and at 5’3″ tall, he had to fight his whole life for respect and survival. Which was a source of great pride for him. “I’ve never been jacked in my LIFE”, was his response to my suggestion he be careful carrying a laptop around in a backpack. 5,000 situps and pushups a day – this was a guy – a fighter, a survivor, in perfect physical condition, who was not likely to be murdered by one person acting alone.
Unanswered questions abound, and I can only hope that our criminal justice system will allow justice to prevail. So, in response to the original question: do I think the murderer of William Hansbrough deserves the death penalty? Yes – not because he murdered my friend, but because he, through his consistent and unequivocal behavior, has well earned the right to this fate. And he should rightfully claim it as his own.
This is the best counter-argument that I have read so far.
Michael Ejercito (526413) — 3/10/2010 @ 1:18 pm“I made the argument. What about it do you find unconvincing?”
– DRJ
I guess my disbelief regarding the deterrent potential of the death penalty (over and above the deterrent potential of LWOP sentences) hinges on my feeling my own personal feeling that a life without freedom is worse than death. Would someone who was willing to spend the rest of their life without freedom be deterred by the thought of mere death?
You would say “yes”, based on your link (and I’m sorry it took me so long to respond to your comment). I would say that the article merely sheds light on a debate, rather than the conclusion of one. And that’s not enough for me.
I should have disclaimed this much earlier, but I don’t look down on people who support the death penalty as monsters or barbarians or anything. I just haven’t yet been able to reconcile the notion with certain Biblical passages by which I try to live. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a way to reconcile the two notions, just that I haven’t found it yet.
Leviticus (68eff1) — 3/10/2010 @ 3:44 pmLeviticus, we routinely euthanize dogs that bite people, not out of vengeance toward the dog, but rather to protect society at large from a dangerous animal. Why can’t you see that the death penalty is similar: protecting society at large from a killer who won’t stop?
Some chump (050674) — 3/10/2010 @ 4:09 pmPlease read, “The Ultimate Punishment: a Defense” by Ernest van den Haag.
Fritz (d4df12) — 3/10/2010 @ 4:37 pmSee what I have to deal with?
Wow. You are carrying some bitter, bitter wounds of pride.
I will pray for you.
Steve (9d2a4d) — 3/10/2010 @ 5:21 pmB.T.B., if anyone thinks it’s really, really hard to keep in mind both Catholic catechism and the development of US laws, there is no hope for a representational republic.
Steve (9d2a4d) — 3/10/2010 @ 5:34 pmSteve #149 – the guy refers to “Catholic cannon law” … since I suspect that he wasn’t referring to the observation that “The Lord is on the the side of those with the big guns …”, I would not worry too much about him …
Alasdair (41d6f3) — 3/10/2010 @ 6:28 pmLeviticus-
As I said previously, I agree with AW’s comment early on, that the death penalty communicates how precious life is. To take someone’s life is a terrible thing, and the just response to the ending of a life is the forefeiture of the life of the murderer.
In one way this is “for the good” of society and the murderer him/herself. The sanctity of life itself is reinforced. For the person of Christian faith (and some others who believe in a just afterlife), worse than a poor outcome in this life is a poor outcome in the next. Someone who has not respected human life previously to the point of murder faces the immediacy of their own mortality, and perhaps the opportunity to “come to their right mind”.
Appropriate use of the death penalty should be accompanied with sadness, not anger fueling vengeance or a smug satisfaction.
I would have a high threshold for use of the death penalty, but not so high that it is never used. If someone is killed in the midst of a conflict where murder was not the intent I would see CP inappropriate. Overwhelming evidence of planned brutality and murder would make CP appropriate, I think.
I think Jesus’ life gives evidence that violent actions are sometimes appropriate (throwing the money-changers out of the Temple), and he did not say that the Romans or Jews were wrong to put someone to death catagorically, but it was the injustice of putting to death an innocent that was the problem, especially by knowing conspiracy.
MD in Philly (70a1ba) — 3/10/2010 @ 6:46 pmPerhaps. Perhaps. I’ll have to think about these things for a while – not that I haven’t considered them before, of course, but the assertion that the “use of the death penalty should be accompanied with sadness, not anger fueling vengeance or a smug satisfaction” puts the question in a light I’d overlooked in the heat of the moment.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 3/10/2010 @ 6:58 pmLeviticus,
As a Company Commander, that was my goal regarding my own attitude when one of my troops merited punishment. As they left the First Sergeant’s office (where we held Article 15 procedures), they usually felt worse about putting us in the position of having to give non-judicial punishment than about getting punished themselves. We never liked to reduce someone in rank or give extra duty, but that was our duty as leaders. With unrepentant or heinous killers likely to re-offend, the government has the sad duty to impose punishment fitting the crime and protect all of society… including the guards, staff, and fellow inmates of the killer. Until there are no more evil people in the world, we need to take the steps necessary to deal with them. I’d love a world where nobody did anything to deserve the death penalty. I just don’t think we live in that world yet. My two cents, let me know if I have change coming. 😉
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 3/10/2010 @ 7:14 pmI always enjoy the discussion, Leviticus.
MD in Philly (70a1ba) — 3/10/2010 @ 7:40 pmLeviticus,
If you believe our religious views should determine whether we have a death penalty, why shouldn’t religion determine the punishment for other crimes — such as the way sharia law is used in the Arab world to impose punishments like amputations for theft? In other words, why draw the line at the death penalty?
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/10/2010 @ 8:18 pm“But Marshall, you shot him as he was attempting to surrender?”
“Well, some people deserve to be killed!”
AD - RtR/OS! (190d31) — 3/10/2010 @ 8:37 pmDRJ-
My religious views are the basis of all of my opinions and views. For example, I think it is wrong to steal, if it is wrong to steal then private property is legitimate as opposed to a socialistic or communistic form of society. It may be said that most people agree that one shouldn’t steal whether based on religion or not. That may be true, but the reason I don’t steal is part of an internally consistent view based on religious conviction.
When a representative democracy has a largely shared religious heritage it should be expected that the legal system is largely consistent with the main beliefs. I think it is only in the relatively recent past with technology of mass communication that a small percentage of the populace can have such an influence on what the majority believes.
I do not believe that the US was founded as a “Christian nation”, but I believe a Judeo-Christian worldview informed the original framers rather than a secular worldview (or the worldview of the Iriquois nation as my daughter’s social studies text tells me).
MD in Philly (70a1ba) — 3/10/2010 @ 8:40 pm“If you believe our religious views should determine whether we have a death penalty, why shouldn’t religion determine the punishment for other crimes — such as the way sharia law is used in the Arab world to impose punishments like amputations for theft?”
– DRJ
I don’t believe religious views should determine public policy, necessarily – not over and above everything else, in any case, and not at all if they interfere with the religious freedoms of others. I understand, accept, and embrace that our country was founded on a promise of toleration. I largely agree with Corwin as to the public policy aspect of this question: if the majority of people in this country think there are certain severe crimes (namely, heinous murders) which deserve the death penalty, I accept that. On some gut-level, I even agree with it – as I said before, there are some crimes that seem to almost demand it. So at a public policy level, I don’t object to the death penalty, provided that it’s carefully and sparingly exercised.
But at another level – a more distanced level, and a personal one (which I feel I ought to emphasize at this point) – capital punishment seems wrong to me. MD in Philly said it well – my religious views are the basis for all my opinions and views. They are the first and foremost lens through which I view the world – and how could it be otherwise, believing what I believe about God and His grace?
A man is not a dog, as Some chump said. We hold men to be responsible for their actions because we believe – know, perhaps – that they could behave otherwise, that they could change. If they could not change, could not be otherwise, then they could not be held responsible for their actions in the same sense that they are. And if they can change, then I feel we must give them a chance to change – for who are we to know who will change and who will not? Only God knows that.
A man is responsible only because he may change. And if he may change then it is not our place to end his life before he has the chance.
Again, this is filtered through the lens of my Christianity (“my” – it’s not mine, obviously, but you understand what I mean). Christ taught forgiveness and repentance, and that man may change, may conform his actions to God’s will (as we see with Paul on the road to Damascus). What’s more, Christ gave men a chance to change – to give our lives to Him, and strive to live in accordance with his commands. If we strive to model our own lives after the life of Christ (even though we fall so miserably short), and Christ gave us that chance, can we really justify refusing that chance to one another?
This is why I say that punishment is corrective – it is a sanction designed to give an individual a chance to change for the better. I think it’s a fair distinction.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 3/10/2010 @ 10:23 pmLeviticus:
In Texas, a judge will not impose the death sentence unless the jury affirmatively answers three questions, including that “it is probable that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence constituting a continuing threat to society.”
Do you really believe a guilty, dangerous murderer will change his character? I suspect you do believe that, but what I don’t understand is why you hold your belief in human nature in higher regard than a 12-person jury’s determination in a specific case.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/10/2010 @ 11:00 pm“What I don’t understand is why you hold your belief in human nature in higher regard than a 12-person jury’s determination in a specific case.”
– DRJ
I don’t. I thought I’d made that clear. Have I argued that courts make their decisions based on my personal beliefs?
And, for the sake of the exercise, do you believe that a guilty, dangerous murderer will not change his character? Is there a hard and fast rule, one way or the other? Some people change, some people don’t. How can you or I tell?
Leviticus (30ac20) — 3/10/2010 @ 11:14 pmI never once said a man is a dog. Try getting my argument correct before you assault straw men.
What I said was that society in using the death penalty was protecting itself from future violence at the hands of an unrepentant murderer.
If you really do think that all criminals can change, then you are either very foolish or willfully blind. It’s a well-established fact that child molesters cannot change. And serial killers don’t change.
Let me ask you this: how many people must a murderer kill before you think he cannot change? How many innocents must he murder before you think he’s an appropriate candidate for capital punishment? 10? 100? Give me a number.
Some chump (050674) — 3/10/2010 @ 11:18 pmI believe a jury can tell whether someone is a continuing danger based on evidence of prior acts and their observations at trial. Am I certain they are right? No, but nothing is certain in life. So let’s turn your question around: How can you ignore the clear likelihood of further danger and thereby risk innocent people’s safety based on nothing more than speculation and wishful thinking?
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/10/2010 @ 11:19 pmLeviticus:
Would you refuse to sentence someone to death because of your personal beliefs? If so, and if you ever served on a capital jury, aren’t you letting your personal beliefs supplant the court’s instructions?
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/10/2010 @ 11:25 pmPro Cynic,
You write: “98% is probably a bit high, but not overly so. Remember that prosecutors are not likely to bring a case unless they are pretty certain they can win.”
There’s a big difference between “prosecutors are not likely to bring a case unless they are pretty certain they can win,” and “prosecutors are not likely to bring a case unless they are pretty sure the accused is guilty.”
In this, I am certainly biased and that bias is based on personal experience.
Thomas L. Knapp (f1a580) — 3/11/2010 @ 2:11 amI don’t think Leviticus was saying that you let the criminal back on the street because he/she said, or even demonstrated, that they’ve changed.
I think he meant let the person sit in jail where he/she can’t hurt anyone (if the prison is operated properly) so they have a chance to “get things right” before they die.
Sometimes people do change. The “Son of Sam” murderer has changed, even to the point where he says he does not want to exercise the opportunity to apply for parole. He feels he should stay in prison because of what he did, even though he has long been a model prisoner and routinely volunteeers to assist the prison chaplains.
I would simply look at the example of the thief on the cross next to Jesus as someone who only had a short time to change his mind/heart, and did. That is why I said that in some instances the immediacy of death may be a factor in making someone examine things and change. I’m not saying that one should use the death penalty to provoke someone to change, I’m saying I don’t know who will respond to what.
MD in Philly (70a1ba) — 3/11/2010 @ 5:38 amA prison can be operated properly and guards can still get hurt. The Texas standard allows a jury to take into consideration whether a guilty defendant poses a danger to persons in prison, including other inmates and guards.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/11/2010 @ 6:42 amI do want to call you reactionary for implying you disagree with a system which has served the Republic well for a few hundred years. I understand your criticism of Marshall, but someone needed to be the final arbiter between the other two branches (as it became apparent) and that why Marbury was genius and always will be.
As far as the treaty thing goes, I believe we are talking past each other.
Your assertion regarding treaty interpretation is just ahistorical, which is why I directed to Missouri v Hudson, a 1920 decision on treaty provisions being superior to individual state law.
The Court interprets adopted treaties, but would stay out of a pending treaty or an un-ratified one for the simple reason that those sorts of treaties are not law.
Mr. Steve, who is beset in his brilliance like Gulliver with Lilliputians, stated that the Court could not interpret the Geneva Conventions, like Justice Kennedy did in Hamdan. I was just mocking him for his silliness.
He’s an interesting dude, a Catholic Holy Warrior who puts little faith in the word of the Pope, but subscribes to Yoo-ian fantasy that the President is a dictator when there’s a war on.*
Pray for me, Steve, but by all means, ignore the guy on the thread who’s wishing death to other commenters. After all, there’s rude and then there’s challenging your weird philosophy.
Although it is ironic to accused of pride by a guy who leads his comment with “see, what I have to put up with?” Me,Steve the great, expert in so many fields! A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and Patterico’s blog!
*again, in direct contravention to an easy Supreme Court quote for Justice O’Connor: “A state of war is not a blank check for the president”
timb (a83d56) — 3/11/2010 @ 6:45 amtimb, I just wish upon you the immediate results of your lunacy. You are the crybaby that can’t accept the results of your actions. You also deal in fantasies brought about by your reliance on false assumptions as a base for your logic totauologies.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 3/11/2010 @ 6:59 amThe biggest flaw with the argument that the dangerousness of a prisoner to other prisoners and guards may be a justification for the death penalty is that we do not execute condemned murderers immediately upon imposition of sentence. Unless, like McVeigh, they instruct their attorneys to drop all appeals, they’ll live for at least seven years more. And in the vast majority of cases, we do prevent them from killing other people while in prison for those years.
nk (db4a41) — 3/11/2010 @ 7:21 amBTW, for the people who are mad at me for defending the mother who let her baby die after giving it birth, what would you do to parents who left a loaded pistol on an end table and their three-year old thought it a Wii remote and killed himself with it. http://www.saysuncle.com/2010/03/09/secure-your-guns-or-your-children/
nk (db4a41) — 3/11/2010 @ 7:27 am“147.Leviticus, we routinely euthanize dogs that bite people, not out of vengeance toward the dog, but rather to protect society at large from a dangerous animal. Why can’t you see that the death penalty is similar: protecting society at large from a killer who won’t stop?”
– Some chump
I’m sorry if I misunderstood you. You seemed intent on drawing the parallel at the time.
“If you really do think that all criminals can change, then you are either very foolish or willfully blind. It’s a well-established fact that child molesters cannot change. And serial killers don’t change.”
– Some chump
If a person can’t change, then how are they to be held responsible for their actions? Responsibility hinges on the possibility of change. So I do think people can change – MD in Philly points out the “Son of Sam” serial killer as an example. I’m sure there are others. What you call “very foolish or willfully blind” I call faith in the power of God.
“How can you ignore the clear likelihood of further danger and thereby risk innocent people’s safety based on nothing more than speculation and wishful thinking?”
– DRJ
You don’t ignore it – you take precautions to prevent it, as many as you think necessary. But you still allow the person a chance to reform and repent. I mean, why not apply the death penalty to all violent offenders, if the goal is to prevent all possible risk to the safety of the innocent. Who’s to say that an armed robber won’t kill someone in prison? Where do you draw that line?
MD in Philly’s comment #166 is spot on. I’m absolutely not saying that you let the criminal back on the street because he/she said, or even demonstrated, that they’ve changed. When a man murders, he forfeits his membership in a society – that is, the State takes that which is its right to take. But he keeps his life, because that is not the State’s to take, but God’s. And he may change, or not.
Leviticus (f0f166) — 3/11/2010 @ 9:46 amNo.
Which is why we should have Muslims as judges.
Michael Ejercito (526413) — 3/11/2010 @ 9:49 amDrawing a parallel is not the same thing as saying a person is like a dog. The parallel was in society acting to protect itself.
So, it’s okay if a child molester continues to molest children, because he’s not responsible for his actions? That’s a rather bizarre logic of yours.
I reject your premise that responsibility hinges on the possibility of change. It’s completely unproven, and nothing more than an idle assertion on your part.
Whether or not people can change, we as a society must still hold them accountable for their actions and make them pay the debt they owe to society for their misdeeds.
There you go again, imposing your religious beliefs on us. I’ll put it to you again: how many times must a murderer kill people before you believe he cannot change? And if you believe he cannot change, does that absolve him of his guilt?
Some chump (050674) — 3/11/2010 @ 9:58 amLet me ask another question: what do you do with a murderer who is able to change but refuses to?
You’ve got way too many holes in your philosophy, Leviticus. It’s based on an erroneous premise that we can’t hold someone accountable for his actions if he is unable to change.
Even if I accept your premise as true (which I emphatically do not), society has an obligation to protect its members from a person who will do it harm. And the steps it takes toward that prevention should rise with the amount of harm and the likelihood it will occur.
Some chump (050674) — 3/11/2010 @ 10:09 amDon’t take this personally. It isn’t personal.
The flaw with your argument is that you are arguing what no one is arguing (at least, not what I’m arguing).
First of all, I doubt you have better info on the murder rate in prison than I do. I am saying that in an individual case such as the one Jack Dunphy is outlining above, it is definitely within the parameters when the death penalty is permitted by the Catholic Church.
There is simply no flaw in arguing that a man locked in a cell who is found with a dead man, who says to guards upon being discovered “I killed my cellmate,” is a man who will kill when given the chance.
Christianity gives you no cover to argue against the death penalty in such cases. If you have some sort of personal proclivity that inclines you against the death penalty, fine. But there is no bar against it in Christianity.
Steve (04ffa6) — 3/11/2010 @ 10:26 am“So, it’s okay if a child molester continues to molest children, because he’s not responsible for his actions? That’s a rather bizarre logic of yours.”
– Some chump
No, it’s not okay if a child molester continues to molest children, because he is perfectly capable of not molesting children. Thus, he is responsible for his abhorrent choice to continue to molest children. I don’t care if you think that my belief that responsibility hinges on free will is an “idle assertion” – I’m not trying to convince you of anything, but merely to tell you what I believe at a PERSONAL LEVEL. What the State does is the business of the successful majority. How many times do I have to emphasize that before you guys accept it? I’m not “imposing” anything on anyone. I have my beliefs on the matter, and you have yours. If anything, the majority of this thread has been a group of DP advocates trying (unsuccessfully) to impose their beliefs on me.
Leviticus (b6f9db) — 3/11/2010 @ 10:27 amNo, Leviticus, it’s been shown that child molesters are incapable of changing. So, if they are incapable of changing, by your logic they are not responsible. I disagree with that logic, and you’ve done nothing to show that it is reasonable or even valid.
No, the death penalty proponents are trying to convince you that you are in error. There’s a difference. You keep making claims to support your position, and the others attack your claims.
How many people must a man kill before you consider him unfit to continue living?
Some chump (050674) — 3/11/2010 @ 10:51 am“… because he is perfectly capable of not molesting children…”
But, we aren’t talking about his capability to not do something, but his predilection to do something.
Absent a psych evaluation that he is not legally responsible for his actions, he must be held accountable by the Judicial System.
If he is clinically insane, and therefore not legally responsible for those actions,
he must be confined in a facility where he will not present a danger to himself and/or others.
And, philosophically, no man is “perfectly” capable of anything – we are human, not gods; therefore anything we do will contain imperfections.
AD - RtR/OS! (7b127f) — 3/11/2010 @ 11:01 amBecause we can reason, we attempt to minimize those imperfections so as to benefit ourselves and others.
Leviticus, for what it’s worth, I understand what you are saying and agree with you (and MD). I’ve tried to read and re-read what Some chump and others have written in response – but I feel like, either I am too ignorant, or have too much baggage of my own to understand.
I don’t think there will be an ‘oh, I now see what you mean’ on either side.
But at least I know there are others who have, have had, and will continue to have some struggle with the issue. It is good to hear other points of view.
Corwin (ea9428) — 3/11/2010 @ 11:21 amRight, because nothing says “Love your neighbor” like advocating for his death. Steve, you missed your time, pal. Kings and crusades and Church-sanctioned murder are so 18th century
timb (449046) — 3/11/2010 @ 12:16 pmDeath penalty law, right now, is pretty much like this:
1. Was it first degree murder, intentional, knowing, premeditated etc.?
2. Were there one or more aggravating factors, including the victim was a prisoner, that justify imposition of the death penalty?
3. Are there mitigating factors that vitiate against imposition of the death penalty?
It seems to me that I argued that some crimes, such as raping a child (not the law right now, unfortunately) must get the death, but I was not sure that protecting prisoners and guards is a must and not a maybe.
And please, pretty please, I do very few things, for good or ill, because I believe God would want me to do them. I have no interest in the religious component of this discussion.
nk (db4a41) — 3/11/2010 @ 12:32 pm181, timb, nothing says, “I Hate America”, like people like you who can’t condemn murderers, kidnappers, traitors, or child rapists.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 3/11/2010 @ 12:39 pm“And please, pretty please, I do very few things, for good or ill, because I believe God would want me to do them. I have no interest in the religious component of this discussion.”
Hell, you make it easy then. Kill them. No repercussions ‘cept the recoil from the gun.
Just out of curiosity, what very few things do you do because you believe God would want you to do them?
Corwin (ea9428) — 3/11/2010 @ 12:47 pmHell, you make it easy then. Kill them. No repercussions ‘cept the recoil from the gun.
A well-bred person, of station and sensibility, might consider killing people at the slightest excuse very bad manners.
nk (db4a41) — 3/11/2010 @ 1:45 pm“No, Leviticus, it’s been shown that child molesters are incapable of changing.”
– Some chump
Okay. Cite. You keep claiming that – I’d like to see what the basis for it is.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 3/11/2010 @ 1:53 pmThe biggest flaw with the argument that the dangerousness of a prisoner to other prisoners and guards may be a justification for the death penalty is that we do not execute condemned murderers immediately upon imposition of sentence.
That sounds like a good argument for executing murderers immediately upon imposition of sentence. (Which used to be the case – it’s the anti-death-penalty lobby which has caused condemed prisoners to sit on death-row for several years or decades)
Subotai (76ce87) — 3/11/2010 @ 2:08 pmI don’t think Leviticus was saying that you let the criminal back on the street because he/she said, or even demonstrated, that they’ve changed.
I think he meant let the person sit in jail where he/she can’t hurt anyone (if the prison is operated properly) so they have a chance to “get things right” before they die.
They can “get things right before they die” regardless of whether they die tomorrow from being put to death or thirty years from now from cancer. It is not the role of the criminal justice system to facilitate anyones coming to Jesus. The logic of this argument is that, durng their decades in jail, prisoners should be subject to a steady stream of Christian proselytizing. Which as an amusing thing to see coming from the American left.
Subotai (76ce87) — 3/11/2010 @ 2:21 pmLeviticus is commenting with intellectual honesty about his views on a subject. He is not trying to mislead nor is he trying to change public policy by executive order.
He is simply saying that he believes while a person is alive they have the opportunity to have a change of heart regarding his actions. For anybody who thinks there is justice in the afterlife this is a reasonable and rational concern, I think.
He is not saying society needs to run the risk of someone being set loose on the street to risk repeat crimes against children, for example.
FWIW, I am not sure we have had any comments by a “pure” anti-CP person here- if there is I missed it.
I acknowledge, DRJ, that even if a jail does everything appropriately (that is reasonable) some one may still fall victim. It’s just that this case seems to have missed what might have been a situation to be avoided.
As far as child molesters and changing, I believe it would be possible, if nothing else, for a child molester to realize he can’t change and ask to be kept in confinement or medicated to decrease his risk to the community, etc. In one moral sense this would be change for good, for one to recognize a way to take responsibility for their actions. Should we ask society to bear the risk for this? No, not at all, but it seems we do all of the time. I think there have been examples of people who have said “Don’t turn me loose” who then committed crimes again (but it could have been on “Law and Order”, too).
The guy who has committed two rape/murders- he is a good candidate for CP, along with consequences for those who put him on the street so soon when the official recommendations were to misplace the key as long as possible.
MD in Philly (70a1ba) — 3/11/2010 @ 2:34 pmSubotai-
No it is not the role of government to facilitate a conversion to Christian faith.
This thread asked for the thoughts of those who were anti-CP in regards to the killing by a previous murderer, and Leviticus has shared his thoughts and his own conflict on the issue.
There are many things I am sure I disagree with Leviticus on, but I have never considered him to be worthy of abuse.
I agree to a point with your comment about “get things right tomorrow or 30 years from now”, which is what I referred to with the thief on the cross. At the same time, I don’t have the wisdom to say how that point would be determined.
And to those who think this is all nonsense, that’s fine. No one is pointing a gun to your head making you agree, or putting a gun to your head and making you release someone into society. I imagine there are many who are let out of prison that Leviticus would keep in, if it were up to him.
MD in Philly (70a1ba) — 3/11/2010 @ 2:45 pmI really wish people would not treat Leviticus in the way they would rightfully treat the likes of imdw and timb. Leviticus is honest and forthright, and we should encourage that, rather than treating him like a slug.
JD (533e5b) — 3/11/2010 @ 2:54 pmMost people do treat Leviticus well. Can’t really get better than that.
I oppose the death penalty. I haven’t always, but I think it’s impractical without a different sort of burden of proof than ‘reasonable doubt’ as employed.
To answer Jack Dunphy’s question, and I guess this is unlikely to be implemented, but prison would be a lot different if it were up to me. There would be many different levels of quality of life. Many would have some kind of job that was meant to make money for the state. If you kill someone in prison, you would wind up in an isolated cell with cold food, and if you behave, even with a life sentence, you have the opportunity to have a better existence.
If you manage to do good work and behave and work hard on your education (high school level), you get the right to watch TV sometimes, or enjoy recreational sports. Etc etc.
If you’re at the highest punishment level, you are completely isolated from others, partly because there is no incentive to keep you from offending.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 3/11/2010 @ 3:07 pmThere are many things I am sure I disagree with Leviticus on, but I have never considered him to be worthy of abuse.
That’s great. I have not subjected him to abuse any more than I have you. I simply pointed out flaws in his arguments. I hope that is still allowed.
Subotai (76ce87) — 3/11/2010 @ 3:10 pmLeviticus is honest and forthright
Sometimes, at least.
we should encourage that, rather than treating him like a slug.
Some people think that the greatest complement you can pay somebody is to thoughtfully listen to what what they say and then critique it. Others think that this constitutes treating them like “a slug”.
Subotai (76ce87) — 3/11/2010 @ 3:15 pm“I really wish people would not treat Leviticus in the way they would rightfully treat the likes of imdw and timb. Leviticus is honest and forthright, and we should encourage that, rather than treating him like a slug.”
– JD
As much as I appreciate your defense – and MD in Philly’s, and the defense of all the conservative commenters on this site who have stood up for me at one time or another – I don’t feel as though I’ve been treated unfairly. A littled harried, perhaps, but not mistreated. I don’t mind having to defend my position – it keeps me honest. And for what it’s worth, I feel I’ve done a fairly good job on this thread. I don’t see the flaws in my argument that people like Subotai and Some chump apparently see (or vice versa) – and I probably won’t, as Corwin points out above – but that’s just the way things are. I still think this was a productive discussion.
Thank you, though, sincerely.
Leviticus (79f4a8) — 3/11/2010 @ 3:38 pmnk, what the @#$% is wrong with you? You state:
“Death penalty law, right now, is pretty much like this:
1. Was it first degree murder, intentional, knowing, premeditated etc.?
2. Were there one or more aggravating factors, including the victim was a prisoner, that justify imposition of the death penalty?
3. Are there mitigating factors that vitiate against imposition of the death penalty?”
Then go on to beg, please, no religious answers. So, I just say, fine, kill em.
And you respond with:
“A well-bred person, of station and sensibility, might consider killing people at the slightest excuse very bad manners.”
@#$% you and the horse you rode in on.
If I disagree with you, I’m trying to convert you to Christianity. If I agree with you I have very bad manners.
What do you want?
Corwin (60969b) — 3/11/2010 @ 3:47 pmCorwin, we have a failure to communicate.
nk (db4a41) — 3/11/2010 @ 4:25 pmI signed my mother’s death warrant, six hours ago. A DNR order for hospice. Her crime: End stage of Alzheimers. I did not bother God the least bit about it.
nk (db4a41) — 3/11/2010 @ 4:34 pmIt doesn’t count for a darned thing, nk, but I am sorry. My family and I will keep you and yours in our thoughts and prayers.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 3/11/2010 @ 5:05 pmOh, nk, I’m so sorry.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/11/2010 @ 5:07 pmI am terribly sorry. Typed words can never convey true feelings. But if you could hear me talk now, it would only sound garbled (what, with both feet in my mouth).
I hear you loud and clear.
Corwin (60969b) — 3/11/2010 @ 5:15 pmI’m sorry, nk. I don’t know what else to say, so I won’t say anything, but I am truly sorry.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 3/11/2010 @ 5:16 pmSo sorry NK. My thoughts and prayers to you and your family.
Pons Asinorum (1f16cc) — 3/11/2010 @ 5:21 pmNk – I have no words, just my thoughts and prayers.
JD (b292bd) — 3/11/2010 @ 5:53 pmI KNOW THESE 2 GUYS PERSONALLY JAMAR AKA BAY RAY AN WILLIAM AKA TINY MOO THEY HAVE BEEN IN AN OUT OF JAIL THERE ENTIRE LIFE AN WERE DEFINTELY VICTIMS OF THE STREET JAMAR MUST BE GOING CRAZY BECAUSE THEY NEW EACH OTHER 2 WELL AN THEY R FROM THE SAME GANG ITS IN GODS HANDS NOW MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON THERE SOULS JAMAR PROBABLY DOSENT CARE HE HAS 11 LIFE SENTENCES WHAT IS ANOTHER 1? IN LIFE WHAT COMES AROUND GOES AROUND JAMAR KILLED WILLIAM NOW HE WILL GET KILLED BY THE DEATH PENALTY!
u will never know (9e6823) — 3/11/2010 @ 5:55 pmOkay then …
JD (b292bd) — 3/11/2010 @ 6:08 pmWell, that. And the ability to move to a state where nk can be outvoted.
Steve (7d8b00) — 3/11/2010 @ 6:48 pmOne good thing about emails and posting is that it allows one to ponder and reflect on making comments, rather than feel the pressure to respond in the heat of the moment.
One bad thing about emails and posting is that since no person is in front of you, it may be easier to “sound off”.
And we know there is much to communication other than the words themselves, and that is lost except for attempts at emoticons and side comments like “(sarcasm alert)”. In addition, some of us are more comfortable with “loud discussion” than others.
Glad to know that Leviticus hasn’t felt abused, and I don’t mean that to disagree and argue a point is hassling or mistreatment. I felt that at times his points were being extrapolated to points he wasn’t saying, which seemed to me belittling at times. Perhaps my overreading, sorry.
Sorry to hear of your situation, nk, both for your mother’s illness and the circumstances surrounding it. Hospice at its foundation was not meant to be a “death warrant”, but that is too often how it seems/feels.
MD in Philly (70a1ba) — 3/11/2010 @ 7:07 pmFirst off, that was pretty rude, and coming from me that’s saying a lot.
Second, nk’s already out-voted. He’s a non-democrat in Illinois…
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 3/11/2010 @ 7:15 pmSorry to learn I’ve been belittling you, Leviticus. I’ll stay out of it from now on.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/11/2010 @ 7:52 pm“Well, that. And the ability to move to a state where nk can be outvoted.”
– Steve
Pay attention to the thread before you comment on it.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 3/11/2010 @ 7:53 pm“Sorry to learn I’ve been belittling you, Leviticus. I’ll stay out of it from now on.”
– DRJ
What are you talking about?! Where did I say anything of the sort?
Did I do something to piss you off? You seem put out with me lately…
Leviticus (30ac20) — 3/11/2010 @ 7:55 pmOh. #208. Guess I get to eat my advice to Steve.
But you do seem put out with me, lately. Why would you “stay out of it from now on”? Do you think I don’t value your perspective?
Anyway. Doesn’t matter, I suppose. Sorry if I offended you at some point; I wish we could clear the air.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 3/11/2010 @ 8:00 pmI repeat,
Perhaps my overreading, sorry.
DRJ (210), Looking over the thread again I see how it would seem that your comments were among my targets. When I posted it was not your comments that were foremost in my mind. When I see your initials I assume it will be a worthwhile contribution.
MD in Philly (70a1ba) — 3/11/2010 @ 8:49 pmHaving scrolled through these comments, I feel like I can finally weigh in here…
Sure, if you expand the definition of “pointing out flaws” to include strawman arguments.
As someone how once butted heads significantly, I want to say that Leviticus is one of my favorite commentors here, especially when you consider that he’s in the ideological minority.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 3/11/2010 @ 9:22 pmLeviticus,
I was apologizing to you but not responding to you. I was responding to MD in Philly’s comment #208 that at times your points were being “extrapolated” to points you weren’t making and he felt that was “belittling at times.” MD in Philly says he wasn’t talking about my comments but, while I’m certain his comment was well-intended, I’d rather bow out than appear to belittle someone.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/11/2010 @ 9:37 pmnk, you have my sincere condolences for your anticipated loss.
AD - RtR/OS! (7b127f) — 3/11/2010 @ 10:12 pmTrust me, you’ll appreciate the warning.
I said good-bye to my Mom in the morning as I left on a working day-trip, and came home that evening to a cold, empty house and a note from my sister that I should come over a pick up the dogs (she lived 6 houses down).
Needless to say, it was not a good day.
mumble, mumble, mumble…
DRJ, please don’t bow out on account of my comments. Even if I was primarily speaking of you (which I was not), you have made clear that it was not your intent to belittle Leviticus. I think we should chalk it up to my overreacting and being overly broad. You have gone out of your way to show it was not your intent. Your speech should not be dictated by my opinions. My apologies for stirring up more smoke than providing light.
JD and Scott Jacobs picked up on some things and neither pointed a finger at you.
Since JD hasn’t done it, I condemn myself.
MD in Philly (70a1ba) — 3/11/2010 @ 10:25 pmWhat an anticlimax this is, MD, because I don’t have anything more to say!
To review, Jack Dunphy’s post details the story of a convict who killed a fellow inmate yet who can’t be punished any more than he’s already been sentenced, except for the death penalty. I pointed out that posing a danger to prison inmates and guards is a part of the test for imposing the death penalty under Texas law. It’s considered a form of defense of others. Some do not view this as a compelling reason to support the death penalty. We disagree and I don’t see anything more to say.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/11/2010 @ 10:48 pmFair enough. I don’t see much more to say either.
No hard feelings in any quarter, I hope – this seems like a misunderstanding amongst a group of people with mutual good intentions, and I’d hate for it to linger.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 3/11/2010 @ 11:11 pmThank you very much, everyone.
MD in Philly, I do not blame the hospice. My mother lost the ability to stand, then to shift herself in bed, and then the ability to swallow. We’ve been anticipating it for eleven years. The hospice are doing all they can to make her comfortable now.
Corwin, please, I apologize. I was not at all clear. My point, which I took the long way around to make, was that human conscience and human behavior are independent from religious belief.
nk (db4a41) — 3/12/2010 @ 3:09 amnk, I let ire rule me. For no reason. Your situation only reinforces the fact that I should temper my thoughts before expressing them.
I apologize for my rudeness. And my sympathies are with you and your family.
Echoing #220, I harbor no hard feelings and am truly grateful for (spirited) debate. And reflecting on #208, I will spend more time pondering before typing (or at least more time before hitting the submit button).
Corwin (ea9428) — 3/12/2010 @ 4:57 amDRJ-
Thank you for your summary.
I think Jack Dunphy’s point is quite valid and I agree with you (although I already think the death penalty should exist). The wrench in this incident is that it appears the prison staff were “asking for trouble” when they put a cell mate in with the multiple murderer. I thought this gave the possibility of arguing that it wasn’t the death penalty that was needed, but better decision making. You pointed out, and I agree, that even with the best prison procedures an inmate could probably find a way to kill somebody if they really wanted to.
nk- I was reacting to your use of the phrase, “signing her death warrant”. I think you see it (as I do), that her progressive disease is really the death warrant and independent of any decision or act you made. Unfortunately, on occasion it does seem that agreeing to hospice care is like a death warrant.
As most sermons need to be first applied by the one who gave them, I’ll look to apply my own advice as well.
MD in Philly (70a1ba) — 3/12/2010 @ 6:25 am[…] Austin American-Statesman report on the sentencing hearing of Milton Dwayne Gobert reminded of Jack Dunphy’s recent post “A Question for Opponents of Capital Punishment.” As noted in this February post, […]
Patterico's Pontifications » Another Question for Opponents of Capital Punishment (e4ab32) — 3/12/2010 @ 8:13 pmI once was affiliated withe 107ST. Hooover Crips. I knew Tiny Moo Moo (William Hansbrough) he’s my younger homie. He was a very talented Rapper dreaming to pursue his craft. He grew impatient and became weary of life’s setbacks he tired of hs same consequence, jail, jail and the toll o it cost him his liffe by ba so called comrade.No death penalty should exist if so then this country should die with all it’s causes of death.slavery and wars. The homie Baby Hoover Ray is dead living in his own mind and body he cant be happy or satified in himself. But no man should take anothers life accept in self presevation unlike the government or law makers…
Mr. Killer (972199) — 3/21/2010 @ 10:33 am