Drop in US Executions
September 6, 2001 4:00 AM Subscribe
Drop in US Executions -- I wonder if Dubya's distraction last year (the campaign) and his subsequent move to the White House has had anything to do with this. Then again, some of it may be attributable to DNA evidence.
No offence, Miguel, but "perhaps enlightened elitism has its place whenever the masses refuse to see the light"?!
Ohh, man, I wish I had the energy. Somebody want to step up to the plate for me? This ought to be pretty easy to hit out of the park. I'm going to bed...
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:52 AM on September 6, 2001
Ohh, man, I wish I had the energy. Somebody want to step up to the plate for me? This ought to be pretty easy to hit out of the park. I'm going to bed...
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:52 AM on September 6, 2001
Actually, I tend to agree with Miguel. In a time where most people don't have the energy to become informed about the major issues, I would rather know that I can trust someone to make the right decision, even if it isn't the popular one.
posted by nprigoda at 6:09 AM on September 6, 2001
posted by nprigoda at 6:09 AM on September 6, 2001
Not that easy to hit out of the park though is it?
English comprehension test, spot what's wrong with this sentence:
English comprehension test, spot what's wrong with this sentence:
The punishment for murder is death.
Did you spot it? It's individuals who are intelligent, rational people. The behaviour of masses of individual, intelligent, rational people can sometimes be indistinguishable from idiocy.
posted by vbfg at 6:17 AM on September 6, 2001
jesus. i dont much like dubya, but some of you guys take it way to far... to the point where you're not just kicking a dead horse, you're kicking a non-existant dead horse.
posted by Satapher at 6:26 AM on September 6, 2001
posted by Satapher at 6:26 AM on September 6, 2001
I thought you meant "drop-in US executions" and was afraid of what that might mean: if you live nearby, you can just drop in, grab yourself a coffee and a doughnut, take a seat, and watch the show?
posted by pracowity at 6:39 AM on September 6, 2001
posted by pracowity at 6:39 AM on September 6, 2001
"It must be said that George W. Bush is not responsible for the increased pace of executions, nor did he create Texas' arcane clemency procedures. But it cannot be denied that Bush has steadfastly opposed changing the clemency procedures in the face of stinging criticism by the courts.
Bush has even opposed simple safeguards like holding open meetings. The Texas governor has vetoed legislation which would have provided funding for basic indigent defense. He called that bill, which had bipartisan support, "a threat to public safety." Bush also opposed legislation instituting life without parole and banning the execution of people with IQ's less than 65. In general, he has been a leading spokesperson in favor of the death penalty."
-- Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty
posted by waxpancake at 6:53 AM on September 6, 2001
Bush has even opposed simple safeguards like holding open meetings. The Texas governor has vetoed legislation which would have provided funding for basic indigent defense. He called that bill, which had bipartisan support, "a threat to public safety." Bush also opposed legislation instituting life without parole and banning the execution of people with IQ's less than 65. In general, he has been a leading spokesperson in favor of the death penalty."
-- Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty
posted by waxpancake at 6:53 AM on September 6, 2001
What's wrong with the death penalty? Those who earn it have no problem meting it out to their victims. Shouldn't the punishment fit the crime? Aren't their some crimes that are so foul, so heinous, that the only just punishment is the death of the criminal? How many innocents have to be victimized before people realize that the death penalty, for all the blather about "deterrence," is sometimes the only punishment that fits.
I will admit that there are some problems with application. But the death penalty process is a long one, with numerous built in safeguards. Say what you will about the European countries, but their criminal culture is different from ours, for better or worse. I say we need the death penalty, for these reasons:
*It is the only penalty that fits certain crimes.
*It guarantees that the criminal, in a system where recidivism runs upwards of 80%, will never again commit a crime.
*It prevents the possibility of escape or parole that, however remote, life in prison does not.
*It prevents the criminal from victimizing other prisoners.
*It addresses our collective responsibility to the defenseless that we as a society, once we have determined that a person is a danger, are willing to make difficult choices to protect the safety of our most vulnerable members.
posted by UncleFes at 7:45 AM on September 6, 2001
I will admit that there are some problems with application. But the death penalty process is a long one, with numerous built in safeguards. Say what you will about the European countries, but their criminal culture is different from ours, for better or worse. I say we need the death penalty, for these reasons:
*It is the only penalty that fits certain crimes.
*It guarantees that the criminal, in a system where recidivism runs upwards of 80%, will never again commit a crime.
*It prevents the possibility of escape or parole that, however remote, life in prison does not.
*It prevents the criminal from victimizing other prisoners.
*It addresses our collective responsibility to the defenseless that we as a society, once we have determined that a person is a danger, are willing to make difficult choices to protect the safety of our most vulnerable members.
posted by UncleFes at 7:45 AM on September 6, 2001
OK, I'll bite.
Using the death penalty to combat recidivism is like cutting off your head to cure a headache. If the the system runs 80% recidivism, could it possibly mean that, gosh, maybe something is wrong with the system? Maybe the "lock 'em up and throw away the key" theory of criminal justice doesn't work? The same goes for "prevents the possibility of escape", "prevents criminals from victimizing other prisoners" - sure, we can reduce incidence of escape, inmate violence, and recidivism to zero if we just kill 'em all. That kind of thinking implies a value judgement on the worth of a human life, that a human life is worth X dollars or Y man-hours of labor, and that at some point, it's too much, we can't afford to let them live. If it's too much trouble and expense to fix the system that has failed, execution is such a neat and cost-effective solution.
And if a few mistakes are made, a few innocent people are executed, a few retarded people who can't possibly understand the consequences of their actions are executed, it's OK, we've factored that in, that's one of the difficult choices we had to make to make to protect the safety of our society's most vulnerable members.
As far as death being the only suitable penalty for certain crimes - if you want revenge, have the moral courage to call it revenge, because that's all it is.
posted by RylandDotNet at 10:16 AM on September 6, 2001
Using the death penalty to combat recidivism is like cutting off your head to cure a headache. If the the system runs 80% recidivism, could it possibly mean that, gosh, maybe something is wrong with the system? Maybe the "lock 'em up and throw away the key" theory of criminal justice doesn't work? The same goes for "prevents the possibility of escape", "prevents criminals from victimizing other prisoners" - sure, we can reduce incidence of escape, inmate violence, and recidivism to zero if we just kill 'em all. That kind of thinking implies a value judgement on the worth of a human life, that a human life is worth X dollars or Y man-hours of labor, and that at some point, it's too much, we can't afford to let them live. If it's too much trouble and expense to fix the system that has failed, execution is such a neat and cost-effective solution.
And if a few mistakes are made, a few innocent people are executed, a few retarded people who can't possibly understand the consequences of their actions are executed, it's OK, we've factored that in, that's one of the difficult choices we had to make to make to protect the safety of our society's most vulnerable members.
As far as death being the only suitable penalty for certain crimes - if you want revenge, have the moral courage to call it revenge, because that's all it is.
posted by RylandDotNet at 10:16 AM on September 6, 2001
A bite back.... and a long one :)
Using the death penalty to combat recidivism is like cutting off your head to cure a headache.
Well, that's a fine analogy, but rather difficult to prove. I could just as easily say that not using the death penalty to combat recidivism is like treating cancer with sugar water because the chemo makes you throw up. Murderers who might have otherwise gotten the death penalty are the particular recidivists I was referring to. You're probably right that, for recidivist jaywalkers, for example, capital punishment might be a little harsh.
If the the system runs 80% recidivism, could it possibly mean that, gosh, maybe something is wrong with the system?
Maybe. So what? We're not talking about the system at large, we're talking about capital punishment. It could be that criminals are simply criminals for life, and for the most part letting them leave prison at all is a mistake, couldn't it?
Maybe the "lock 'em up and throw away the key" theory of criminal justice doesn't work?
And maybe it does. In fact, the LEU+TATK system has helped contribute to double-digit reductions in crime, especially violent crimes, thoughout the 90s.
The same goes for "prevents the possibility of escape", "prevents criminals from victimizing other prisoners" - sure, we can reduce incidence of escape, inmate violence, and recidivism to zero if we just kill 'em all.
Certainly. But I'm talking about "them all" (in fact, the reduction of inmate violence aspect is a method for protecting "them all"). Capital crimes make up a small proportion of overall crimes. No one's talking about genocide, here.
That kind of thinking implies a value judgement on the worth of a human life, that a human life is worth X dollars or Y man-hours of labor, and that at some point, it's too much, we can't afford to let them live. If it's too much trouble and expense to fix the system that has failed, execution is such a neat and cost-effective solution.
That kind of thinking doesn't imply anything. You are adding this diversion to the equation for reasons you don't mention. Executing murderers is actually more expensive overall than imprisoning them for life.
BUT otherwise it's an excellent point: why AREN'T we making value judgements about human life? Not in dollars, of course, but in inherent value and, even more so, capacity for continued violence and criminality. Why is it assumed that a murderer's life is worth more than his innocent victims? Because that exactly the judgement you are making. The murderer makes his judgement as to the worth of his victims lives; we continue to pretend we are incapable of judging his life, when in fact it is the murderer's actions that demand we judge him.
And if a few mistakes are made, a few innocent people are executed, a few retarded people who can't possibly understand the consequences of their actions are executed, it's OK, we've factored that in, that's one of the difficult choices we had to make to make to protect the safety of our society's most vulnerable members.
Yes, except so far not ONE mistake, not ONE innocent man has been proven to have been executed under since the reintriduction of the death penalty. We know this because, if there had been, his name would be shouted from every rooftop, and very likely the death penalty would end in this country. Now, there have been some people on death row who convictions have been overturned ("innocence" and "overturned conviction" being very different things, remember), and those instances are certainly evidence that the death penalty should be applied very surely. But it is highly unlikely that an innocent man has been executed in modern times, simply because anti-death penalty advocates would have found him by now. In addition, the process from conviction to execution is extraordinarily long - years, sometimes decades, even when one's guilt of the crime is unquestioned. There are numerous appeals, the evidence is checked and rechecked, witnesses re-examined, and that isn't even counting the informal groups who investigate death penalty cases out of advocacy. It is very difficult to get executed in this country, even in Texas. And as for commuting the executions of the retarded, it always amazes me how many murderers, who seem so capable of creating the foulest mayhem, avoiding arrest (for however long), and aiding in their defense suddenly become mental deficients on death row.
In the end I say: how many innocent victims have to die in horrible ways in the name of mercy for the men and women who murder them? Those who advocate the death penalty say "not one more."
As far as death being the only suitable penalty for certain crimes - if you want revenge, have the moral courage to call it revenge, because that's all it is.
Fine, it's revenge: so what? Call it what you want, it doesn't make it any less just. When will you have the moral courage to call anti-death penalty advocacy "revictimization"? Or "cowardice"? Or "injustice"? When will the anti-death penalty advocates have the moral courage to factor crime victims and their suffering into the equation?
posted by UncleFes at 11:42 AM on September 6, 2001
Using the death penalty to combat recidivism is like cutting off your head to cure a headache.
Well, that's a fine analogy, but rather difficult to prove. I could just as easily say that not using the death penalty to combat recidivism is like treating cancer with sugar water because the chemo makes you throw up. Murderers who might have otherwise gotten the death penalty are the particular recidivists I was referring to. You're probably right that, for recidivist jaywalkers, for example, capital punishment might be a little harsh.
If the the system runs 80% recidivism, could it possibly mean that, gosh, maybe something is wrong with the system?
Maybe. So what? We're not talking about the system at large, we're talking about capital punishment. It could be that criminals are simply criminals for life, and for the most part letting them leave prison at all is a mistake, couldn't it?
Maybe the "lock 'em up and throw away the key" theory of criminal justice doesn't work?
And maybe it does. In fact, the LEU+TATK system has helped contribute to double-digit reductions in crime, especially violent crimes, thoughout the 90s.
The same goes for "prevents the possibility of escape", "prevents criminals from victimizing other prisoners" - sure, we can reduce incidence of escape, inmate violence, and recidivism to zero if we just kill 'em all.
Certainly. But I'm talking about "them all" (in fact, the reduction of inmate violence aspect is a method for protecting "them all"). Capital crimes make up a small proportion of overall crimes. No one's talking about genocide, here.
That kind of thinking implies a value judgement on the worth of a human life, that a human life is worth X dollars or Y man-hours of labor, and that at some point, it's too much, we can't afford to let them live. If it's too much trouble and expense to fix the system that has failed, execution is such a neat and cost-effective solution.
That kind of thinking doesn't imply anything. You are adding this diversion to the equation for reasons you don't mention. Executing murderers is actually more expensive overall than imprisoning them for life.
BUT otherwise it's an excellent point: why AREN'T we making value judgements about human life? Not in dollars, of course, but in inherent value and, even more so, capacity for continued violence and criminality. Why is it assumed that a murderer's life is worth more than his innocent victims? Because that exactly the judgement you are making. The murderer makes his judgement as to the worth of his victims lives; we continue to pretend we are incapable of judging his life, when in fact it is the murderer's actions that demand we judge him.
And if a few mistakes are made, a few innocent people are executed, a few retarded people who can't possibly understand the consequences of their actions are executed, it's OK, we've factored that in, that's one of the difficult choices we had to make to make to protect the safety of our society's most vulnerable members.
Yes, except so far not ONE mistake, not ONE innocent man has been proven to have been executed under since the reintriduction of the death penalty. We know this because, if there had been, his name would be shouted from every rooftop, and very likely the death penalty would end in this country. Now, there have been some people on death row who convictions have been overturned ("innocence" and "overturned conviction" being very different things, remember), and those instances are certainly evidence that the death penalty should be applied very surely. But it is highly unlikely that an innocent man has been executed in modern times, simply because anti-death penalty advocates would have found him by now. In addition, the process from conviction to execution is extraordinarily long - years, sometimes decades, even when one's guilt of the crime is unquestioned. There are numerous appeals, the evidence is checked and rechecked, witnesses re-examined, and that isn't even counting the informal groups who investigate death penalty cases out of advocacy. It is very difficult to get executed in this country, even in Texas. And as for commuting the executions of the retarded, it always amazes me how many murderers, who seem so capable of creating the foulest mayhem, avoiding arrest (for however long), and aiding in their defense suddenly become mental deficients on death row.
In the end I say: how many innocent victims have to die in horrible ways in the name of mercy for the men and women who murder them? Those who advocate the death penalty say "not one more."
As far as death being the only suitable penalty for certain crimes - if you want revenge, have the moral courage to call it revenge, because that's all it is.
Fine, it's revenge: so what? Call it what you want, it doesn't make it any less just. When will you have the moral courage to call anti-death penalty advocacy "revictimization"? Or "cowardice"? Or "injustice"? When will the anti-death penalty advocates have the moral courage to factor crime victims and their suffering into the equation?
posted by UncleFes at 11:42 AM on September 6, 2001
Ryland's point stands. He did set himself up for UncleFes's rejoinder, by falling for the utilitarian(clap) trap - ie.what works - but his moral position can only be debated in moral terms.
I think G-d got it right when he put it to Moses that "Thou shall not kill" deserved to reach a wider audience.
If killing is wrong, killing is wrong, whoever does it. Punishment is entirely another question.
I myself would like to see murderers spend their entire lives working 16 hours a day with all the fruits of their hard labour going to victims' groups, support organizations, etc.
Or deported to poverty-stricken countries to dig wells, build sewers and collect refuse.
Revenge is fine by me - but not tit-for-tat. Otherwise serial killers would presumably be murdered more cruelly than those who "merely" killed one or two people.
The "death is too good for them" argument, by the way, is equally deplorable, as it too minimizes death.
Too harsh? This we can discuss. But the great divide between those who favour killing and those who don't can never be bridged. Perhaps this is why so many murderers have no problem with capital punishment - witness the current death-row fashion for early execution-on-demand, with all the nauseating media-noise and glorification that goes with it.
Sorry I didn't take the time to be briefer...
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:17 PM on September 6, 2001
I think G-d got it right when he put it to Moses that "Thou shall not kill" deserved to reach a wider audience.
If killing is wrong, killing is wrong, whoever does it. Punishment is entirely another question.
I myself would like to see murderers spend their entire lives working 16 hours a day with all the fruits of their hard labour going to victims' groups, support organizations, etc.
Or deported to poverty-stricken countries to dig wells, build sewers and collect refuse.
Revenge is fine by me - but not tit-for-tat. Otherwise serial killers would presumably be murdered more cruelly than those who "merely" killed one or two people.
The "death is too good for them" argument, by the way, is equally deplorable, as it too minimizes death.
Too harsh? This we can discuss. But the great divide between those who favour killing and those who don't can never be bridged. Perhaps this is why so many murderers have no problem with capital punishment - witness the current death-row fashion for early execution-on-demand, with all the nauseating media-noise and glorification that goes with it.
Sorry I didn't take the time to be briefer...
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:17 PM on September 6, 2001
As far as death being the only suitable penalty for certain crimes - if you want revenge, have the moral courage to call it revenge, because that's all it is.
There are 3 basic justifications for punishment in society:
1) Consequentialist: ie, deterrence, prevention of future harms, reforming the criminal's moral makeup, etc. Anything forward looking in nature is consequentialist. Under this ideal, crimes should be punished only so far as the punishment results in more good than harm to society.
2) Retribution: We need to impose suffering on a person. Pretty self-explanatory.
3) Mixed: Most people believe that some combination of the two is necessary.
The consequentialist viewpoint is appealing both because we generally know how to measure deterrence (how good we are at that is another matter) and because it spares us from having to make a moral determination regarding the criminal. However, advocates of consequentialism alone face a serious problem: logically, this also means that the execution of an innocent would be morally just if the benefits outweighed the costs.
"Scapegoat convictions" provide the perfect example of this. Let's say that someone commits a particularly heinous crime, and the cops cannot say with certainty that they have the guilty party in custody. Let's further assume that the quick and public imprisonment of the guilty party would bring about tremendous good to society, because it would deter future acts, prevent riots, restore social calm and a sense of justice, etc. Should the innocent party be imprisoned for the good of the whole? Most people would say no.
Further, let's say that we catch a war criminal, responsible for the mass murder of thousands, who has been living peacefully for 50 years in another country. He is old and almost senile, and so many other war criminals have been punished (severely) that his trial will not only have no deterrent effect, it will also hardly make the news. He has a new family, unrelated to his past crimes, who will almost certainly be harmed by the trial and conviction. Under consequentialism alone, we should probably let him die in peace. Yet the survivors among his victims would cry out for justice, and rightly so. Should we callously weigh their feelings against the harm to the criminals family, using the cost benefit analysis as our sole basis for whether he is prosecuted? Most would say no.
Okay, so that's a poor analogy, but it's the best I could come up with under the circumstances. The point is this: retribution is an absolutely necessary part of our criminal justice system. If retribution is not a just goal at some level, then our entire system of criminal justice as it currently stands is rendered unjust.
posted by gd779 at 1:22 PM on September 6, 2001
There are 3 basic justifications for punishment in society:
1) Consequentialist: ie, deterrence, prevention of future harms, reforming the criminal's moral makeup, etc. Anything forward looking in nature is consequentialist. Under this ideal, crimes should be punished only so far as the punishment results in more good than harm to society.
2) Retribution: We need to impose suffering on a person. Pretty self-explanatory.
3) Mixed: Most people believe that some combination of the two is necessary.
The consequentialist viewpoint is appealing both because we generally know how to measure deterrence (how good we are at that is another matter) and because it spares us from having to make a moral determination regarding the criminal. However, advocates of consequentialism alone face a serious problem: logically, this also means that the execution of an innocent would be morally just if the benefits outweighed the costs.
"Scapegoat convictions" provide the perfect example of this. Let's say that someone commits a particularly heinous crime, and the cops cannot say with certainty that they have the guilty party in custody. Let's further assume that the quick and public imprisonment of the guilty party would bring about tremendous good to society, because it would deter future acts, prevent riots, restore social calm and a sense of justice, etc. Should the innocent party be imprisoned for the good of the whole? Most people would say no.
Further, let's say that we catch a war criminal, responsible for the mass murder of thousands, who has been living peacefully for 50 years in another country. He is old and almost senile, and so many other war criminals have been punished (severely) that his trial will not only have no deterrent effect, it will also hardly make the news. He has a new family, unrelated to his past crimes, who will almost certainly be harmed by the trial and conviction. Under consequentialism alone, we should probably let him die in peace. Yet the survivors among his victims would cry out for justice, and rightly so. Should we callously weigh their feelings against the harm to the criminals family, using the cost benefit analysis as our sole basis for whether he is prosecuted? Most would say no.
Okay, so that's a poor analogy, but it's the best I could come up with under the circumstances. The point is this: retribution is an absolutely necessary part of our criminal justice system. If retribution is not a just goal at some level, then our entire system of criminal justice as it currently stands is rendered unjust.
posted by gd779 at 1:22 PM on September 6, 2001
I think G-d got it right when he put it to Moses that "Thou shall not kill" deserved to reach a wider audience.
pet peeve, grumble, grumble. The Mosiac Law specifically required the death penalty for a variety of sins. Don't tell me that the God of the Old Testament would oppose the death penalty without some more substantial reasoning.
If killing is wrong, killing is wrong, whoever does it.
It's wrong for me to abduct you and tie you up in my basement. Why does this logic apply to the death penalty but not other forms of punishment such as imprisonment?
I myself would like to see murderers spend their entire lives working 16 hours a day with all the fruits of their hard labor going to victims' groups, support organizations, etc.
I'll second that.
Otherwise serial killers would presumably be murdered more cruelly than those who "merely" killed one or two people.
Except that the intentional inflection of physical pain is torture, and we consider that immoral for even the state to engage in. Therefore, death is the greatest punishment we can inflict.
posted by gd779 at 2:11 PM on September 6, 2001
pet peeve, grumble, grumble. The Mosiac Law specifically required the death penalty for a variety of sins. Don't tell me that the God of the Old Testament would oppose the death penalty without some more substantial reasoning.
If killing is wrong, killing is wrong, whoever does it.
It's wrong for me to abduct you and tie you up in my basement. Why does this logic apply to the death penalty but not other forms of punishment such as imprisonment?
I myself would like to see murderers spend their entire lives working 16 hours a day with all the fruits of their hard labor going to victims' groups, support organizations, etc.
I'll second that.
Otherwise serial killers would presumably be murdered more cruelly than those who "merely" killed one or two people.
Except that the intentional inflection of physical pain is torture, and we consider that immoral for even the state to engage in. Therefore, death is the greatest punishment we can inflict.
posted by gd779 at 2:11 PM on September 6, 2001
UncleFes said: Why is it assumed that a murderer's life is worth more than his innocent victims? Because that exactly the judgement you are making.
No, actually. My point is, if the death penalty balanced the scales, actually did some good besides satisfying the victims' need for revenge, it would be one thing, but killing someone has no tangible benefit. Studies have shown that capital punishment does not have a deterrent effect, mainly because capital punishment is a relatively rare occurence. Locking someone up for life has the same tangible effect as killing them (keeping them from harming anyone else) without having to resort to murder. Murder of the guilty is still murder.
Yes, except so far not ONE mistake, not ONE innocent man has been proven to have been executed under since the reintriduction of the death penalty. We know this because, if there had been, his name would be shouted from every rooftop, and very likely the death penalty would end in this country.
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic here or if you're just really naive, but I'll answer seriously. There are already plenty of people shouting from plenty of rooftops, if you haven't been keeping up with the news. It's a virtual certainty that lots of people have been wrongfully executed, especially before advances in forensic science and the advent of DNA testing.
Believe it or not, though, that is beside the point. Even if there was a 100% fool-proof way to judge someone's guilt or innocence, killing them is still wrong. I don't think there's a genuine code of ethics anywhere that will admit that murder is a good thing.
The justice system doesn't exist to get even with people, it exists to protect people. There are ways to protect that don't necessitate killing people.
posted by RylandDotNet at 9:55 PM on September 6, 2001
No, actually. My point is, if the death penalty balanced the scales, actually did some good besides satisfying the victims' need for revenge, it would be one thing, but killing someone has no tangible benefit. Studies have shown that capital punishment does not have a deterrent effect, mainly because capital punishment is a relatively rare occurence. Locking someone up for life has the same tangible effect as killing them (keeping them from harming anyone else) without having to resort to murder. Murder of the guilty is still murder.
Yes, except so far not ONE mistake, not ONE innocent man has been proven to have been executed under since the reintriduction of the death penalty. We know this because, if there had been, his name would be shouted from every rooftop, and very likely the death penalty would end in this country.
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic here or if you're just really naive, but I'll answer seriously. There are already plenty of people shouting from plenty of rooftops, if you haven't been keeping up with the news. It's a virtual certainty that lots of people have been wrongfully executed, especially before advances in forensic science and the advent of DNA testing.
Believe it or not, though, that is beside the point. Even if there was a 100% fool-proof way to judge someone's guilt or innocence, killing them is still wrong. I don't think there's a genuine code of ethics anywhere that will admit that murder is a good thing.
The justice system doesn't exist to get even with people, it exists to protect people. There are ways to protect that don't necessitate killing people.
posted by RylandDotNet at 9:55 PM on September 6, 2001
but killing someone has no tangible benefit
Sure it does. Even outside of the justice system, killing people generates tangible benefits all over the place. The benefit is contingent on the person killed.
Studies have shown that capital punishment does not have a deterrent effect
I agree. Capital punishment has no deterrent effect, and pro-death penalty advocates are foolish to continue beating that particular drum. It deters only the future actions of the executed criminal.... but that is enough, in these cases.
Locking someone up for life has the same tangible effect as killing
No it doesn't, and I've already mentioned the reasons: they can get paroled, they can escape, they can victimize other prisoners. While there is life, there is hope. Realistically, what else does a man incarcerated for life have to do with his time? Write appeals, attempt escapes, and brutalize his cellmate.
It's a virtual certainty that lots of people have been wrongfully executed, especially before advances in forensic science and the advent of DNA testing.
I was serious. "Virtual certainty" requires proof, and I've yet to see any evidence that an innocent man has been executed in modern times. Shouting does not equal fact.
There are ways to protect that don't necessitate killing people.
It's a shame that's not true. I wish it was. But so long as the police remain incapable of ESP, law enforcement and criminal justice will continue to be an after-the-fact proposition. And if the execution of a murderer prevents even one more person from falling victim to him, it's worth it.
posted by UncleFes at 6:46 AM on September 7, 2001
Sure it does. Even outside of the justice system, killing people generates tangible benefits all over the place. The benefit is contingent on the person killed.
Studies have shown that capital punishment does not have a deterrent effect
I agree. Capital punishment has no deterrent effect, and pro-death penalty advocates are foolish to continue beating that particular drum. It deters only the future actions of the executed criminal.... but that is enough, in these cases.
Locking someone up for life has the same tangible effect as killing
No it doesn't, and I've already mentioned the reasons: they can get paroled, they can escape, they can victimize other prisoners. While there is life, there is hope. Realistically, what else does a man incarcerated for life have to do with his time? Write appeals, attempt escapes, and brutalize his cellmate.
It's a virtual certainty that lots of people have been wrongfully executed, especially before advances in forensic science and the advent of DNA testing.
I was serious. "Virtual certainty" requires proof, and I've yet to see any evidence that an innocent man has been executed in modern times. Shouting does not equal fact.
There are ways to protect that don't necessitate killing people.
It's a shame that's not true. I wish it was. But so long as the police remain incapable of ESP, law enforcement and criminal justice will continue to be an after-the-fact proposition. And if the execution of a murderer prevents even one more person from falling victim to him, it's worth it.
posted by UncleFes at 6:46 AM on September 7, 2001
What, our numbers are down? OK, who's responsible. . . We're slipping people, we're slipping.
posted by aflakete at 10:06 AM on September 7, 2001
posted by aflakete at 10:06 AM on September 7, 2001
The justice system doesn't exist to get even with people, it exists to protect people.
Not true. There's a reason it's called the justice system.
Let's say, for example, that a man comes home one day to find his wife committing adultery with another man. He kills them both in a fit of rage. Prior to (and during) the trial, he undergoes extensive psychological counseling, and it is determined that he is now mentally sound, and will never succumb to that sort of rage again. He killed his wife and her boyfriend, but he will never kill again; should he be convicted? After all, he poses no futher danger to society.
"But we have to punish him in order to deter future crimes", you might say. That is true. But what gives us the fundamental right to punish him? After all, we do not generally punish the innocent, even if their punishment would lead to great social good. So why do we feel comfortable punishing a murder, even one who poses no further danger to society? Is it not because he has done something wrong, and thus deserves the punishment we apply?
If your sole purpose for establishing a justice system is the protection of the people, then you should not convict a man who poses no danger to society. Yet there is something inherent in all of us that cries out for punishment anyway. We call it justice, or we say that "he's getting what's coming to him". However you put it, our society has determined that some actions are morally corrupt, and thus require punishment even absent the need to protect the public from future crimes.
posted by gd779 at 10:26 AM on September 8, 2001
Not true. There's a reason it's called the justice system.
Let's say, for example, that a man comes home one day to find his wife committing adultery with another man. He kills them both in a fit of rage. Prior to (and during) the trial, he undergoes extensive psychological counseling, and it is determined that he is now mentally sound, and will never succumb to that sort of rage again. He killed his wife and her boyfriend, but he will never kill again; should he be convicted? After all, he poses no futher danger to society.
"But we have to punish him in order to deter future crimes", you might say. That is true. But what gives us the fundamental right to punish him? After all, we do not generally punish the innocent, even if their punishment would lead to great social good. So why do we feel comfortable punishing a murder, even one who poses no further danger to society? Is it not because he has done something wrong, and thus deserves the punishment we apply?
If your sole purpose for establishing a justice system is the protection of the people, then you should not convict a man who poses no danger to society. Yet there is something inherent in all of us that cries out for punishment anyway. We call it justice, or we say that "he's getting what's coming to him". However you put it, our society has determined that some actions are morally corrupt, and thus require punishment even absent the need to protect the public from future crimes.
posted by gd779 at 10:26 AM on September 8, 2001
« Older Clip2 are closing their doors. | First step to gay marriage? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
DNA testing and a small decline in the murder rate may be the more obvious explanation. Or perhaps - hopefully - American judges are becoming more lenient and less divorced from mainstream European legal systems.
I find much more unnerving - because it is so retrograde and represents precisely the pandering to mass ignorance and prejudice we have managed to avoid for so long - that Iain Duncan-Smith, presently the favourite to become the next Conservative Party leader in the UK, has unabashedly declared himself in favour of capital punishment.
Even Mrs.Thatcher had the grace not to bring up this wretched old chestnut - as we all know a small majority of British citizens continue to favour the death penalty.
Democracy is a fine thing but, in cases like this, politicians who undemocratically refuse to represent the majority view are to be applauded.
So perhaps enlightened elitism has its place whenever the masses refuse to see the light.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:27 AM on September 6, 2001