CA executes old blind cripple

[Johnny L.A.]

'Happy Birthday, Clarence!' (Not that it matters that he was killed less than an hour after his birthday.)

Clarence Ray Allen wasn not a nice man. He was sent to prison for having his son's 17-year-old girlfriend killed because he was afraid she would tell police about a grocery store robbery he committed. In 1982 he was sentenced to die for hiring a hit man who killed a witness and two bystanders. I'm opposed to capital punishment, but I can't cry for this guy.

But. Allen was legally blind, deaf, had diabetes, and was confined to a wheelchair. In September he suffered a near-fatal heart attack. And he was 76 years old, the oldest person executed in California and the second-oldest prisoner executed in the U.S. after a 77-year-old was executed in Mississippi last month.

Was this guy a threat to society? What purpose was served by executing a blind, deaf cripple? Only revenge. Citizens of California are no safer today than the were yesterday because of this guy's execution.

[Mr. Moto]

There is a bit of a double edge to this sword.

Saying that the blind, or deaf, or crippled don't pose a threat to society is stating that they have a diminished capacity, capability, or use when going about their daily lives. This sort of attitude was routinely used in the past to deny them housing and employment.

Equal rights and equal access in society necessarily entails equal responsibilities as well.

If you want to make a case against the death penalty, a case can be made against it on its merits. I don't think making a case against it based on a discriminatory policy against the disabled would convince me.

[xcheopis]

What do his age & physical health have to do with carrying out his sentence? He was sentenced to be executed. He was executed. The end.

[Annie-Xmas]

Since his mind was still working, the old deaf cripple would be capable of ordering a hit from prison.

[Frank]

If you want to make a case against the death penalty, a case can be made against it on its merits.
We agree on this. The "poster child" strategy of opposing the death penalty is just stupid. The strategy should be on convincing people such as yourself that the death penalty is, in all cases, morally wrong. It may be slower, with more fits and starts, but in the long run, it is the only strategy that will win, and more importantly, the only strategy that will ensure the battle stays won.

[SmackFu]

Citizens of California are no safer today than the were yesterday because of this guy's execution.If safety was the main issue, than life in prison without parole would be a perfectly adequate punishment.

[Ponder Stibbons]

What do his age & physical health have to do with carrying out his sentence? He was sentenced to be executed. He was executed. The end.
I have to agree here, mostly. That is, if one is going to have a death penalty, it must be carried out without prejudice. The fact that the executee was an "old blind cripple" doesn't and shouldn't have anything to do with it. After all, executions aren't for the good of the person being executed. I have a very "Law & Order" mentality when it comes to this.

That having been said, I do oppose the death penalty on moral grounds and believe it should be eliminated altogether. Partly because of the ever-present fear of wrongful conviction, and partly because I do not believe it is our place, as a society, to decide who should die. But that's just me.

[Annie-Xmas]

Here (http://www.laweekly.com/ink/06/08/news-krikorian.php) is a good cite on Allen.

[Neurotik]

We agree on this. The "poster child" strategy of opposing the death penalty is just stupid. The strategy should be on convincing people such as yourself that the death penalty is, in all cases, morally wrong. It may be slower, with more fits and starts, but in the long run, it is the only strategy that will win, and more importantly, the only strategy that will ensure the battle stays won.
I disagree. The proper strategy is to focus on people's skepticism regarding the accuracy of the legal system. Hammer away on the idea that if you're going to give someone a permanent, unfixable punishment like death that the system needs to be 100% accurate. I think that most people can get behind that, even if they feel that there are some crimes worthy of the death penalty.

[lieu]

But. Allen was legally blind, deaf, had diabetes, and was confined to a wheelchair. In September he suffered a near-fatal heart attack.Ailments like this will probably affect near every death row inmate should the period between their sentencing and day of reckoning be stretched out long enough. This may speak more to the duration he was on DR and the length of the appeals process, about 26 years for this case if I remember correctly, than to any twisted desires of revenge against the infirmed.

[Frank]

Hammer away on the idea that if you're going to give someone a permanent, unfixable punishment like death that the system needs to be 100% accurate. I think that most people can get behind that, even if they feel that there are some crimes worthy of the death penalty.
The problem with that, as I see it, is that someday science or the court system will make changes that those people believe makes the death penalty 100% accurate. Then they will be right behind the death penalty again. It's not a permanent solution.

[Lord Ashtar]

I disagree. The proper strategy is to focus on people's skepticism regarding the accuracy of the legal system. Hammer away on the idea that if you're going to give someone a permanent, unfixable punishment like death that the system needs to be 100% accurate. I think that most people can get behind that, even if they feel that there are some crimes worthy of the death penalty.
Either way, you agree that the "poster child strategy", as Frank put it, is still not going to be very effective, yes?

[Johnny L.A.]

This may speak more to the duration he was on DR and the length of the appeals process, about 26 years for this case...
During which time society was safe from him. So what's the point?

[zev_steinhardt]

During which time society was safe from him. So what's the point?

Was society safe from him because he was in prison? Let's not forget that he wasn't being executed because he murdered a seventeen year old girl - he was being executed because he ordered three witnesses in that case killed while he was in prison. Those three people were certainly not safe just because Allen was in jail.

Zev Steinhardt

[lieu]

During which time society was safe from him. So what's the point?Beside reflecting on what was said above, sentencing based on merits regardless, I'm not sure I was trying to make a point more than just acknowledging the fact that delays bring with them a new crop of issues. It's no different than when a criminal escapes capture for a number of years and then's finally caught. What then? Should sentencing reflect his crime regardless of his/her physical condition or should that be considered? Contrary to having an answer, I think it's an interesting question.

[Amazon Floozy Goddess]

Having the restrictions he did would not have made him harmless.

I read a book awhile ago that was the memoirs of a forensic anthropologist. In it he told about one case he investigated in which a seemingly feeble, 85 year old man had shot to death, and then dumped the body of his son-in-law in his septic tank.

[Clothahump]

Was this guy a threat to society? What purpose was served by executing a blind, deaf cripple? Only revenge. Citizens of California are no safer today than the were yesterday because of this guy's execution.

I think your emotions are misplaced. Here's the problem, quoting from Wikipedia (bolding mine):

In 1981, the Attorney General filed charges against Allen and prosecuted the trial in Glenn County, CA due to a change of venue. The trial lasted 23 days, and 58 witnesses were called to testify. Ultimately, the jury convicted Allen of triple murder and conspiracy to murder eight witnesses.

As special circumstances making Allen eligible for the death penalty, the jury also found that Allen had previously been convicted of murder, had committed multiple murder, and had murdered witnesses in retaliation for their prior testimony and to prevent future testimony. During a seven-day penalty phase, the Attorney General introduced evidence of Allen’s career orchestrating violent robberies in the Central Valley, including ten violent crimes and six prior felony convictions. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of death, and the Glenn County Superior Court sentenced Allen on November 22, 1982.

It took 23 plus years to carry out the sentence. That's what you should be pissed about, amigo. Had this execution been carried out in a timely fashion like it was supposed to be, we wouldn't be having this discussion today.

[Neurotik]

The problem with that, as I see it, is that someday science or the court system will make changes that those people believe makes the death penalty 100% accurate. Then they will be right behind the death penalty again. It's not a permanent solution.
That's fine. I would have no problem with the DP if the legal system was 100% accurate. But I suspect that 100% accuracy is a long, long ways off and there's plenty of time to change people's attitude as to the morality of the DP during that span if you're looking for a permanent solution.
Either way, you agree that the "poster child strategy", as Frank put it, is still not going to be very effective, yes?
Most definitely.

[Annie-Xmas]

Note that if Allen had been executed after the first murder, three innocent people would be alive today.

Convicted people who have witnesses and prosecutors killed are the lowest.

[Johnny L.A.]

I think your emotions are misplaced. Here's the problem, quoting from Wikipedia (bolding mine):

It took 23 plus years to carry out the sentence. That's what you should be pissed about, amigo. Had this execution been carried out in a timely fashion like it was supposed to be, we wouldn't be having this discussion today.
What I'm saying is this: He was locked up for 23 years. He was not a threat to society. If he has been neutralised as a threat, then what's the point of killing him? What purpose does it serve? That it took so long to kill him only points to the effectiveness of incarceration instead of execution.

[BobLibDem]

The death penalty is immoral in and of itself, regardless of the physical health of the condemned. True, it took 24 years. But in those 24 years, had evidence arose that would overturn the conviction, the harm to him could be stopped with the turn of a key. Had he been executed those 24 years ago and we find out just after doing it that he was innocent, there isn't a whole lot you can do for him. Until judges, juries, prosecutors, and defense attorneys become 100% infallible, the death penalty will include the possibility of executing the innocent.

Regarding his ordering killings while in prison- there's a simple answer. Solitary confinement.

[zev_steinhardt]

Was society safe from him because he was in prison? Let's not forget that he wasn't being executed because he murdered a seventeen year old girl - he was being executed because he ordered three witnesses in that case killed while he was in prison. Those three people were certainly not safe just because Allen was in jail.


D'oh! That should be "ordered the murder of three witnesses..."

Zev Steinhardt

[zev_steinhardt]

Regarding his ordering killings while in prison- there's a simple answer. Solitary confinement.

Are you proposing to keep every killer in solitary confinement for 24 hours a day?

Zev Steinhardt

[BobLibDem]

Are you proposing to keep every killer in solitary confinement for 24 hours a day?

Zev Steinhardt

No, but when they learned of his ordering executions while in prison, that would be the time to eliminate all contact with others. It's conjecture on my part, but I bet that most convicted murderers don't have the means or power to order hits on the outside.

[Finagle]

What I'm saying is this: He was locked up for 23 years. He was not a threat to society. If he has been neutralised as a threat, then what's the point of killing him? What purpose does it serve? That it took so long to kill him only points to the effectiveness of incarceration instead of execution.

Well, how much taxpayer's money is being pissed away keeping this guy alive in a maximum security prison? Incarceration may be effective, but it's not cost-effective.

[Weirddave]

What I'm saying is this: He was locked up for 23 years. He was not a threat to society. If he has been neutralised as a threat, then what's the point of killing him? What purpose does it serve? That it took so long to kill him only points to the effectiveness of incarceration instead of execution.
I wonder if the 3 people he had killed while he was in prison would agree with you that he had been "neutralized as a threat". Why don't we ask them? :wally

[Frank]

Well, how much taxpayer's money is being pissed away keeping this guy alive in a maximum security prison? Incarceration may be effective, but it's not cost-effective.
In fact, it is more expensive to execute a criminal than it is to imprison them.

[Pjen]

Worth bearing in mind that the US governments' decisions to continue to kill people in prison is a major concern in the civilized world- Europe, Australasia, Canada etc..

Those of us who keep to civilized standards can only look on and weep as you continue to kill juvenile offenders, the mentally ill, the mentally retarded, elderly cripples and proportionately more people of color than anglos, in your charnel houses.

There are an adequate number of models in those civilized nations to show that the killing criminals is not necessary.

One day people will look back on this type of killing and see it as we now see child labor, slavery, female exclusion, state racism, and corporal punishment.

The USA will, to history, look like the ante-bellum USA, Victorian Britain, and Apartheid South Africa look to us today.

Shame. Shame. Shame.

[Weirddave]

Worth bearing in mind that the US governments' decisions to continue to kill people in prison is a major concern in the civilized world- Europe, Australasia, Canada etc..

Those of us who keep to civilized standards can only look on and weep as you continue to kill juvenile offenders, the mentally ill, the mentally retarded, elderly cripples and proportionately more people of color than anglos, in your charnel houses.

There are an adequate number of models in those civilized nations to show that the killing criminals is not necessary.

One day people will look back on this type of killing and see it as we now see child labor, slavery, female exclusion, state racism, and corporal punishment.

The USA will, to history, look like the ante-bellum USA, Victorian Britain, and Apartheid South Africa look to us today.

Shame. Shame. Shame.



*yawn*

[Zebra]

I think what is wrong is that a guy, who had someone killed because they knew about a grocery store robbery, was able to set up more killings while in prison.


I think someone who 'arranged' a killing, should have his visitors monitored very closely.

[Blackclaw]

Worth bearing in mind that the US governments' decisions to continue to kill people in prison is a major concern in the civilized world- Europe, Australasia, Canada etc..

Those of us who keep to civilized standards can only look on and weep as you continue to kill juvenile offenders, the mentally ill, the mentally retarded, elderly cripples and proportionately more people of color than anglos, in your charnel houses.

There are an adequate number of models in those civilized nations to show that the killing criminals is not necessary.

One day people will look back on this type of killing and see it as we now see child labor, slavery, female exclusion, state racism, and corporal punishment.

The USA will, to history, look like the ante-bellum USA, Victorian Britain, and Apartheid South Africa look to us today.

Shame. Shame. Shame.

That holier than thou crap does not help the anti-death penalty cause. North America has been occupied by Europeans far less of a time span than Europe has. Being European, we learned our murderous ways from our fore-fathers. Give us time and we'll reach your level of civility. Although it looked a lot like apathy when it came to the genocide in the Balkans.

[Odesio]

I disagree. The proper strategy is to focus on people's skepticism regarding the accuracy of the legal system. Hammer away on the idea that if you're going to give someone a permanent, unfixable punishment like death that the system needs to be 100% accurate. I think that most people can get behind that, even if they feel that there are some crimes worthy of the death penalty.

I think yours is the best course. I think it's perfectly moral to kill other human beings for certain reasons. I used to be a staunch supporter of the death penalty but with nagging worries over the execution of innocent people, the arbitrary way it the death sentence seems to be doled out, etc. I have become only a mild supporter of the death penalty. I still don't think it's wrong, but I'm not going to fight all that strongly if it is repealed.

Marc

[John Mace]

No, but when they learned of his ordering executions while in prison, that would be the time to eliminate all contact with others.
It wasn't learned until after the people were already dead. It's not like these things get announced in the prison weekly.

I'm anti-death penalty, but as long as we have it, you can't say it doesn't apply to some people. Fry the fucker. He deserved the most severe sentence available.

[Pjen]

That holier than thou crap does not help the anti-death penalty cause. North America has been occupied by Europeans far less of a time span than Europe has. Being European, we learned our murderous ways from our fore-fathers. Give us time and we'll reach your level of civility. Although it looked a lot like apathy when it came to the genocide in the Balkans.

All of the countries of the civilized world share a common moral structure which stands aside from the age of the state.

The length of time that the US has been 'occupied by Europeans' is less or more (depending on your view of Vinnland etc.) than Canada. Yet Canada seems to be doing quite well without killing its prisoners.

[Pjen]

Countries in which the killing prisoners is still permitted

* Afghanistan
* Antigua and Barbuda
* Bahamas
* Bahrain
* Bangladesh
* Barbados
* Belarus
* Belize
* Botswana
* Burundi
* Cameroon
* Chad
* China (People's Republic)
* Comoros
* Congo (Democratic Republic)
* Cuba
* Dominica
* Egypt
* Equatorial Guinea
* Eritrea
* Ethiopia
* Gabon
* Ghana
* Guatemala
* Guinea
* Guyana
* India
* Indonesia
* Iran
* Iraq
* Jamaica
* Japan
* Jordan
* Kazakhstan
* Korea, North
* Korea, South
* Kuwait
* Kyrgyzstan
* Laos
* Lebanon
* Lesotho
* Liberia
* Libya
* Malawi
* Malaysia
* Mongolia
* Nigeria
* Oman
* Pakistan
* Palestinian Authority
* Philippines
* Qatar
* Rwanda
* St. Kitts and Nevis
* St. Lucia
* St. Vincent and the Grenadines
* Saudi Arabia
* Sierra Leone
* Singapore
* Somalia
* Sudan
* Swaziland
* Syria
* Taiwan
* Tajikistan
* Tanzania
* Thailand
* Trinidad and Tobago
* Uganda
* United Arab Emirates
* United States
* Uzbekistan
* Vietnam
* Yemen
* Zambia
* Zimbabwe

What company you choose to keep.

[Larry Borgia]

Pjen, just because the Europeans choose option A and the U.S. chooses option B does not make option A right and option B wrong by necessity. Something isn't right because the majority of "civilised" countries say it is.

I'm against the death penalty for a few reasons. One of them is most definitly not, because it's what the Europeans think. As my Mom said, "If all the other kids jumped off a bridge, would you jump off it too?"

I'm afraid that your posts read more like someone who's interested in mindless knee-jerk America bashing rather than someone who's interested in debate. I mean "charnel houses?" seriously? And as Blackclaw points out, Europe's miserable failure in the Balkans takes the authority out of your finger-wagging.

[Faruiza]

I find it the very height of irony that Allen needed an extra dose of the drug used to stop his heart, and that it took longer to get the job done.

I know. find a cite.

Here. Not so feeble after all. (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/17/MNG37GOHD715.DTL)

[Pjen]

Top of the Pops for the Killing of Prisoners 2005 :

Saudi Arabia 90
Iran 88
China 77+
USA 60
Pakistan 23
Libya 15
Kuwait 11

Total 364

Remaining 13 States- no more than 10 each totalling about 63+.

The US is responsible for about 1 in 7 of all judicial killings.

[Larry Borgia]

And what have you got against Thailand, Singapore, Japan, Barbados or the Bahamas anyway?

[Pjen]

Pjen, just because the Europeans choose option A and the U.S. chooses option B does not make option A right and option B wrong by necessity. Something isn't right because the majority of "civilised" countries say it is.


It's not just Europe, it is the entire 'Western' world excepting the USA and Japan.


I'm against the death penalty for a few reasons. One of them is most definitly not, because it's what the Europeans think. As my Mom said, "If all the other kids jumped off a bridge, would you jump off it too?"

However, while we're quoting adages and saws, look at my comments about the company you keep- something I am sure that your mother warned you about.


I'm afraid that your posts read more like someone who's interested in mindless knee-jerk America bashing rather than someone who's interested in debate. I mean "charnel houses?" seriously? And as Blackclaw points out, Europe's miserable failure in the Balkans takes the authority out of your finger-wagging.

I'll trade you a miserable failure in the Balkans against the US treatment of its African American Population prior to 1950. People who live in glass houses... .

[E-Sabbath]

pjen, do you really want to go into the failings of your nation? Really? Especially those that you may not think are failings? Let's say, drinking age? Any civilized country would have raised it to 21, you know. Wine at 16? Scandalous!

Pointing and saying 'Other nations don't do it', isn't really an argument with much value to most Americans. We come from a similar legal tradition, but it is not the same. Not the same at all. Especially in matters of life and death. I suppose it's a matter of when we finally conquered the land. You did it in the 1600s. We didn't do it till near 1900. Now, we may naturally progress to eliminate capital punishment, but Europe's example only applies for Europe.

[Pjen]

And what have you got against Thailand, Singapore, Japan, Barbados or the Bahamas anyway?

I highlighted the least democratic countries.

[lieu]

I'll trade you a miserable failure in the Balkans against the US treatment of its African American Population prior to 1950.Will some kind soul tie three lifelines together, secure it to the OP and then toss it to Pjen?

[Pjen]

pjen, do you really want to go into the failings of your nation? Really? Especially those that you may not think are failings? Let's say, drinking age? Any civilized country would have raised it to 21, you know. Wine at 16? Scandalous!

1/ Not in the same league as killing prisoners
2/ The UK is in the middle of the lax/strict rules about age and alcohol compared with Western Countries, once again the US is at the very extreme.

Pointing and saying 'Other nations don't do it', isn't really an argument with much value to most Americans. We come from a similar legal tradition, but it is not the same. Not the same at all. Especially in matters of life and death.

This is not an argument to necessarily persuade Americans that they are wrong about the Death Penalty or should do things differently. It is just pointing out that one of the feelings about them that Americans will face when interacting with people from civilized nations will be similar to the feelings they may have about interacting with people from other similar pariah states.

I suppose it's a matter of when we finally conquered the land. You did it in the 1600s. We didn't do it till near 1900. Now, we may naturally progress to eliminate capital punishment, but Europe's example only applies for Europe.

I think that I have covered that specious argument above. Consider Canada which has been properly settled by Europeans by about 200 years less.

[Jackmannii]

Hmm...this guy was sentenced to death 23 years ago, and has been busy appealing and delaying his sentence since then. The last-ditch strategy? "I'm too old and feeble to be executed".

It's sort of like murdering your parents and then throwing yourself on the mercy of the court because you're an orphan.Shame. Shame. Shame.I'm gonna have my say
I'm goin' to every discotheque
I'm gonna dance
dance
dance - ooh -
'Til the break of day.
I say :
Shame
shame
shame
shame on you.
If you can't dance too.
I say :
Shame
shame
shame
shame

Shame
shame
shame
shame on you.
If you can't dance too. (A-Teens)

There are those who would find the greatest shame in the fact that four human beings died because of this killer. But some have different priorities.

[Blackclaw]

I'll trade you a miserable failure in the Balkans against the US treatment of its African American Population prior to 1950. People who live in glass houses... .

And I'll raise you the holocaust. Really, at our current rate it's going to take us a while to catch up to Europe.

Stop throwing bricks through your glass house just to smash the windows in ours.

It is possible to argue against the death penalty in a manner that won't automatically put Americans on the defensive. Why make the arguement harder than it has to be? You have me arguing with you and I abandoned my support for the death penalty several years ago.

[Pjen]

There are those who would find the greatest shame in the fact that four human beings died because of this killer. But some have different priorities.

Whereas there are others who would see the greatest shame in a State deciding to kill a prisoner.

[Revtim]

Speaking as somebody who'd love the US to abolish the death penalty, shut the fuck up other countries Pjen. You're not helping the case.

Your approach is akin to saying making trains run on time is bad because Mussilini made them run on time too. If you really wish to try and change minds, give actual *reasons* why it's wrong. The people on this board are too logical, for the most part, to be swayed by fallacious association.

For example, I argue that the death penalty is wrong because the system is not 100 percent fail proof, and hence innocents will be executed. Whether St. Kitts and Nevis also executes people means fuck-all to anybody with a brain.

[Pjen]

Speaking as somebody who'd love the US to abolish the death penalty, shut the fuck up other countries Pjen. You're not helping the case.

Your approach is akin to saying making trains run on time is bad because Mussilini made them run on time too. If you really wish to try and change minds, give actual *reasons* why it's wrong. The people on this board are too logical, for the most part, to be swayed by fallacious association.

For example, I argue that the death penalty is wrong because the system is not 100 percent fail proof, and hence innocents will be executed. Whether St. Kitts and Nevis also executes people means fuck-all to anybody with a brain.

One of the main arguments used against Apartheid was that it was a system maintained by a State that was behind the times compared to other countries pretending to Western sensitivities. The International pressure applied by various people and nations were based on the fact that those other people and nations felt that South Africa was making a fundamental error- a State dividing its people by Race is just wrong in a civilized Western World.

Does that sound logical and rational?

Then try:

One of the main arguments used against Killing Prisoners is that it is a system maintained by a State that is behind the times compared to other countries pretending to Western sensitivities. The International pressure applied by various people and nations are based on the fact that those other people and nations felt that the USA is making a fundamental error- a State killing its prisoners is just wrong in a civilized Western World.

[Revtim]

I'm anti-death penalty, but as long as we have it, you can't say it doesn't apply to some people. Fry the fucker. He deserved the most severe sentence available.Well put, I agree on both counts.

And how ridiculous is it to take into account the physical condition of the prisoner, especially one who hired hitmen and didn't do the deed himself.

And if he did do it himself, so what? Was he too decrepit to even lift a gun? Or too mentally feeble to consider the idea of hiring a hitman, even though that wasn't how he did his original crime? This whole "he was old and weak" crap really makes no sense.

[John Mace]

Worth bearing in mind that the US governments' decisions to continue to kill people in prison is a major concern in the civilized world- Europe, Australasia, Canada etc..

Those of us who keep to civilized standards can only look on and weep as you continue to kill juvenile offenders, the mentally ill, the mentally retarded, elderly cripples and proportionately more people of color than anglos, in your charnel houses.

There are an adequate number of models in those civilized nations to show that the killing criminals is not necessary.

One day people will look back on this type of killing and see it as we now see child labor, slavery, female exclusion, state racism, and corporal punishment.

The USA will, to history, look like the ante-bellum USA, Victorian Britain, and Apartheid South Africa look to us today.

Shame. Shame. Shame.


What part of WE DON'T FUCKING CARE do you not understand?

[Revtim]

One of the main arguments used against Apartheid was that it was a system maintained by a State that was behind the times compared to other countries pretending to Western sensitivities. The International pressure applied by various people and nations were based on the fact that those other people and nations felt that South Africa was making a fundamental error- a State dividing its people by Race is just wrong in a civilized Western World.

Does that sound logical and rational?Apartheid was wrong, regardless of whether nobody else did it, or if everybody else did it.

The "but all the cool countries are not doing it anymore!" argument may get results in the real world, but I'm talking about the people here on this board.

We generally are not going to take a position unless there are arguments to support position, regardless of what majority opinion is. I don't know what the majority opinion on the death penalty is in my country, or my state, or my county. Why should I care? I'm basing my opinion on facts and data, not opinion polls.

Feel free to use the majority opinion argument in the real world, but don't expect to gain any traction here with it.

[Jackmannii]

Whereas there are others who would see the greatest shame in a State deciding to kill a prisoner.Well, let's see what some others have said in this case. From Wikipedia:

"In 1974, Allen plotted the burglary of Fran's Market, a Fresno area supermarket, owned by Ray and Fran Schletewitz, who Allen had known for years. The plot involved Roger Allen, Clarence Ray Allen's son, Carl Mayfield and Charles Jones. Mayfield and Jones worked for Clarence Ray Allen in his security guard business as well as part of a burglary enterprise allegedly operated by Allen. As part of the burglary plot against Fran's Market, he arranged for someone to steal a set of door and alarm keys from the market owner's son, Bryon Schletewitz, age 19, while Schletewitz was swimming in Allen's pool. Allen then arranged a date between Schletewitz and Mary Sue Kitts (his son Roger's girlfriend) for the evening, during which time the burglary took place. The burglary netted $500 in cash and $10,000 in money orders from the store's safe.

Following the commission of the burglary, Kitts told Schletewitz that Allen had committed the crime, which she knew as she had helped Allen cash money orders that had been stolen from the store. Bryon Schletewitz confronted Roger Allen, informing him that he had been told of the crime by Kitts, and Allen admitted the crime. When Roger Allen told his father Clarence of Bryon's accusation, Clarance Allen stated that they (Schletewitz and Kitts) would have to be "dealt with" Allen then ordered the strangulation of Kitts by Charles Furrow, after an unsuccessful attempt to poison her with cyanide capsules. Furrow threw Kitts body into the Friant-Kern Canal, and it has never been found. In 1978, Allen was tried and convicted for the burglary itself , the murder of, and the conspiracy to murder Kitts. For these crimes, Allen was sentenced to life in prison without possiblity of parole."

Note: despite the loathsome nature of his acts, Allen was sentenced to life in prison. Not the death penalty.

"While in Folsom Prison, Allen conspired with fellow inmate Billy Ray Hamilton to murder witnesses who had testified against him, including Bryon Schletewitz. Allen intended to gain a new trial, where there would be no witnesses to testify to his acts. When Hamilton was paroled from Folsom Prison, he went to Fran’s Market where Bryon Schletewitz worked. There, Hamilton murdered Schletewitz and fellow employees Josephine Rocha, 17, and Douglas White, 18, with a sawed-off shotgun and wounded two other people, Joe Rios and Jack Abbott. Hamilton shot Schletewitz at near point-blank range in the forehead and murdered Rocha and White after forcing them to lie on the ground within the store. A neighbor who heard the shotgun blasts came to investigate and was shot by Hamilton. The neighbor returned fire and wounded Hamilton, who escaped from the scene.

Five days after the events at Fran's Market, Hamilton was arrested while attempting to rob a liquor store. Hamilton carried a “hit list” with the names and addresses of the witnesses who testified against Allen at the Kitts trial, including the name of Schletewitz.

[edit]
Legal proceedings
In 1981, the Attorney General filed charges against Allen and prosecuted the trial in Glenn County, CA due to a change of venue. The trial lasted 23 days, and 58 witnesses were called to testify. Ultimately, the jury convicted Allen of triple murder and conspiracy to murder eight witnesses."

As special circumstances making Allen eligible for the death penalty, the jury also found that Allen had previously been convicted of murder, had committed multiple murder, and had murdered witnesses in retaliation for their prior testimony and to prevent future testimony. During a seven-day penalty phase, the Attorney General introduced evidence of Allen’s career orchestrating violent robberies in the Central Valley, including ten violent crimes and six prior felony convictions. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of death, and the Glenn County Superior Court sentenced Allen on November 22, 1982."

Note: a jury of his fellow citizens sentenced Allen to death. Not "the State".

"In 1987, the California Supreme Court affirmed Allen’s death sentence. Associate Justice Joseph Grodin’s opinion referred to Allen’s crimes as “sordid events” with an “extraordinarily massive amount” of aggravating evidence..."

A federal appeals court last year felt that Allen's legal representation had been substandard, but declined a rehearing in his case. The judge issuing the opinion for that panel stated:

"Evidence of Allen's guilt is overwhelming. Given the nature of his crimes, sentencing him to another life term would achieve none of the traditional purposes underlying punishment. Allen continues to pose a threat to society, indeed to those very persons who testified against him in the Fran's Market triple-murder trial here at issue, and has proven that he is beyond rehabilitation. He has shown himself more than capable of arranging murders from behind bars. If the death penalty is to serve any purpose at all, it is to prevent the very sort of murderous conduct for which Allen was convicted."

Would you have found it shameful if Allen had succeeded in arranging even more murders behind bars? Do you have a gag limit?

[dbuzman]

What I'm saying is this: He was locked up for 23 years. He was not a threat to society. If he has been neutralised as a threat, then what's the point of killing him? What purpose does it serve? That it took so long to kill him only points to the effectiveness of incarceration instead of execution.

But he WAS a threat to society. He had people killed WHILE HE WAS IN PRISON. Read the links. Quit saying something that is blatantly false!

[Pjen]

Apartheid was wrong, regardless of whether nobody else did it, or if everybody else did it.

Why was Apartheid 'Wrong' anymore than killing prisoners is 'Wrong'. Both were accepted practice within our shared cultural history and were therefore 'Right'. Apartheid became 'Wrong' as cultural sensitivities changed. I would argue that the same has happened for killing prisoners and that current US opinion is similar to pre-Mandela South Africa.

The "but all the cool countries are not doing it anymore!" argument may get results in the real world, but I'm talking about the people here on this board.

It's not 'being cool' but being acceptable to the western civilized community. The USA currently stands outside this mainstream.

We generally are not going to take a position unless there are arguments to support position, regardless of what majority opinion is. I don't know what the majority opinion on the death penalty is in my country, or my state, or my county. Why should I care? I'm basing my opinion on facts and data, not opinion polls.

This is not a 'majority opinion'. It is a clear statement that the USA is 'out of time morally' on this issue as Apartheid South Africa was.

Feel free to use the majority opinion argument in the real world, but don't expect to gain any traction here with it.

Repeat, this is a moral argument, not a majoritarian argument. We don't all need to be the same, but to be accepted into the company of Western Civilized nations we require a level of democracy (including women and minorities), a justice system that exhibits fairness and the rule of law, support of human rights etc. etc.. In most of the civilized Western World, those requirements include the abolition of judicial killing. The USA stands outside this system in the same way as would a state that lacked democracy, inclusion of women and minorities, lack of rule of law or protection of fundamental human rights.

[Pjen]

Well, let's see what some others have said in this case. From Wikipedia:
...
Would you have found it shameful if Allen had succeeded in arranging even more murders behind bars? Do you have a gag limit?

However shameful his deeds, no other Western Civilized state would have done to him what you have chosen to do.

The killing of a prisoner in cold blood is, IMHO, more shameful than all of his crimes.

[Pjen]

What part of WE DON'T FUCKING CARE do you not understand?

And as an addition to my previous comments about moral equivalence of Apartheid and judical killing, this was exactly the response expected from South African White Apartheid apologists.

[Pjen]

But he WAS a threat to society. He had people killed WHILE HE WAS IN PRISON. Read the links. Quit saying something that is blatantly false!

However much of a risk to society he was, there would have been other ways to deal with it- if he was still seen as a threat, why was he not in a Super-Max?

No Civilized Western Nation would have needed to kill him, threat or not.

[John Mace]

And as an addition to my previous comments about moral equivalence of Apartheid and judical killing, this was exactly the response expected from South African White Apartheid apologists.
Which proves EXACTLY nothing, btw. Nothing.

The moral equivalence of two acts is not determined by the response to criticism towards those acts. You don know that, don't you?

[Pjen]

Which proves EXACTLY nothing, btw. Nothing.

The moral equivalence of two acts is not determined by the response to criticism towards those acts. You don know that, don't you?

I am not depending on response to criticism. I am depending on the common history of Western Civilized Nations and the manner in which such nations have come into being and seen themselves as part of the same polity. South Africa was ouside that polity and then returned to it. Jim Crow laws in 19th/20th C USA meant that the USA was outside the polity. With things as they are currently, the USA is outside this polity on grounds of its retention of judicial killings.

[DrDeth]

However shameful his deeds, no other Western Civilized state would have done to him what you have chosen to do.

The killing of a prisoner in cold blood is, IMHO, more shameful than all of his crimes.

Letting him arrange/order the killing of more innocent witnesses and bystanders is even more wrong. The State has a duty to protect the innocent. In this case, there was no legal way to stop Allen from killing other than to kill him. I will admit we should have done that more than a decade ago.

You can still order killings even from a Super-Max. You have to have some contact with others, and I have even heard of prisoners ordering the killing through their attorney.

You see- here in the USA- "Cruel & Unusual Punishment" is Un-Constitutional. That includes ultra-harsh imprisonment. I'd rather have a few executions than no 4th Admend.

I don't like the death penalty. But in CA here, in these last two controversial cases- it seems like the only choice.

[Annie-Xmas]

However shameful his deeds, no other Western Civilized state would have done to him what you have chosen to do.

The killing of a prisoner in cold blood is, IMHO, more shameful than all of his crimes.

He was not killed "in cold blood." He was killed to rid the world of a heinous murderer.

His FOUR (almost five) VICTIMS were the ones killed in cold blood.

[Pjen]

And btw have you ever heard of Millwall Football (Soccer) Club.

Their motto is:

They all hate us and we don't care.

[Weirddave]

However shameful his deeds, no other Western Civilized state would have done to him what you have chosen to do.


IMO more pity for them. I have nothing but contempt for a country that would refuse to execute someone proven guilty of the crimes this man committed because it wasn't "nice" or "civilized". Fuck him. What he did wasn't civilized either. If Europe doesn't have the stones to pony up and properly punish such criminals, that's your lack, not ours.

[Pjen]

He was not killed "in cold blood." He was killed to rid the world of a heinous murderer.

His FOUR (almost five) VICTIMS were the ones killed in cold blood.

'Cold Blooded' killing does not come any more so than that of the State in killing a prisoner by the rule book. That is truly cold blooded.

From Thesaurus.com:

"barbarous, brutal, callous, cold, dispassionate, hard-boiled, hard-hearted, hardened, heartless, imperturbable, inhuman, matter-of-fact, merciless, obdurate, pitiless, relentless, ruthless, savage, steely, stony-hearted, uncompassionate, unemotional, unfeeling, unmoved"

[Pjen]

IMO more pity for them. I have nothing but contempt for a country that would refuse to execute someone proven guilty of the crimes this man committed because it wasn't "nice" or "civilized". Fuck him. What he did wasn't civilized either. If Europe doesn't have the stones to pony up and properly punish such criminals, that's your lack, not ours.

And it's that attitude that excludes the USA from Western Civilized Nation status.

[Annie-Xmas]

'Cold Blooded' killing does not come any more so than that of the State in killing a prisoner by the rule book. That is truly cold blooded.

From Thesaurus.com:

"barbarous, brutal, callous, cold, dispassionate, hard-boiled, hard-hearted, hardened, heartless, imperturbable, inhuman, matter-of-fact, merciless, obdurate, pitiless, relentless, ruthless, savage, steely, stony-hearted, uncompassionate, unemotional, unfeeling, unmoved"

None of which apply to Allen's four murders :wally

[OtakuLoki]

But. Allen was legally blind, deaf, had diabetes, and was confined to a wheelchair. In September he suffered a near-fatal heart attack. And he was 76 years old, the oldest person executed in California and the second-oldest prisoner executed in the U.S. after a 77-year-old was executed in Mississippi last month.

Was this guy a threat to society? What purpose was served by executing a blind, deaf cripple?

I see what you're saying, but I disagree vehemently. Considering that the latter three murders that this man is convicted of having committed were contracted for while he was in jail, already serving time for his first murder, I don't see where you can argue that his execution didn't make Californians materially safer.

If he could arrange murders while in jail once, why does his physical condition matter in judging whether he's a threat to society?

[Revtim]

Pjen, I really don't know any more ways of saying it than I already did.

If you want to convince people here, on the message board, of your points, you must support them with reasons other than what other countries are doing or not doing. That may work in the real world, but it's not going to fly here.

As an exercise, come up with a reason *why* the death penalty is wrong, without referencing what the rest of the world or what other countries do. Surely there must be *some* way to describe what's wrong with it, other that the fact that some countries don't do it anymore? Surely something can be right or wrong, even if, say, there was only country in the world?

These are the arguments that are worth something here.

Note, there are at least three people here arguing with you, that agree with you that the US should abolish the death penalty. I'm sure we can find some common ground, but it's never going to be based on the "arguments" you've been giving so far.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

And it's that attitude that excludes the USA from Western Civilized Nation status.

I bet they're bothered :rolleyes:

[Voyager]

However shameful his deeds, no other Western Civilized state would have done to him what you have chosen to do.

The killing of a prisoner in cold blood is, IMHO, more shameful than all of his crimes.
You're turning me into a death penalty supporter again.

Forget about apartheid. The problem there was the suppression of innocent people. This clown was not innocent.

I'm generally against the death penalty because of the chance of the execution of the innocent. That's not a problem here. First, when Allen ordered the second set of killings, he basically confessed. Second, given that he was doing life without parole, the elimination of the possibility of the death penalty meant that he could kill anyone without risk or penalty. What if he had escaped and killed someone? Why not if there would be no penalty.

[Pjen]

I bet they're bothered :rolleyes:

Nor were pro-apartheid South Africans.

Still a despicable system.

[Shayna]

No, but when they learned of his ordering executions while in prison, that would be the time to eliminate all contact with others. It's conjecture on my part, but I bet that most convicted murderers don't have the means or power to order hits on the outside. You'd be amazed (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6902881&postcount=130), I think.

Another frightening article. (http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/prisongangs/a1.html)

[Pjen]

I'm generally against the death penalty because of the chance of the execution of the innocent. That's not a problem here. First, when Allen ordered the second set of killings, he basically confessed. Second, given that he was doing life without parole, the elimination of the possibility of the death penalty meant that he could kill anyone without risk or penalty. What if he had escaped and killed someone? Why not if there would be no penalty.

Every other Western state (except Japan) would not have needed to do this.

[Pjen]

I don't like the death penalty. But in CA here, in these last two controversial cases- it seems like the only choice.

Except that it would have been neither necessary nor possible in any other Western Civilized nation (except Japan). Other choices could be made- they have been in the true Western Civilized nations.

[Taber]

Nor were pro-apartheid South Africans.

Still a despicable system.

when E-Sabbath attacked England's low drinking age, you seemed unconcerned....just like how Hitler would be unconcerned!!!

clearly, having a low drinking age is akin to being Hitler

[Clothahump]

What I'm saying is this: He was locked up for 23 years. He was not a threat to society. If he has been neutralised as a threat, then what's the point of killing him? What purpose does it serve? That it took so long to kill him only points to the effectiveness of incarceration instead of execution.

No, it doesn't do any such thing. It points to the weaknesses of the system that allow it to be exploited by a scumbag who should have gotten the needle 20 years ago.

I have long held that I would like to see a Constitutional Amendment that expands the Supreme Court to 12 judges. At the beginning of the term, they draw lots and three of them constitute a Death Penalty tribunal and those are the only cases they hear. The others carry on the regular business of the court.

A capital conviction at the district court level would automatically be appealed to the highest criminal appeals court in the state. If it is upheld, it is automatically appealed to the Tribunal. If it is upheld there, that's it. Sentence is carried out immediately.

At the beginning of the next term, the three judges who were on the tribunal this term are NOT included in the drawing, so that you do not a judge sitting on the tribunal for two years in a row.

[Jackmannii]

..those other people and nations felt that the USA is making a fundamental error- a State killing its prisoners is just wrong in a civilized Western World.It should have penetrated even your limited attention span by this time, but I will repeat: "the USA" did not condemn this killer - a jury of ordinary people did.

"the USA" did not execute him - the state of California did, in accordance with the decision of the jury and after an exhaustive appeals process.


Too bad that the facts have to get in the way of a Pjen "USA-Uncivilized-Loss-Of-Moral-High-Ground-Everyone-In-My-Engels-Study-Group-Says-So" Rant #135770.

[Pjen]

Pjen, I really don't know any more ways of saying it than I already did.
If you want to convince people here, on the message board, of your points, you must support them with reasons other than what other countries are doing or not doing. That may work in the real world, but it's not going to fly here.

Arguing this case is similar to arguing many other similar cases-against slavery, against apartheid, against female subjugation- all rational routes can be argued against, but the overwhelming argument in retrospect was clearly that the system was despicable acccording to current acceptable mores. We don't argue that slavery was wrong because it demeaned slaveholders, took away civil rights, was not good for the 19thC economics. We say it is wrong to hold slaves because it is morally despicable to modern conscience. Ditto for subjugation of women and minorities. The same argument applies to killing prisoners in cold blood. They massive majority of Western States believe it is just despicable.

As an exercise, come up with a reason *why* the death penalty is wrong, without referencing what the rest of the world or what other countries do. Surely there must be *some* way to describe what's wrong with it, other that the fact that some countries don't do it anymore? Surely something can be right or wrong, even if, say, there was only country in the world?

These are the arguments that are worth something here.

You must be mistaking this for Great Debates

Note, there are at least three people here arguing with you, that agree with you that the US should abolish the death penalty. I'm sure we can find some common ground, but it's never going to be based on the "arguments" you've been giving so far.

I am not to interested here in arguing the pros and cons of deterrence, retribution, warning the others, safety of society, revenge etc. etc.

My argument is: Judicial Killing is morally despicable like Slavery, Subjugation of Minorities and Tyranny.

People don't need to argue the finer points of the above to understand that they are wrong. I am arguing that killing prisoners is in the same category.

[OtakuLoki]

Except that it would have been neither necessary nor possible in any other Western Civilized nation (except Japan). Other choices could be made- they have been in the true Western Civilized nations.


I think you're arguing in a tautology, here: Several nations on your list strike me as being reasonably included as being considered "Western Civilized" nations. Belarus, for example, is actually east of the Ural/Caucus Mountain range. Singapore is at least strongly associated with the Commonwealth, if not still a member. The Bahamas, and other Caribbean nations are far more Western than any other description.

So, it seems that you define Western Civilized nations as those that do not have the death penalty. If that's the case, why do you give Canada a bye, when they've agreed to extradite a criminal to face a slam-dunk trial? (Charles Ng, and if anyone ever deserved to be put down like a mad dog, he's the one.) Or France, when dealing with Eric Einhorn?

What is your criteria for calling something a Western Civilized nation when you seem to include Japan as one, but not Belarus?

[Pjen]

It should have penetrated even your limited attention span by this time, but I will repeat: "the USA" did not condemn this killer - a jury of ordinary people did.

Under the auspices of the Court System of the State of California, instituted undewr the Constitution of the United States of America which is the ultimate authority and is embodied in the Executive, Judicial and Legislative arms of the USA.

Sorry, weak argument.

"the USA" did not execute him - the state of California did, in accordance with the decision of the jury and after an exhaustive appeals process.

See above.

Too bad that the facts have to get in the way of a Pjen "USA-Uncivilized-Loss-Of-Moral-High-Ground-Everyone-In-My-Engels-Study-Group-Says-So" Rant #135770.

You just don't know how far from Engels I am. :wally

Not everyone who disagrees with the USA is a Marxist.

[aldiboronti]

I can assure you Pjen does not speak for all Britons.

As polls have constantly reflected the great majority of people in the United Kingdom are in favour of the death penalty for certain offences. British politicians, of course, can safely ignore this, as they have done for years, secure in the knowledge that, come election time, other issues will affect the way people vote (and all major parties sing from the same hymn sheet on this matter.)

In the US, a far purer democracy, politicians ignore the voters at their peril.

Politicians in the US

[aldiboronti]

D'oh! Ignore that lasr fragment in my previous post.

[aldiboronti]

D'oh! Ignore that lasr fragment in my previous post.

I give up.

[Pjen]

I think you're arguing in a tautology, here: Several nations on your list strike me as being reasonably included as being considered "Western Civilized" nations. Belarus, for example, is actually east of the Ural/Caucus Mountain range. Singapore is at least strongly associated with the Commonwealth, if not still a member. The Bahamas, and other Caribbean nations are far more Western than any other description.

So, it seems that you define Western Civilized nations as those that do not have the death penalty. If that's the case, why do you give Canada a bye, when they've agreed to extradite a criminal to face a slam-dunk trial? (Charles Ng, and if anyone ever deserved to be put down like a mad dog, he's the one.) Or France, when dealing with Eric Einhorn?

What is your criteria for calling something a Western Civilized nation when you seem to include Japan as one, but not Belarus?

Belarus is not even a democracy in any meaningful way. Japan retains the death penalty but uses it extremely rarely (one person last year)- however I still exclude it on those grounds.

Decisions on whether to extradite to systems that kill prisoners is difficult, but the refusal to engage in the actual practice is commendable all the same.

Of the countries who retain the practice of killing prisoners and are reasonably "Western" are:

* Antigua and Barbuda
* Bahamas
* Barbados
* Guatemala
* Guyana
* Jamaica
* Japan
* Malaysia
* Philippines
* St. Kitts and Nevis
* St. Lucia
* St. Vincent and the Grenadines
* Singapore
* United States

Of these the USA killed 60, Singapore 2 and Japan 1. All others killed none.

[Zebra]

And not everyone in the USA has the attitude to kill prisoners.



I see you live in Scotland.

You must eat haggis. You call that civilized?

Do people in Scotland automatically change the way they do things when the people in England and Wales do it a different way?

[Revtim]

We don't argue that slavery was wrong because it demeaned slaveholders, took away civil rights, was not good for the 19thC economics. We say it is wrong to hold slaves because it is morally despicable to modern conscience. Ditto for subjugation of women and minorities. The same argument applies to killing prisoners in cold blood. They massive majority of Western States believe it is just despicable. Speak for youself. I argue that things are wrong because there's reasons for them being wrong other than what the general concensus opinion of the "modern conscience" is.


You must be mistaking this for Great Debates No, I mistook you for somebody trying to make a useful point, and who might like to know why he or she was failing to do so even with people who share your basic belief.


I am not to interested here in arguing the pros and cons of deterrence, retribution, warning the others, safety of society, revenge etc. etc.

My argument is: Judicial Killing is morally despicable like Slavery, Subjugation of Minorities and Tyranny.

People don't need to argue the finer points of the above to understand that they are wrong. I am arguing that killing prisoners is in the same category.That's not an argument. That's an opinion.

Back it up some non-fallacious reasoning, then it becomes an argument.

[Frank]

As polls have constantly reflected the great majority of people in the United Kingdom are in favour of the death penalty for certain offences. British politicians, of course, can safely ignore this, as they have done for years, secure in the knowledge that, come election time, other issues will affect the way people vote (and all major parties sing from the same hymn sheet on this matter.)
And secure in the knowledge that reinstituting the death penalty would get you kicked out out of the E.U.

Pjen, you're making some good points, but they're hidden by your stridency. With the exception of the always bitter, bilious, vile, and vicious weirddave, all of the posters arguing with you would be perfectly willing to listen to you make your points if you could do it without the bashing. Unless, of course, the bashing is the point.

[Evil Captor]

Worth bearing in mind that the US governments' decisions to continue to kill people in prison is a major concern in the civilized world- Europe, Australasia, Canada etc..

Thank you for making a distinction between America and the civilized world. Under the Republicans, we have become, culturally, a Third World nation. A banana Republican state, if you will.

[Pjen]

And not everyone in the USA has the attitude to kill prisoners.

I never said they did. I just said that the condemnation will transfer to them automatically.

I see you live in Scotland.

You must eat haggis. You call that civilized?

Get used to it. It's only another sausage. At least its not made from mechanically recovered meat like most US cold cuts!

Do people in Scotland automatically change the way they do things when the people in England and Wales do it a different way?

No, but we consider that we are part of a political alliance and follow the best practice in each country. The United Kingdom would not remain so unless there was some respect for basic shared morals and beliefs. The group of civilized western countries ditto.

[Frank]

So, it seems that you define Western Civilized nations as those that do not have the death penalty. If that's the case, why do you give Canada a bye, when they've agreed to extradite a criminal to face a slam-dunk trial? (Charles Ng, and if anyone ever deserved to be put down like a mad dog, he's the one.) Or France, when dealing with Eric Einhorn?
Canada does not have a policy forbidding extradition of an accused criminal facing the death penalty. In fact, if I'm reading it right, they will extradite their own citizens facing the death penalty. (At least to the U.S.) To me, this is a moral inconsistency and Canada should indeed be included on Pjen's list of non-Western Civilizations. :D

France does have such a policy, and did not extradite Einhorn until they were assured that he would not face the death penalty.

[Pjen]

Unless, of course, the bashing is the point.

In the best possible way you are right. I strongly believe that some moral issues become 'Right' not from reasoned argument but from deeply held cultural beliefs. Things that are in opposition to this moral spine cause revulsion. Those beliefs change over time. Some parts of the polity are revolted earlier, some later, but there is a direction.

I don't believe that slavery is wrong for economic, social, or even political reasons. I believe it is wrong because slavery is wrong period. To a civilized person slavery must simply be wrong because it is not civilized. It disgusts. It revolts. We can live without it and be better people.

Similarly I do not believe that killing prisoners is wrong because of criminology, economics, social safety etc.. I believe it is wrong because it is not civilized. It disgusts. It revolts. We can live without it and be better people.

Close to witnessing, but there you are.

[OtakuLoki]

France does have such a policy, and did not extradite Einhorn until they were assured that he would not face the death penalty.

Okay. I thought that France had simply insisted that Einhorn face a new trial, in person. Not that they insisted that capital punishment come off the table. Thanks for the correction.

[Gringo_Miami]

Allow me to capture some points and make my own, highly opinionated, observations.

1. The Death penalty should be abolished because occasionally innocent people were executed (aka the 100% theory): I would state that the fact that the system is not perfect is correct. NO SYSTEM is perfect. If perfection is indeed a prerequisite - then there will never be a death penalty. Would the abolishinists please just come out and say so, without creating this "perfection" paper tiger? It is NOT an arguement - it is diversion.

The real question on this part of the argument, to me, is whether or not competent due process has been granted. Were good attorney's appointed to the defense? Were all appeals exhausted? Did the SCOTUS say its OK? Then proceed with the execution.

2. Life without parole is good enough, it protects society. Deny the inmate all contact with the outside world. Also a paper tiger. First of all, while it may protect most of society, please stop to consider the safety of correctional officers and other prison staff. Even those inmates in "solitary confinement" require medical care, feeding, exercise (The SCOTUS standard for confinement in custody is a 23 hour a day max - one hour of exercise). After that, the inmate also has contact with Attornies, family members, clergy... got the idea? It doesn't protect anywhere near as many people as you would like to think.

3. It is flat out immoral for the state to kill. BUNK. Armies do it Police officers occasionally kill in the line of duty, and save other lives doing it. Or, would you rather have the officer interuppting your being beaten to a pulp in the street stop and offer the assailant counseling? Corollary - it is immoral for the state to kill prisoners. MORE BUNK. See #1 above - unless your sense of morality is akin to a pure pacifist, there are always scenarios where a use of deadly physical force is justified AND moral. Pretending these situations don't exist is naive and betrays a lack of experience in the real world.

4. Execution doesn't accomplish anything other than revenge. BLECH. Studies have shown that an overwhelming percentage of criminals who have been executed are extremely unlikely to recidivate. No cite.

[Pjen]

Bailing out now- must return to the real world. Back tomorrow.

[Blackclaw]

You're turning me into a death penalty supporter again.



Me too. I'm growing concerned that if we stop the death penalty we'll become one of these snooty civilized nations that he keeps babbling about. I don't want to be civilized. Americans pride themselves on being independent barbarians. Is there some horrid custom we can cling to that will keep us uncivilized once we drop the death penalty? Will American football be sufficient?

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

I don't believe that slavery is wrong for economic, social, or even political reasons. I believe it is wrong because slavery is wrong period. To a civilized person slavery must simply be wrong because it is not civilized. It disgusts. It revolts. We can live without it and be better people.


Which is why your position is untenable. Trying to force your own set of morals on everyone else without a decent argument isn't going to cut it. Slavery is wrong solely because anyone can be sold into slavery through no fault of their own. The death penalty is different, however, in that, in a "perfect system" the only way to be executed would to have committed a capital crime. However, your argument isn't focussing on the inability of real systems to live up to a perfect system, it's centred around your belief that the state executing a prisoner is morally wrong.

I'm not a death penalty supporter, BTW.

[Jackmannii]

Under the auspices of the Court System of the State of California, instituted undewr the Constitution of the United States of America which is the ultimate authority and is embodied in the Executive, Judicial and Legislative arms of the USA.The executive and legislative branches of government "of the USA" did not have the right to reverse the jury's decision in this case. The U.S. Supreme Court (which did) declined to hear the case.

Sorry, more lack of understanding on your part of the judicial system in this country.

More on the appeals process for you (from Wikipedia):

"On January 13, 2006, (California Governor) Schwarzenegger refused to grant Allen clemency, stating that "his conduct did not result from youth or inexperience, but instead resulted from the hardened and calculating decisions of a mature man." Schwarzenegger also cited a poem in which Allen glorified his actions, where Allen wrote "We rob and steal and for those who squeal are usually found dying or dead." (bolding added for fans of the cold-blooded)

On January 15, 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Allen's claim that executing an aged or infirm person was cruel and unusual punishment, observing that his mental acuity was unimpaired and that he had been fifty years of age when he arranged the murders from prison. Judge Kim Wardlaw writing for the panel of judges Susan Graber, Richard Clifton and herself:

His age and experience only sharpened his ability to coldly calculate the execution of the crime. Nothing about his current ailments reduces his culpability and thus they do not lessen the retributive or deterrent purposes of the death penalty."You just don't know how far from Engels I am.You're a good facsimile of a dolt who doesn't care how much he damages the cause about which he allegedly is concerned, just so he can get in a wild swing at Amerika.

[Frank]

Schwarzenegger also cited a poem in which Allen glorified his actions, where Allen wrote "We rob and steal and for those who squeal are usually found dying or dead."[/i] (bolding added for fans of the cold-blooded)[i]

Huh. Allen plagiarized Bonnie Parker.

[marshmallow]

In the best possible way you are right. I strongly believe that some moral issues become 'Right' not from reasoned argument but from deeply held cultural beliefs. Things that are in opposition to this moral spine cause revulsion. Those beliefs change over time. Some parts of the polity are revolted earlier, some later, but there is a direction.

I don't believe that slavery is wrong for economic, social, or even political reasons. I believe it is wrong because slavery is wrong period. To a civilized person slavery must simply be wrong because it is not civilized. It disgusts. It revolts.

You hold no objective reasons for being against what we today see as abhorrent things? Really?

I suppose that's a safe path if you assume things will keep getting "better" according to your morality. What if Europe reverts to an earlier time period or even mimics the U.S.'s stance on the death penalty sometime in the future? Will you throw your hands up in the air and say, "Well, it's in vogue now, I can't do anything since I had no reason to oppose it before"?

It seems if everyone thought along that vein then no progress would ever be made. Why should women have ever gotten the right to vote? It was a deeply held cultural belief that they didn't have the faculties to exercise such a "right."

I got some good chuckles out of your unique perspective on what countries count as being a part of the 'Western World.' Do tell more!

[Martin Hyde]

'Happy Birthday, Clarence!' (Not that it matters that he was killed less than an hour after his birthday.)

Clarence Ray Allen wasn not a nice man. He was sent to prison for having his son's 17-year-old girlfriend killed because he was afraid she would tell police about a grocery store robbery he committed. In 1982 he was sentenced to die for hiring a hit man who killed a witness and two bystanders. I'm opposed to capital punishment, but I can't cry for this guy.

But. Allen was legally blind, deaf, had diabetes, and was confined to a wheelchair. In September he suffered a near-fatal heart attack. And he was 76 years old, the oldest person executed in California and the second-oldest prisoner executed in the U.S. after a 77-year-old was executed in Mississippi last month.

Was this guy a threat to society? What purpose was served by executing a blind, deaf cripple? Only revenge. Citizens of California are no safer today than the were yesterday because of this guy's execution.

I'm anti-death penalty but I often enough find myself playing devil's advocate in situations like this just because I tend to find the arguments employed by my fellow anti-DP advocates to be very poor. Personally my favorite argument against the death penalty is the fact that it's in violation of the basic morality that serves as the framework for the very laws we execute people for violating.

The argument that "this person was no threat to society" is a poor one. It implies that the criminal justice system exists purely to keep threats to society at bay, this is not true. The criminal justice system has other extremely important goals. One of them is settling matters equitably. Before the establishment of formalized criminal justice systems if someone killed a friend of mine, I'd get together 6-7 friends of mine (or more) we'd march down to his house and kill him. It was mob justice.

As civilization advanced mob justice was recognized as poor, there was no guarantee that the person the mob punished was guilty, and there was no restraint of the power of the mob. Furthermore, there was no guarantee that the mob was going to punish someone in a manner fitting his crime.

The government usurped this process for the public good. Now, if you are accused of a crime the government puts you through a fact-finding process, it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the crime before you can be punished for it. During this fact-finding "trial" process you have constitutional rights that cannot be violated, you are entitled certain rights that help to give you a very good chance of proving your innocence if you are indeed innocent.

To move it back to my point, part of the criminal justice system is indeed all about protecting society at large. Part of it (a huge part of it) however, is about providing the vacuous concept of "justice." The people are seen as being entitled to justice. When I kill, rape, maim, steal, et cetera I've both committed a crime against another person and against society at large. I've "wronged" society. Just like in a civil case, if I wrong someone, I have to pay for it. I have to pay some monetary fee. In a criminal case, the wrong I committed is often seen as being great enough that a simple monetary compensation will not provide an equitable result to either society or the victims of the crime I committed. In some cases, society has seen fit to implement executions to right the most ultimate of wrongs. Personally I disagree with that, but again I'm playing DA here.

Let's use an example. Imagine that Tom & Jerry, instead of being cat and mouse, were two human beings. Tom had a deep hatred for Jerry, they were arch-enemies. One day, after many years of trying, Tom successfully killed Jerry. Tom is sent to prison for 20 years to life. Under your "protecting society" concept Tom shouldn't serve a day in prison. He killed Jerry because Jerry was his arch-nemesis, you only have ONE arch-nemesis. Tom could reasonably and logically explain that he killed Jerry because Jerry was his arch-nemesis, that he doesn't have any other arch-nemesis and thus there's not reasonable risk that he'll ever murder someone again.

To accept Tom's argument would be to say that society, and Jerry, don't deserve anything in return for the grave wrong that Tom committed against them. And that, goes against the very foundations of the criminal justice system.

[Weirddave]

Pjen, you're making some good points, but they're hidden by your stridency. With the exception of the always bitter, bilious, vile, and vicious weirddave, all of the posters arguing with you would be perfectly willing to listen to you make your points if you could do it without the bashing. Unless, of course, the bashing is the point.
We can deal with your inappropriate behavior over here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7006846#post7006846) Frank, but to stay on the subject at hand, would you care to tell me exactly what it is about my posts in this thread that meet your definition of "bitter, bilious, vile, and vicious"? :dubious:

[Johnny L.A.]

Jeeaz, you go to the dentist and the thread explodes!
The argument that "this person was no threat to society" is a poor one. It implies that the criminal justice system exists purely to keep threats to society at bay, this is not true. The criminal justice system has other extremely important goals. One of them is settling matters equitably. Before the establishment of formalized criminal justice systems if someone killed a friend of mine, I'd get together 6-7 friends of mine (or more) we'd march down to his house and kill him. It was mob justice.
First, I want to address the threat to society thing. Yes, he arranged the deaths of two people while he was in jail. But how many after he was convicted of those? The system ain't perfect. (Which is one of the reasons I'm opposed to CP.) Still, they kept him locked up for a couple of decades and he didn't escape. He was on ice, and there was no reason to kill him.

Unless, per the quote above, the purpose is revenge. The State should not be in the business of revenge. Remember that prisons are also called penetintiaries. The idea was that criminals could be rehabilitated. Now this clown was beyond redemption. You won't find me supporting him. But he didn't need to be killed. We don't need to execute people. I, and many others feel that it's wrong. It can be abused, and has been by other countries. There is too much room for error in the system.

[DrDeth]

[QUOTE=Pjen]Except that it would have been neither necessary nor possible in any other Western Civilized nation (except Japan). Other choices could be made- [QUOTE]
Such as? :confused: :dubious: Maybe "not possible", but would you just let him keep killing?

He was killing innocents from prison, while sentenced to Life. This IS a "Poster boy" case for why "life without parole" doesn't always work. Such cases are few & far between, I'll admit. There in GB you can feel superious as with your comparitively much smaller population you won't have hardly any- in fact neither does the USA.

I am morally against the DP. But I can't say much about this execution. If you want to find some questionable executions, try Texas, not California. TX executes many times what CA does, and for reasons which are more dubious- IMHO.

[Miller]

Except that it would have been neither necessary nor possible in any other Western Civilized nation (except Japan).

When did they re-locate Japan?

[John Mace]

And not everyone in the USA has the attitude to kill prisoners.



I see you live in Scotland.

You must eat haggis. You call that civilized?

Do people in Scotland automatically change the way they do things when the people in England and Wales do it a different way?
Are you trying to point out the "No True Scotsman" fallacy to a Scotsman? :) Well, I can assure you that no true Scotsman recognizes the "No True Scotsman" fallacy!

[Gala Matrix Fire]

Of these the USA killed 60, Singapore 2 and Japan 1. All others killed none.

Well, the USA does have 25 times the population of Singapore. So that pretty much evens that out.

The USA only has less than 3 times the population of Japan, so there actually is a quantitative difference there. I would guess that the homogeneity of Japanese society is a big factor in its low level of crime, but that's hardly my field of expertise.

(CIA world factbook: Japan population = 127,417,244, Singapore population = 4,425,720, USA population =295,734,134)

[Aeschines]

They only executed him?

He shoulda been water-boarded Gitmo style, then burned at the stake!

That'll deter the muthafucka next time!!!

[mswas]

Was this guy a threat to society? What purpose was served by executing a blind, deaf cripple? Only revenge. Citizens of California are no safer today than the were yesterday because of this guy's execution.


Ice Floe dude, Ice Floe.

[Martin Hyde]

Jeeaz, you go to the dentist and the thread explodes!

First, I want to address the threat to society thing. Yes, he arranged the deaths of two people while he was in jail. But how many after he was convicted of those? The system ain't perfect. (Which is one of the reasons I'm opposed to CP.) Still, they kept him locked up for a couple of decades and he didn't escape. He was on ice, and there was no reason to kill him.

Unless, per the quote above, the purpose is revenge. The State should not be in the business of revenge. Remember that prisons are also called penetintiaries. The idea was that criminals could be rehabilitated. Now this clown was beyond redemption. You won't find me supporting him. But he didn't need to be killed. We don't need to execute people. I, and many others feel that it's wrong. It can be abused, and has been by other countries. There is too much room for error in the system.

You seem to be missing my point. My point is that there is more to the criminal just system than simply "protecting society" or "containing threats." If I kill someone, and it is a situation in which it's *obvious* I'd never kill another person, do you think I should be found guilty, but my sentence should be NO TIME? For example if someone raped my daughter and I killed that person, I guess I should do no time? I only killed him because he raped my daughter, rationally, I'm not a threat to the public at large.

Do I not owe society any time because of the crime I committed against society? For taking the law into my own hands?

Punishment in the criminal justice system comes in many forms. If you think the death penalty can only be done out of revenge, then I'm guessing you feel the same way about life in prison?

Do you hold the position that punishment can only be for two valid reasons, and everything else is revenge (the valid reasons being rehabilitation and societal protection)?

You seem to differentiate one type of punishment as being "purely revenge" while ignoring the fact that under your theory all forms of punishment can be seen as "purely revenge" in any case where the person is unlikely to commit any more crimes. I see punishment as a sliding scale, the most extreme on that scale is death, the least extreme is probably monetary fines or perhaps official "warnings."

I feel society shouldn't cross certain parts of the scale, we shouldn't start torturing people and we *shouldn't* be killing people. But nonetheless execution is still just anothe form of punishment for criminal acts, and just because it is brutal and extremely complete and final doesn't mean it's any more "revenge" than any other form of punishment.

Obviously if you feel that imprisonment for any reason other than rehab/societal protection = revenge then I can talk til I'm blue in the face but you won't get my point.

[Shodan]

Similarly I do not believe that killing prisoners is wrong because of criminology, economics, social safety etc.. I believe it is wrong because it is not civilized. It disgusts. It revolts. We can live without it and be better people.
Well, I can think of three people who couldn't.

Regards,
Shodan

[Ludovic]

Well, I can think of three people who couldn't.

Regards,
ShodanAnd those who died because we can't afford enough cops due to the expense of the DP?

[NicePete]

Did not RTFT.

However, my knee jerk response is as follows:

I don't believe in the death penalty. However, it is the law of the land. We, as a society, have decided that some crimes are so heinous that the criminal deserves killin'.

As I understand it, whether or not one deserves killin' revolves around the the details of the crime committed. If what you did what horrendous enough, you're going to the chair. If there's some degree of mitigating circumstance, perhaps you'll get off with life w/o.

If that's the system, what does the demographics of the criminal have to do with anything? If we're going to execute people for committing particularly unpopular crimes, why should the accused age, health status or mental state matter?

Too put it another way: If you do something bad enough to rate the death penalty, why should you get off the hook just because you're old and sick?

What other legal penalties should one be able to avoid on these grounds? Should you be able to avoid traffic tickets or tax penalties because you are old?

Again, I do not agree with the death penalty. But if it is to be applied, it should be done objectively based upon the crime committed.

[Pjen]

Two letters on this subject from today's Guardian:

We do care about the death penalty

There were at least 300 people at the prison gates as Clarence Ray Allen was executed at St Quentin jail. Many of your readers may have assumed that the people of California didn't care (Death penalty in US: Blind and frail killer, 75, to get lethal injection, January 13). There had been weeks of organising across the state to get Governor Schwarzenegger to grant a reprieve to this 76-year-old man who was blind, deaf and confined to a wheel chair. And though the crowd to provide "witness" to the execution was smaller than on previous occasions, this may be connected to the fact that a bill is pending in the California legislature for a moratorium on executions.

Opinion is moving across the nation, but especially in California. This is not some major moral change, but rather a recognition that innocent people are being executed. Also, it is being increasingly recognised that anybody who can afford to pay an attorney will avoid the death sentence and receive life imprisonment without parole. Californians are beginning to understand that we are executing poor people and people of colour. They see that our executions are discriminatory. Millions of Californians believe that the death penalty is barbaric. We continue to jail and execute poor people without looking at the underlying causes. The death penalty is used as simple revenge. We are working to bring this state and this nation in line with other nations where this cruel and damaging practice has been banned for decades.
Rev Dr Alan Jones

South Hayward United Methodist church, California, USA


• On Monday in San Quentin prison, Clarence Ray Allen suffered "legal homicide", being put to death by the state. He became the oldest person executed in California. Sixty years ago an illiterate black and tearful George Junius Stinney Jr, aged 14 years and 7 months, was strapped into the electric chair in a southern state to become the youngest person to be legally killed in the US during the 20th century. So diminutive was he that the straps required adjustment. On death row in Arizona now is LeRoy Nash, aged 90, and the authorities there appear to be hoping that he dies from natural causes, as it would be embarrassing to strap a nonagenarian on to the gurney and administer a cold-blooded lethal injection.

While the US supreme court has now decreed that the execution of individuals who are mentally ill must stop, and that juvenile offenders can no longer be put to death, loopholes exist. In Tennessee, Greg Thompson — diagnosed as bipolar and schizophrenic — has responded so well to a court-imposed regime of powerful anti-psychotic medications that the state now wants to kill him. The US is the only industrialised western nation that retains capital punishment. Is this an indicator of a "civilised" society?
Brian Crowther

It seems I'm not alone.

[inkleberry]

Sometimes justice is too slow. Excusing a death penalty just because someone is sick is pretty ridiculous. He's no more innocent now than when he committed the crimes.

I'm not pro-death penalty by any stretch, but this is a very weak argument.

[Ogre]

I am against the death penalty on practical (i.e. the "are we 100% sure of guilt?" argument,) grounds but I have absolutely no moral compunction about it. And I sure as hell am not convinced by the "Everybody else thinks you're tools for executing murderers! Shame!" argument.

I have yet to hear a convincing moral anti-DP argument. Why, exactly, is it so wrong to demand that a murderer pay for his crimes in the same coin he stole from others? Ask me, Hammurabi had a hell of a good point.

[Typo Negative]

I am against the death penalty on practical (i.e. the "are we 100% sure of guilt?" argument,) grounds but I have absolutely no moral compunction about it. And I sure as hell am not convinced by the "Everybody else thinks you're tools for executing murderers! Shame!" argument.

I have yet to hear a convincing moral anti-DP argument. Why, exactly, is it so wrong to demand that a murderer pay for his crimes in the same coin he stole from others? Ask me, Hammurabi had a hell of a good point.The only thing we can be 100% sure of is that Pjen is a self-righteous slug.

I am a fairly recent convert to the anti-death penalty crowd. My conversion took place in thread right here in the pit. (Pjen, if you had been there, I probably would've held out a lot longer.) My belief is the same as yours. Some people deserve the ultimate punishment. (Hell, some of 'em beg for it.) But our justice system is too fallable and too often a tool for political chicanery . We simply cannot be that certain 100% of the time. And the idea of an innocent person being executed is too repulsive.

The fact that he was old and in poor health is irrelevant. This guy deserved what he got. But we shouldn't be dishing it out.

[Der Trihs]

We, as a society, have decided that some crimes are so heinous that the criminal deserves killin'.No, we haven't. Who and what you are is more important than what you do. A poor gay black man who tortures a rich white woman to death would be a prime canididate. A rich white woman who tortures a poor gay black man to death would never get the DP, even if she was videotaped doing it.

[Martin Hyde]

No, we haven't. Who and what you are is more important than what you do. A poor gay black man who tortures a rich white woman to death would be a prime canididate. A rich white woman who tortures a poor gay black man to death would never get the DP, even if she was videotaped doing it.

I don't think that's true. No class of people is immune to the death penalty although certain classes most definitely get it applied to them far more often than others, and certain types of victims will also insure the death penalty for their attacker more than others.

So your point isn't entirely off-base, just the never part of it.

[Pjen]

It should have penetrated even your limited attention span by this time, but I will repeat: "the USA" did not condemn this killer - a jury of ordinary people did.

"the USA" did not execute him - the state of California did, in accordance with the decision of the jury and after an exhaustive appeals process.
(Post #78)



The executive and legislative branches of government "of the USA" did not have the right to reverse the jury's decision in this case. The U.S. Supreme Court (which did) declined to hear the case.

(Post # 98)


Which does not excuse the United States as a country from blame for the actions of its Government which could do otherwise. It so happens that SCOTUS find that killing prisoners is not cruel and unusual. Legislative and judicial authorities in almost every other Western nation have found it so. Any state could (some 10-15 I believe have) outlawed the killing of prisoners. The Federal Government could outlaw the killing of prisoners in Federal cases.

The fact that 12 citizens of California decided to direct the State to kill this prisoner does not excuse the USA (whole or parts) from condemnation of its morally dated acts in continuing to kill prisoners.

[Pjen]

Well, the USA does have 25 times the population of Singapore. So that pretty much evens that out.

The USA only has less than 3 times the population of Japan, so there actually is a quantitative difference there. I would guess that the homogeneity of Japanese society is a big factor in its low level of crime, but that's hardly my field of expertise.

(CIA world factbook: Japan population = 127,417,244, Singapore population = 4,425,720, USA population =295,734,134)

Approximate population of Western Civilized world:

Europe, say 350,000,000
Russia 130,000,000
Rest, say 120,000,000

Say 600,000,000

So, double the population of the USA. No prisoners killed.

[slaphead]

Approximate population of Western Civilized world:

Europe, say 350,000,000
Russia 130,000,000
Rest, say 120,000,000

Say 600,000,000

So, double the population of the USA. No prisoners killed.
Russia? RUSSIA?? Your model of 'Civilized Western Behaviour' that should be slavishly followed by other countries wishing to bask in your approval holds up Russia as an exemplar? So if Russia does not utilise the death penalty (desite having it on the statute books) then the US and Japan should not either, and they should also adopt such wonderful Russian practices as corruption, expropriation of property, rigging of elections, extra-judicial killings (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4295249.stm) , suppression of free speech and so forth and so on? Or do you have a completely separate reference set of 'Western Civilized Nations' that you use when discussing those topics? Or are you just a fool?

Which responsible adult is supposed to be supervising you, and why are they letting you fill the internet with this twaddle?

[Pjen]

Russia? RUSSIA?? Your model of 'Civilized Western Behaviour' that should be slavishly followed by other countries wishing to bask in your approval holds up Russia as an exemplar? So if Russia does not utilise the death penalty (desite having it on the statute books) then the US and Japan should not either, and they should also adopt such wonderful Russian practices as corruption, expropriation of property, rigging of elections, extra-judicial killings (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4295249.stm) , suppression of free speech and so forth and so on? Or do you have a completely separate reference set of 'Western Civilized Nations' that you use when discussing those topics? Or are you just a fool?

Which responsible adult is supposed to be supervising you, and why are they letting you fill the internet with this twaddle?

Included because it is a G8 member.

[Jackmannii]

Two letters on this subject from today's Guardian...Ah yes, the Pjen Bible.

The story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1688717,00.html) about the execution of the "blind and frail" Mr. Allen takes up 11 paragraphs. The three victims he ordered murdered get one sentence. His original murder victim goes nameless.

Priorities.

[Martiju]

I have yet to hear a convincing moral anti-DP argument. Why, exactly, is it so wrong to demand that a murderer pay for his crimes in the same coin he stole from others? Ask me, Hammurabi had a hell of a good point.

Well, one answer would be to look at other crimes. Why don't we, as a society, slash and punch the faces of muggers or line up and rape the rapists? My guess is because society, as a whole, should show more restraint in an effort to provide a better model for the way we wish all citizens to behave.

[Crotalus]

Pjen, what are you trying to accomplish here? If your goal is simply to condemn the US as morally deficient, I think you're done. You've stated your opinion. If your intent is to persuade anyone who is in favor of the death penalty to change their mind, several posters here, with varying degrees of kindness, have suggested that your particular argument is simply not persuasive. As someone who has changed his mind on this issue, I can tell you that the excution of innocent people, the uneveness of the application of the penalty, and the ridiculous amount of time and effort required to apply the penalty persuaded me. I have no interest in what other countries are doing.

[Der Trihs]

I have yet to hear a convincing moral anti-DP argument. Why, exactly, is it so wrong to demand that a murderer pay for his crimes in the same coin he stole from others? The risk of killing falsely convicted people comes to mind. That's a good moral argument, I think.

I don't trust the government enough to give it the right to kill me. It bothers me that it does have the right.

[slaphead]

Included because it is a G8 member.
Ah yes, the G8, the economic club generally described as 'the rich democracies plus Russia'. WTF? You put a country in with 'Civilized Western Nations' despite it being neither, purely because it is a member of some arbitrary international association, and then hold it up as being morally superior to an actual western democracy?
And you expect people to do anything but point at you and laugh?

Sheesh. I'm no fan of the death penalty, but I can see why some people want it - trying to argue that they're wrong because you dislike it and some random bunch of countries with varying populations agree with you is an utter crock of shit. If we take that approach we might as well say that, given a sensible amount of rounding, 100.00000% of the worlds population don't know that pjen exists and don't give a shit about your opinion, therefore not only shouldn't you have an opinion, you shouldn't exist.

Everyone else here is at least trying to give a reason for why they think as they do - why don't you follow their example instead of jumping up and down saying "I think it's wrong and 97% of vegetarian mountaineers called Bob agree with me!!"


Well, one answer would be to look at other crimes. Why don't we, as a society, slash and punch the faces of muggers or line up and rape the rapists? My guess is because society, as a whole, should show more restraint in an effort to provide a better model for the way we wish all citizens to behave.
I think you might be putting a bit of a charitable interpretation on it. Personally, I favour the slightly more prosaic explanation that citizens prefer the justice system to give at least the impression of being carefully weighted, impartial, and restrained in the manner of its punishments in case they have to submit themselves to it. Imagine you're being prosecuted for an unpaid parking fine and in the next room they're deciding how many people should pound a rapist in the ass, the judge hearing your case has just finished ruling that someone should have their face cut to ribbons and the clerk of the court is about to start a shift on eye-punching duty. I personally wouldn't feel too happy my future being decided in an environment like that. :eek:

[Pjen]

I think you might be putting a bit of a charitable interpretation on it. Personally, I favour the slightly more prosaic explanation that citizens prefer the justice system to give at least the impression of being carefully weighted, impartial, and restrained in the manner of its punishments in case they have to submit themselves to it. Imagine you're being prosecuted for an unpaid parking fine and in the next room they're deciding how many people should pound a rapist in the ass, the judge hearing your case has just finished ruling that someone should have their face cut to ribbons and the clerk of the court is about to start a shift on eye-punching duty. I personally wouldn't feel too happy my future being decided in an environment like that. :eek:

And what is so different from being in a system that decides in the same way whether to kill a prisoner?

Same argument.

[Shodan]

And those who died because we can't afford enough cops due to the expense of the DP?
Got any examples?

Regards,
Shodan

[Blalron]

I have yet to hear a convincing moral anti-DP argument. Why, exactly, is it so wrong to demand that a murderer pay for his crimes in the same coin he stole from others? Ask me, Hammurabi had a hell of a good point.

The death penalty denies the essential humanity of the condemned, freezing them at their worst moments and refusing to allow for the possibility of redemption. It treats them as nonhumans, as "rabid dogs" who must be put down.

Karla Faye Tucker is one example of the fatal flaw in our DP system. While it's entirely possible that she was putting on an act, what if she wasn't? What if she truly did turn over a new leaf?

Let's also face the sad fact that if she wasn't a good looking white woman and was a 300 pound black guy named "Carl Tucker" who underwent a similar transformation than the story of Carl Tucker's transformation would have probably been buried in the back pages of the local newspapers instead of making national headlines.

[slaphead]

And what is so different from being in a system that decides in the same way whether to kill a prisoner?

Same argument.
Yes, exactly. An argument, with reasons, not some specious claptrap pulled out of your arse and backed up with random numbers from the same place.

Personally, I think the DP is inappropriate on practical grounds - it is so emotive and polarising that it diverts too many resources from elsewhere in the judicial system, and it is far to asymmetric in terms of what happens when you get things right or wrong.
If you get it right you have killed someone who would otherwise be in prison - that's a pretty limited upside. If you discover that you got it wrong, you have just killed someone for no reason, which is going to take more than an apology to put right - a BIG downside.

The practical flaws are so big as to make the moral arguments pretty much redundant.

The death penalty denies the essential humanity of the condemned, freezing them at their worst moments and refusing to allow for the possibility of redemption. It treats them as nonhumans, as "rabid dogs" who must be put down.
And yet the most commonly quoted alternative is to lock them up like animals until they die. Unless you accept as a given that EVERY prisoner is, at least in theory, eligible for release irrespective of the number or severity of crimes they have committed, this seems like a very fine distinction.

[Mellivora capensis]

Pjen, I might have missed this somewhere, and if I have, apologies. Are you saying that a life sentence without parole is a morally superior punishment to a death sentence?

[Shodan]

Let's also face the sad fact that if she wasn't a good looking white woman and was a 300 pound black guy named "Carl Tucker" who underwent a similar transformation than the story of Carl Tucker's transformation would have probably been buried in the back pages of the local newspapers instead of making national headlines.
I don't know about that, either. "Tookie" Williams was also allegedly a changed man, from gang-banging murderer to children's book author and tireless campaigner against gang violence - sort of - and there seemed just as much fuss over his execution as over Karla Faye's. Personally, I think the DP is inappropriate on practical grounds - it is so emotive and polarising that it diverts too many resources from elsewhere in the judicial system, and it is far to asymmetric in terms of what happens when you get things right or wrong.
If you get it right you have killed someone who would otherwise be in prison - that's a pretty limited upside. If you discover that you got it wrong, you have just killed someone for no reason, which is going to take more than an apology to put right - a BIG downside.But keep in mind that this particular instance was of someone who killed three people because he was not executed. In other words, there was a hell of a lot more downside to not executing this person than to giving him the needle.

What do we do to "put right" those three innocent deaths? The asymetry in this case seems to be way over on the other side.

Regards,
Shodan

[Ludovic]

What do we do to "put right" those three innocent deaths? The asymetry in this case seems to be way over on the other side.Does killing someone put right those three innocent deaths?

[Pjen]

Pjen, I might have missed this somewhere, and if I have, apologies. Are you saying that a life sentence without parole is a morally superior punishment to a death sentence?

I am saying that the DP is morally inferior to any other punishment because it diminishes the humanity of all involved in it. I believe that if someone is a serious threat to society, then exclusion by imprisonment is the best option morally. I also believe that imprisonment is only really morally acceptable in cases where there is a proven need for exclusion. I believe that imprisonment as retribution or punishment results in so many negatives- loss of ability to return to a valued life, loss of life skills, learning criminal skills, loss of self image, break up of family relationships etc etc etc that our current use of imprisonment as punishment of choice probably causes more crime than it solves. If imprisonment was reserved for those that had to be excluded from society as a threat and an equivalent amount was spent on punishment and rehabilitation in the community as is now spent on prisons, then recidivism rates would shrink incredibly.

One only needs to look at relative rates of imprisonment in different countries to realise that imprisonment is not to do with crime avoidance or societal improvement. If most of Europe can use less imprisonment than the UK and the UK can use less imprisonment than the US, (by many multiples) then something most be wrong with imprisonment as an answer to most crime.

[DrDeth]

"Tookie" Williams was also allegedly a changed man, from gang-banging murderer to children's book author and tireless campaigner against gang violence - sort of - and there seemed just as much fuss over his execution as over Karla Faye's.

"Allegedly" is right. Tookie never expressed remorse, never agreed what he did was wrong, never apologized to his victims or their families. If he was such a tireless campaigner against gang violenece- why did he remain a member of said gang? Why did he allegedly order more gang killings from his cell? If he was so anti-gang, why didn't he rat out the killers from the Crips? Not only did he NOT turn states witness against the many killers in his gang- he even bragged that he didn't rat anyone out.

[Mellivora capensis]

Thanks for that, Pjen.

I'd like to look at the diminishment of humanity angle, which IMHO is a valuable reason, I might add. If the sentenced person said to you, I would rather die, would you consider granting him his wish?

[Pjen]

Thanks for that, Pjen.

I'd like to look at the diminishment of humanity angle, which IMHO is a valuable reason, I might add. If the sentenced person said to you, I would rather die, would you consider granting him his wish?

I believe that if a person is of capacity then a persistent wish to die should not be witheld. This would apply to murderers as much as to any other person, confined or unconfined.

[Shodan]

Does killing someone put right those three innocent deaths?
Keeping him in prison doesn't seem to have done the trick.

Regards,
Shodan

[Mellivora capensis]

I believe that if a person is of capacity then a persistent wish to die should not be witheld. This would apply to murderers as much as to any other person, confined or unconfined.

I'm cool with that. In fact, I agree with a lot of your previous post, and I personally have major misgivings regarding current crime and punishment philosophies.

I don't know; my jury is still out.

I look around me at humanity and wonder, is it actually working? Is it a statement of who we really are, a true reflection of who we want to be, an example of our highest ideals and aspirations as a species?

I don't know.