And, of course, you need to reflect on how history will judge us.
The death penalty is irrevocable and mistakes are an inherent part of humanity.
Ah yes…the standard “Anyone who is anti-DP is a hypocrite who would chance their mind if they, or anyone they loved, were a victim” line of crap.
Did I mention it’s a line of crap?
Well, if we need it, we need it. There is ZERO reason that justice should be delayed for so long. Also, shrink the timeframe between the wrongdoing and the punishment and the death sentence it will actually begin to act as a deterrent, as well.
Do you think that having a case on appeal for 20+ years is an okay thing?
It didn’t work back in the 18th century when executions were both more frequent and public, so why would it work today?
I’m not sure to what you are referring. Can oyu expand. My point is simply that if you move a punishment further away from doing somehting wrong that it is less likely to act as a deterrent. If you smack your dog on the snout write after he pees on the rug, and do it consistently, he’ll get the message. Wait to do it a few hours later, not so much.
Well, Texas ‘fast tracks’ their executions. The time from conviction to the time of execution is relatively short. It doesn’t’ work as a deterrent there. Don’t bother saying that Texas murder rate is down, the murder rate is down across the country, Texas enjoys a higher murder rate than states with slower or no death penalties.
What surprises me that, and I’m making a generalization here, conservatives seem to like the DP more than Liberals. Yet, conservatives talk a lot about the limiting the government’s power. The power to execute, is the most extreme government power I can imagine and it is one that I am not comfortable with the government having.
Um…what’s the logic there? With the death penalty, you’re dead after the punishment. Not much to learn there.
I don’t think that the DP is really a “deterrant” except so much as it “deters” the murderer who was executed from killing anyone else.
This, IMHO, is the only proper use for the DP- to stop that person from killing again. It should only be used for the worst of the worst: mad dog non-contrite multiple killers, who *will * kill again.
“Life without Possibily of Parole” is not an effective deterant from killing again- dudes have killed other prisoners or guards while in lock-up, they have arranged and ordered killings, they have escaped and killed again, and there have even been improper uses of Gubanatorial authority to let them out (See “Willie Horton”.)
Mumia- despite the fact that I am convinced he is guilty as hell- is not one of those. LwoPoP is appropriate for him. From what I know, Mumia was a small time hood, not a killer, who became enraged and tried to protect his brother who was enagaged in a struggle with an officer. Certainly he killed the cop, and deserves to be penalized. But he did not seem like a “clear and present danger” who needed to be “put down”.
That other dude- "Tookie’ - just executed in CA that had Mumia like support, along with the obligatory bogus “Nobel Prize nomination” mentions and such like- was indeed a “mad dog killer” and was properly- IMHO- executed.
The lengthy appeal process helps ensure that people do not get executed for a crime they did not commit, and even then the process is not foolpoof (see examples here: http://www.innocenceproject.org/ )
Unless of course you agree that rehabilitation is a valid purpose of the prison system. Who knows what is inside a man’s heart, but it seemed to me very credible that Tookie Williams had sincerely repented of his crimes.
Well, you’d have to define “fast”. “Consistency” would be another aspect. When trying to train an animal, the best way to train an animal to not do something is to have him relate a negative consequence with that act. The best way to do that is to have that relationship be both immediate and consistent. When it is not, the animal just gets confused.
In this regard I view society as a sort of animal. Now, we being smarter than dogs, don’t need for each of us to be smacked on the snout individually. We can project ourselves into someone else’s situation.
Rah! Rah! Kill that man! Drink his blood!
Uh, I can tell you right now. I’d be whimpering like a little girl. Eventually I’d be angry. But maybe the lesson there is that I’m a pussy, subject to human frailties, not that my emotions at the worst possible time should dictate the way our legal system operates.
This is a different issue. It goes to certainty of guilt. That is why, in addition to being in favor of the DP, I would cut back on it dramatically. I would reserve it for those instances where 1) the crime is horrofic, including the taking of a life 2) there is no doubt as to who committed the crime. I’m think the burden of proof should be raised for the DP to be used. If it was used much less seldom, I’d be happy. But in those case where there is no question as to guilt, let’s save everyone a lot of trouble and be rid of the scumbag by the end of the week. The guy who killed the Quaker children would probably fall into this category.
I think he pretended to. Tookie - Wikipedia
“While in prison, *Williams refused to aid police investigations with any information against his gang, and was implicated in attacks on guards and other inmates as well as multiple escape plots. * In 1993, Williams began making changes in his behavior, and became an anti-gang activist while on Death Row in California. Although he continued to refuse to assist police in their gang investigations, he renounced his gang affiliation and apologized for the Crips’ founding, while maintaining his innocence of the crimes for which he was convicted.”
"Once back in Los Angeles, Sims asked Williams why he had shot Owens. Williams said that he “didn’t want to leave any witnesses.” Williams also said he killed Owens “*because he was white and he was killing all white people.” * Coward testified that Williams had bragged about the shooting, stating, “You should have heard the way he sounded when I shot him,” as he made gurgling or growling noises and laughed about Owens’ death
"The Governor denies clemency
On December 12, 2005, Schwarzenegger denied clemency for Williams. In his denial, Schwarzenegger cited the following:
“The possible irregularities in Williams’ trial have been thoroughly and carefully reviewed by the courts, and there is no reason to disturb the judicial decisions that uphold the jury’s decisions that he is guilty of these four murders and should pay with his life.”
The basis of his request for clemency is the “personal redemption Stanley Williams has experienced and the positive impact of the message he sends,” yet “it is impossible to separate Williams’ claim of innocence from his claim of redemption.”
“Cumulatively, the evidence demonstrating Williams is guilty of these murders is strong and compelling” … “there is no reason to second-guess the jury’s decision of guilt.”
A “close look at his post-arrest and post-conviction conduct tells a story different from redemption.”
Williams had written books that instruct readers to avoid the gang lifestyle and to stay out of prison. From 1995 he “tried to preach a message of gang avoidance and peacemaking” … “It is hard to assess the effect of such efforts in concrete terms, but the continued pervasiveness of gang violence leads one to question the efficacy of Williams’ message.”
“The dedication of Williams’ book Life in Prison casts significant doubt on his personal redemption and… the mix of individuals on [the dedication] list is curious” … “but the inclusion of George Jackson on the list defies reason and is a significant indicator that Williams is not reformed.”
“Is Williams’ redemption complete and sincere, or is it just a hollow promise? Stanley Williams insists he is innocent, and that he will not and should not apologize or otherwise atone for the murders of the four victims in this case. Without an apology and atonement for these senseless and brutal killings there can be no redemption. In this case, the one thing that would be the clearest indication of complete remorse and full redemption is the one thing Williams will not do.” "
Tookie could have prevented dozens more murders and other crimes by ratting out his old gang members- but he remained an active Crip member until his death, and refused to aid the police. IMHO, Tookies “redemption” was a carefully planned out facade, and a lie form the get-go. Writing a kids book is all very well, but dudes argue over whether that book truely glorified or condemned gang life. However, Tookie could have shown by his actions- rather than mere words- that he had repented. He refused to do so.
We need to demonstrate that it is wrong to kill people. We demonstrate this by killing people.
Remember that Scripture about “Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord, I shall repay”?
Allow me to translate, being on speaking terms with God. “I can peer into the souls of men and judge the contents thereof, because I’m God. You’re not, so knock it off!”
Here endeth the lesson.
I presume from this that you have no deeply held beliefs or values that could not be altered by a sufficient application of fear and threat of force. I hope that, should I ever find myself in the position you describe, I will find myself to be more reliable than you are. But, I won’t kid myself: I could turn out to be just as big a coward.
Executions in the before the modern era were public and frequent. Justice was also swift, especially for the lower classes. Criminals were executed in public in hopes that people would learn from the example of what happened to criminals. It didn’t work.
Punishment has little deterrent effect because most criminals assume they won’t get caught or they’re acting in the heat of the moment and didn’t stop to think about what would happen afterwards.
See, I’ve never understood this line of reasoning. Not to project onto you, DrDeth (what an ironic username, given this thread–and, yeah, I’m sure I’m missing some other connection), but I’ve had conversations in the past with people who claim to be anti-DP, but who make exceptions based on the number of people one murders, or even on the identity of one murder victim.
For instance, so-called anti-DP folks who were all for the execution of Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber. “Normally, I’m against the death penalty,” they’d say, “but he killed all those people!” Yeah, that’s horrible, but why does the fact that someone killed multiple people warrant capital punishment as compared to the murder of just one human being?
Or take the case of those who murder police officers (or even babies, or small children, for that matter). “Yeah, but he killed a COP, man!” Yeah, that sucks, but so the fuck what? Why make a differentiation between the life of a cop and the life of an ordinary, upstanding private citizen? (Full Disclosure: As an upstanding, just-want-to-go-to-work-and-go-to-school-non-criminal-just-want-to-live-my-life-peacefully black man who’s been unfairly targeted by cops in the past, I have my share of issues with cops–it’s rather nuanced, so please don’t start on me–and that’s for me to work out in my conscience as best as I possibly can in my lifetime, but that doesn’t mean that I value the life of a police officer any less than I value the life of any other person. I just cringe when I get the impression that so-and-so should die because he had the audacity to kill a cop.) (Full Disclosure #2: I don’t feel too much pain when someone committing a violent crime is killed–whether by cops or by someone else–during the commission of said criminal act. I also don’t shed tears when harm befalls such a person at some other time, just as long, believe it or not, as it’s not via capital punishment. Hmm, maybe that’s something else for me to work on.)
Anyway, the point is this: Who decides which murder(s) qualifies for application of the death penalty? In other words, who decides the value of one life over another, or many lives over just one? Who decides who’s a mad dog killer, and who isn’t? I mean, are not they all mad dog killers (all things being equal)? I sure as hell wouldn’t be comfortable making those distinctions (which is why I’m glad that I don’t get to do so). Would you?
Interesting take, BTW, on the word “deterrent.” And yes, though I understand that you are fully aware of what the word means in the context of this discussion, but I’ll just second the spirit of Lissa’s earlier comment, which is this: the death penalty has never proved to be a deterrent. If that was the case, cops would spend their time rescuring kittens from trees and helping Johnny and Jane cross busy intersections.
Actually, I don’t think that any penalty has served as much of a deterrent (as an anticipated sociology major, I really might want to look into that). I mean, people still commit thefts, rapes, and any other number of crimes despite the penalties for those crimes, right? It seems to me that, if you have it in you to commit these crimes (again, all things being equal, which I acknowledge, they aren’t), then you’re going to commit these crimes, so the only purpose of jail time (in non-capital cases) is to keep you away from the rest of us (reform in the current system is a delusion, I think), and the only purpose of capital punishment is to take you the fuck out of here (which, while it might be satisfying on an eye-for-an-eye level, does nothing to bring the victim back, and doesn’t, I don’t think, bring closure in “X” amount of cases).
Oh, and about Mumia? I agree with you–I think he did it, and I don’t think he ought to be put to death. Just because, you know, I really don’t dig the DP. I also wanted to say that I hate, hate, *hate * the way that some of my social justice, ummm…comrades insist on conflating his case with other, more pressing social justice issues. And how interesting it is that the Danny Faulkner machine just can’t seem to rest until the guy who killed him–a guy who, in all likelihood, will never, ever, *ever * get out of prison–lies dead and cold in the ground. It’s like, really, find a cause.
This expresses my thoughts exactly DrDeth. There are some people who will only stop killing when they die, and there are some people whose one act of killing was so depraved that they should die. The whole idea of prison being a punishment for some killers is utterly ridiculous–Ted Bundy became his own jailhouse lawyer so he could see the crime photos and other evidence (and probably jerk off to them in his cell). Robert Ressler, the head of the FBI serial killers unit tells a horrible tale of being alone in a room with serial killer Emil Kemp and having him threaten to tear his (Ressler’s) head off “to suprise the guard when he walks in.” Ressler talked his way out of it, but made immediately made it a rule for no agent to be alone with a serial killer ever.
Ressler’s two books are excellent reads if you want to learn more about serial killers. He grew up the same neighborhood as John Wayne Gacy, and he believes in the death penalty.
I am pro death penalty in the following cases:
-
The sexual assault and/or murder of a child under the age of 10 wherein the individual confesses, or the crime is witnessed by three credible witnesses or seen on video.
-
The willful murder of someone with a position of public trust (i.e. cop, firefighter) wherein the individual confesses, or the crime is witnessed by three credible witnesses, or seen on video.
-
The willful murder of any citizen wherein the individual confesses, or the crime is witnessed by three credible witnesses, or seen on video.
-
Acts of terrorism wherein the individual confesses, or the crime is witnessed by three credible witnesses, or seen on video.
-
Acts of treason wherein the individual confesses, or the crime is witnessed by three credible witnesses, or seen on video.
If you murder another person, using the basic Dictionary.com definition;
The killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
it is my opinion that you forfeit your right to walk the earth. In prison, you can continue to murder. In the ground, you cannot.
And fast track it? Indeed!. Two years from conviction to liberation is indeed a “speedy trial” and I don’t give a tinkers damn about the money. Make sure it’s done right.
Frankly, we cannot know if the death penalty is a deterrent, because we cannot measure crimes that have not been committed. Even the best of deterrents don’t stop everything or everyone every time.
The threat of death will not erase all crime, because not all crime is worthy of death. There are some that are, and there are some people who deserve to die, and I’m ok with us footing the bill.