And guarantees one additional killing.
Yes, I heard you the first time. But people have escaped from death sentences, too. Neither one is particularly common.
I don’t believe that the death penalty deters homicide generally, but I do believe that, if used as I described earlier that it might deter some individuals from committing such acts, other than those with martyr complexes (IE; Jihadi types, etc). The problem is nobody ever comes up and says: “If it wasn’t for capital punishment I would have killed that so-and-so”, so the impact is admittedly hard to judge.
I’m going to say what I said in the pit: this is a really poor time to bring up this discussion, because Dylann Roof is probably the most open-and-shut death penalty case I’ve ever seen. Mass murderer and terrorist for ideological reasons, no remorse, would almost certainly do it again, no way he’s not the person responsible, knows exactly how bad what he did was and did it anyways… This is the kind of animal you put down to ensure they don’t kill again, even in prison. I say this as someone who understands full well that the death penalty, as an institution, is a bad idea, is applied unequally, and has a lot of problems. But Roof is a terrible place to fight that battle. If anyone deserves it, he does. Maybe we can fight this battle over a case that doesn’t involve a white supremacist mass murderer?
The death penalty guarantees one thing, no repeat offense. Also keeping prisoners for life cost taxpayers money. Put 'em to death after all appeals are exhausted.
ISTM that the justice system has already addressed something like that, with laws about justifiable homicide and self-defense and killing in a just war and things like that. As long as your individual judgment coincides with the general societal judgment that whoever you kill “deserved” it, you will not be prosecuted.
And on a practical level, even if your judgment disagrees with society’s judgment in general, you will be punished less if it agrees with society’s judgment that is not expressed in the law. If your daughter is raped and the rapist gets off scot free, and you kill him, you will probably get charged with some lesser offense than murder. They could throw the book at you, but they probably won’t.
No offense, I hope, but it is unfair to say that we shouldn’t talk about the DP in the context of a case like Roof’s. Arguments against the DP in general have to apply in this case if they are valid in general.
If the argument is that the death penalty is always wrong, then one should be able to show why the death penalty is wrong when applied in cases where there is no doubt of guilt, and no remorse. If the argument is that the death penalty is wrong except when there is no doubt of guilt, and no remorse, then the death penalty is not always wrong, and can be applied in cases like Roof, and others.
In the phrase “that’s the exception that proves the rule” ‘prove’ means ‘test’, not ‘demonstrates the validity of’. If the rule fails the test, that tends to disprove the rule, and one has to show what makes the case exceptional.
Regards,
Shodan
What if all those appeals end up costing more than just giving the guy a life sentence from the start?
Roof’s youth actually serves to strengthen the argument though. The guy could possibly stick around another 80 years with life imprisonment. That’s a long time for someone to someday have a chance to do it again. I know that it takes some time to exhaust appeals for a death sentence but not that long.
When I consider that criminal justice is for all practical purposes, aside from a deterrent, an attempt at appeasing aggrieved parties so that people aren’t rioting and meeting out punishment in the streets, which would lead to chaos and the dissolution of society, the two aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. Some aggrieved parties may (erroneously) feel that killing the person who killed their loved ones or someone in their community will appease them. Or they may simply feel the urge to kill the criminal.
Since vigilante justice is illegal and “killing is wrong,” the next best thing is government sanctioned execution. And since civil courts cannot sentence defendants to death, people appeal to the government to sentence the defendant to death in criminal court. So the from the government’s perspective, they are appeasing the people so that they do not try to take justice into their own hands by executing someone. From the aggrieved party’s perspective, they may be getting revenge on the killer or appeasing themselves.
You’re not wrong, per se, and all the same arguments apply - frying him serves no purpose not served by throwing him in solitary for the rest of his life, it’s considerably more expensive, on principle it’s not a good idea due to how our justice system works - but even I want to see this guy’s head roll. It’s not a sympathetic case by any stretch of the imagination.
Posting to acknowledge what you said without turning it into a general discussion of the DP.
Regards,
Shodan
I think the death penalty should not be used, but only because of the possibility of mistakes that cannot be reversed if new evidence comes to light – I have no moral issue with executing guilty mass murderers, especially folks like Roof. But I don’t think the death penalty is superior in any way to life imprisonment, except that it eliminates the possibility of this specific person doing any more crime – I don’t find that benefit strong enough to counter the possibility of executing an innocent person, so I’d prefer to eliminate it altogether.
As for the OP, I think it’s both justice and revenge, for someone who is actually guilty beyond any doubt (like Roof).
I’m not sure that holds. There are situations where I am, if not comfortable, at least understanding of applying the death penalty, but my objection then comes in at a practical level of not being able to write a law which includes “acceptable” killings vs. “unacceptable” killings. In that way there is a problem with looking only at singular cases, because the objection by necessity doesn’t.
As mentioned, we already have laws that distinguish acceptable from unacceptable killings. And those laws are applied to individual cases all the time.
Regards,
Shodan
You forgot: Get sentenced to life without parole, get accepted into a work release program, and just never come back.
Google “Willie Horton.” Life without parole worked really well there.
ETA: When there is absolutely no chance in hell the person is not guilty, the death penalty should be an option.
And those work for all definitions of “acceptable” and “unacceptable”, do they?
Because, if they don’t, your claim that “Arguments against the DP in general have to apply in this case if they are valid in general.” doesn’t fly. Unless what you meant was “Arguments against the DP solely in cases which agree 100% with the current standards in law, have to apply in this case…”
Huh? Are there appeals in life sentence?
I’m not against the death penalty in principle. But it costs more to execute someone than it does to incarcerate them for life, and in practice we apply the death penalty arbitrarily. So we shouldn’t execute Roof or anyone else.
ETA: there are appeals from life sentences, but people sentenced to the death penalty get additional appeals at the federal level not available to life convicts.
Nothing close to what you get for someone on death row.
Just a few examples.
Focus, people.
If we soften sentencing due to remorse, weren’t we really seeking revenge to begin with?
I am not interested in the larger death penalty debate, just looking at this one aspect.