Tedster:I’m in favor of executing our known murderers and other assorted human trash.
You mean, you want the DP applied in the case of all murder convictions, as well as to other crimes? Would you mind letting us know explicitly just what crimes you think should involve the DP? And, of course, you do realize that many murderers are successfully rehabilitated and never commit another felony after serving prison time? Do you really think it’s rationally necessary to kill convicts on such a sweeping scale?
It’s true that I’m one of the people who’d have a problem with the DP even if we restricted it only to the rare cases of extremely heinous and vicious crimes and could be 100% sure that everyone executed was definitely guilty. (Though in that case, I might think it reasonable that such a criminal be allowed to request voluntary execution or the means of suicide as an alternative to spending life in prison without parole.) But this sort of enthusiasm for a vastly expanded application of the DP, and the casual acceptance of its fallibility as currently applied, baffles me.
There seems to be no real practical motivation for it except liking to call other people “trash” and “scum” and to fantasize about having them killed. (There even is or was a recent Pit thread devoted to fantasies of ways to torture and execute some particularly brutal child-murderers recently in the news. Yuck!!! Admittedly, child-murderers still scare me a lot more than people who like to imagine elaborate ways of killing child-murderers, but IMHO they’re all a pretty unsavory lot.)
I don’t gain any enjoyment by calling trash trash, the world would be better off if they weren’t around, certainly. I can only imagine the rage that a family must feel after they have been victimized by a repeat offender who was released for “good behavior”; I think Megan’s Law and similar legislation has come about because of things like that.
I simply care more about honest and decent people more than I do murderers, rapists, etc., that’s where my sentiments lay. Thank god for DNA, fingerprints, microscopic fiber identification, the FBI, local LEO’s, Americas Most Wanted, etc. etc., I can only imagine the number of unsolved crimes there would be without them.
Rage is a feeling. Feelings are the only basis for the law. Feelings are the only basis for anything. The only reason we seek to reason things out is because we have feelings.
[QUOTE]
I simply care more about honest and decent people more than I do murderers, rapists, etc. That’s where my sentiments lay.[\QUOTE]
Again, caring is a feeling and sentiments are feelings.
Also, I just want to make it clear that there are those among us who do not support the death penalty even for the most heinous of crimes. I guess I do indeed feel that everyone is of equal worth. Why do I feel that way, I wonder? I suppose for two reasons: (1) because I can’t imagine the motivations of a heinous murderer; and (2) because I know that no person is an island, that every person is brought up in a society of some sort. My own society – my own society! – occasionally produces individuals who are, apparently, indescribably evil in ways that I will never understand.
What is it that we’re missing? What can we do to steer people away from feelings of self-hatred so strong that they apparently don’t mind taking other people’s lives? It grosses me out totally to imagine what a murderer does. But I argue that the public doesn’t gain a thing by killing the murderers among us, except the satisfaction of certain of our basest feelings. We do, however, lose the chance to see those people come to a realization about what they have done – however remote the possibility. And we lose the chance to learn about ourselves through them. So my argument is selfish, I guess – I don’t want to lose any opportunity for a learning experience!
And then there are the folks who actually have something physically wrong with themselves that we can actually observe. Kill someone because he was dropped on his head as a baby or because his mom took too many drugs while she was pregnant? Nope.
Then, think about Dahlmer struggling to understand himself in prison. Why would we want to deprive him of that? Why would we want to deprive ourselves of that? To satisfy our desire for revenge? Have you ever read Dahlmer’s father’s book?
But make no mistake about it: I have no problem whatsoever with permanently, permanently, permanently depriving murderers of their freedom, although the financial argument in favor of life without parole vis-a-vis the death penalty kind of makes me feel ill. It ought not to be about the money.
But the number of murders by killers released from prison is irrelevant, seeing as how no one is suggesting that we parole people as an alternative to the death penalty.
As a statement of opinion, I can’t disprove that, but I certainly can vigorously disagree. While acts of omission certainly are not exempt from moral responsibility, they are held to a much lower standard. Someone who shoots someone will be charged with murder, while someone who stands by while someone else kills someone will at the most be charged with being an accomplice. I firmly believe that killings intentionally carried out by the government are the most dangerous deaths. I would much rather have 20 people die in a hurricane than have the government have the power to kill any 10 people it doesn’t like.
Kalt
Prison isn’t a deterrent? Do you have any support for that statement?
It’s cheaper than the DP, and to say that the danger is “pointless” is begging the question. As for your last point, that is a concern regarding the criminal justice system in general, not that of the DP in particular.
Does anybody really believe that the yanks landed on the moon???
It is obvious they didn’t through picture evidence…all the shadows etc.
I think they were afraid of how advanced the Russians were becoming and decided to fake the hole thing to make people think they were a force to be dealt with…
I still don’t believe it has been done and I’m not sure it ever will
You mention that my concern for the well being of honest, law abiding citizens (compared to mass murderers and serial rapists, etc) is just a feeling, and imply that somehow that’s not good enough. Then you go on to say that you “feel” that everyone is of equal worth.
Also, someone mentioned that “…nobody is suggesting parole…” Which may be technically true, but it’s also technically true that’s what happens in practice. They get let out after a few years. “LIP is cheaper than the DP” is also technically true, but only because of legal maneuverings that creep over decades.
I say that we ban capital punishment just as soon as people stop killing each other. It is a dangerous world, no doubt about it. Interesting angle someone else pointed out, though- Prison is no deterrent, either, which is pretty self evident. “It won’t happen to me” which is probably how many people feel about violent crime itself.
This argument looks good, but it’s fallaceous. Whether we suggest it or not, in the US a large number of convicted murderers get out prison, one way or another. (I suspect this is true in other Western nations as well.) In the purity of a message board, we can postulate an imaginary world where this doesn’t happen. While we’re at it, let’s postulate a world where there are no murders.
Seriously, IMHO the burden of proof falls on those who claim we can keep convicted murders in prison for life with certainty. If there’s a way to do, we haven’t found it yet.
Can you please provide a cite which details the number of first-degree and multiple murderers released from prison each year? Just so we’re keeping the discussion on the level of facts.
Since that seems to be the standard for throwing out the death penalty ala “We should let a hundred murderers go free rather than execute one innocent person.”
Examples are rife, just watch the evening news for a couple days.
What is especially tragic is the sum total of modern social engineering of our utopian, feel good, touchy feely society. Not only are human predators released back into society, we are generally enjoined from providing any sort of rational defense against them, ala firearms. Concealed carry laws are encouraging, though. Sometimes I have to wonder what planet (or gated community, actually) some of these people live on that are so quick to declare war on the posession of the means to self defense.
I’m not sure whether you’re being facetious, but actually I agree.
It’s a piss-poor choice, isn’t it? Live in a society with an increased risk of being killed by a recidivist non-executed murderer. Or live with the knowledge that innocent citizens are being executed in my name.
Personally, I accept the risk and abstain from the blood of innocents on my hands.
“Ah-HA!”, you say, “what about the innocent murder victims ?”
There are risks in this world, and being murdered - by a recidivist murderer or not - is one of them. My part of the responsibility lies in what I didn’t want done (execution), not in what I did. The responsibility for a murder lies on the shoulders of the murderer, way more than it does on mine.
On the other hand, if I support the execution of innocents as an acceptable side effect of running an efficient society, I’m directly responsible for the deaths. When they open the trapdoor, they do so in my name. I might carry a very little part of the responsibility, but mine it is nonetheless - it’s my hand on the handle, by proxy. I can’t have that.
While that line of thinking is flawed, it could still be pointed out that by releasing predators back into society you’ll “have blood on your hands.” Still back to square one, i.e., what to do with them, and who pays for it.
Again, if people insist on releasing social misfits into mainstream society, it would be appreciated greatly if they would at least allow the means of self defense in places other than my home. The net effect is appalling.
Tedster: *Not only are human predators released back into society […] *
Ted, you still aren’t squarely confronting the issue I raised when I asked you if you favored applying the death penalty in all murder convictions. You seem to be overlooking the fact that most DP supporters are as willing as most DP opponents to “release human predators back into society,” as long as we feel reasonably confident that they are not likely to be predators in future. That is, most murderers and other violent criminals are not executed even in states that do have the DP, and many are not jailed for life, either. That’s not a DP issue, unless you’re recommending that anybody convicted of murder or some other level of violent crime be offed just to be on the safe side.
Again, if you or december or anyone else is seriously arguing that there is a significant threat posed to society by prison escapees* whose crimes were comparable to those of other criminals who received the death penalty, I would like to see some actual evidence to that effect. But no fair blaming exclusively on DP opponents the dangers posed by all escaped or released criminals, including the many who would not have been executed even where the DP is used. Or, if what you’re really recommending is that the DP should not only continue to be used but should be applied to a much broader range of crimes than it now is, come out and say so honestly. And be prepared to defend the logical consequences of your position.
I forget who it was on this thread who wondered about the use of this term, but I was just reading an essay in James Thurber’s Lanterns and Lances where he makes the same complaint: he thinks that logically, the prisoner is the “escaper” and the prison guards are the “escapees.”
Nope. I’m countering your earlier statement in justification of the death penalty: “I can only imagine the rage that a family must feel after they have been victimized by a repeat offender who was released for ‘good behavior.’”
You’re justifying your opinion on the basis of the feelings of the living victims of murderers and implying that you sympathize with them. Which is perfectly normal and appropriate in my book. I go on to say that feelings are the only basis for the law and that we wouldn’t be sitting at our computers arguing about this if we didn’t feel something about it. Feelings are the only basis for the law. Law is a social construct, yes?
Completely irrelevant to me. No matter what we do, some innocent people will always go to jail – a few of them for capital crimes. Irrelevant. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a justice system. What I’m concerned about is not the killing of the innocent, but the killing of the guilty. The conviction of an innocent person is always wrong – how could anyone argue against that? What we ought to be debating is whether killing guilty people is wrong. I argue above that it is, because murderers are the products of societies.
Society creates killers. We shouldn’t kill them, because they are us. You’re focusing on the idea that fear of punishment doesn’t prevent crime. I agree. I’m focusing on the idea that society creates killers. The only other relevant factor is pure chance. I’ll venture to argue that most murderers are simply people who are too scared to kill themselves. To refrain from imposing the death penalty is to acknowledge the imperfections of our society. The fact that our society creates killers ought to make us humble, not arrogant. A humble public doesn’t create elaborate death penalty rituals. An arrogant public does. Lock 'em up for life.
I agree with the guy up there who said, “I would much rather have 20 people die in a hurricane than have the government [I say the people because the U.S. is a democracy] is a have the power to kill any 10 people it doesn’t like.” Absolutely.
I let this one go by initially because it’s an absurd argument, but since you persist with it…
The vast majority of supporters of the death penalty do not want it mandated in every homicide. But permitting juries to have the option of applying the death penalty in egregious cases undoubtedly saves lives by permanently removing the threat posed by certain vicious sociopaths.
It’s abundantly clear what happens when the ability to apply the death penalty is removed, as in the case of Kenneth McDuff, paroled after a death row stint to go on a spree of serial murder.
As for Napoleon Beazley, who executed a carjacking victim at age 17 (and attempted to murder his victim’s wife), now with a stay of execution: His case is reminiscent of that of another teenaged murderer, Oregon’s Michael Olds. Olds shot to death a bystander at a convenience store robbery in the early ‘80s. Based on the nature of the crime and Olds’ violent past the death penalty was an option, one not pursued by the prosecutor because of his moral opposition to the death penalty. Olds subsequently went on a cross-country kidnapping and murder spree. I doubt that the relatives of his victims see Olds as some sort of unavoidable natural phenomenon, like a hurricane. We could have stopped him. We didn’t. As in Beazley’s case, the death penalty option should have been available to his jury.
The more I see the death penalty debated here, the more similarities appear between the stances of anti-death penalty enthusiasts and anti-abortion activists.
Both see themselves as having exclusive access to the moral high ground. Both find personal expression of their beliefs insufficient (i.e. to undergo an abortion or to cast a verdict against the death penalty), insisting on imposing those beliefs on everyone else. Both use denigrating stereotypical characterizations of their opponents’ motives (persons having abortions do so for “convenience”; those who espouse the death penalty do so out of a lust for “revenge”). And both find it easy to ignore the consequences of their enforced orthodoxy - in one case, the death of or severe injury to women needing abortions and the effects on their loved ones, in the other case, the death or severe injuries of innocent victims and the trauma endured by their loved ones.
There’s a high price to be paid for “not having blood on my hands”. I question whether death penalty opponents have the right to demand it.
I agree. The discussions of the rare mistaken execution vs. rare murders by escaped or released murderers is secondary.
In my opinion, we should execute those who commit 1st degree murder because they have given up their rights as members of society. IMHO Texas doesn’t execute enough murderers because its law requries murder plus another felony IIRC.
