I agree with the last sentence but I don’t think all killings in hot blood are justified either and I didn’t say this in my previous comments. A cop shooting a maniac running toward them with a kitchen knife is hot blooded but it’s still justified because it’s in self defense. If a cop tells someone to put a knife down and they obey and they shoot them regardless because they’re so angry at them then that’s in hot blood and clearly unjustified because it wasn’t actually necessary. That’s the difference between killing and murder and murder is wrong regardless of the process, time beforehand or the feelings of the people involved. Don’t get so caught up on the hot/cold blood idiom.
I’m not getting caught up in it, I’m rejecting its validity entirely. The distinction you’ve drawn is simply justifiable killing vs. unjustifiable killing.
The law does often consider it a mitigating factor if someone was driven to a crime in a moment of passion. They’re considered somewhat less culpable. But the whole blood-temperature thing isn’t an heuristic to decide whether the death penalty as an institution is justified or not. If that process must exist, it has to be entirely cold-blooded.
Well, I did until recently.
Whenever this topic is brought up, a key name to remember is Kenneth McDuff.
And Casey Pigge.
The state of Tennessee should hire this guy.
Well, let’s see about that. Usually I would agree with you as a simple matter of logic: once dead a person can no longer commit crimes.
But if Crista Pike were to kill someone now while in prison “There’s a 0% recidivism rate amongst those who undergo it.” would be turned on its head.
Okay. Why?
And, so what? What about innocent people being executed?
Executions aren’t about killing people for being guilty of crimes or dangerous to society. They are about entertainment; blood sport. Killing people that are political unpopular. We do it because there’s a lot less difference between the serial killers and the general populace than we like to pretend. They do it for fun; we do it for fun.
So rare as to be nonexistent.
I am someone who is mildly against the death penalty, but executions are justified. It is my firm belief that any punishment doled out by a justice system must fit the crime by not being overly lenient or excessive. And I realize it’s not always an easy thing to figure out what’s just. If someone sexually assaults a woman and murders her to keep her from going to the police, then I feel as though the death penalty is justified because it matches the severity of the crime. I’d agree that life imprisonment is also an appropriate sentence.
Like I said, I’m mildly against the death penalty. I do have enough concerns about innocent people being executed, I worry about the uneven application of the death penalty, I worry about the psychological impact executions have on prison staff, I worry about the expense, and I even worry about the stress it causes to the prisoners on death row for years and years that I tend to favor ending the death penalty. But save for the last reason, none of those have to do with whether the DP is justified or not.
I see no reason to believe that, we make a point of being unjust about the death penalty.
I have some examples, but that calls for another thread, I think.
At least four percent of people sentenced to death in the US are innocent. That’s hardly nonexistent. Even a single innocent person being killed would be a legitimate reason to not have the death penalty.
[quote=“Cmyers1980, post:52, topic:1033738”]
At least four percent of people sentenced to death in the US are innocent
[/bquote]
Thank you for that cite. That would be 69 innocent people executed in the US since the death penalty was reinstituted in the US in 1976. 69 people in only 50 years.
The “At least” is doing a lot of work there. 4% is the weak lower bound. The number might easily be 15%.
One of my cousins is married to an attorney who did death penalty appeals in California. That was his sole role at his firm for about 20 years. By his reckoning the California number is over 20%. And one might reasonably argue that California has less “small town” justice than other regions of the country.
Okay, I guess I’m going to hell for it, but I lol’d at this.
You’ll have company on the trip.
As presented by the OP, the paradox is that an executioner is themselves killing someone; therefore, what prevents them from being as guilty of murder as the person they executed? Moral and ethical culpability aside, “murder” is distinct from homicide, the latter being the physical fact that someone was killed, and the former a legal concept. If the Third Reich hadn’t been annihilated the officer responsible for the deaths of thousands of Jews would have lived to a ripe old age and been a citizen of the Reich in good standing. It’s similar to the old adage about treason; treason being considered among the most heinous of crimes, but only if you lose.
As for the larger issue of the death penalty, I would say it depends on context. We now consider very few crimes horrible enough that the death penalty is called for, but we all could probably think of exceptions; nuclear terrorism where an entire city is destroyed and hundreds of thousands of lives snuffed out for example.