Lawrence Russell Brewer Dead

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Starving_Artist

No, because short timers can be victims of murderers too.

So assuming the non-perfect situation for you of life imprisonment being the most harsh of punishments, would you be in favour of incarcerating muderers (and committers of other, also death-penalty-worthy, crimes) together, in the hopes that they off each other?

[QUOTE=Blaster Master]
And so, even though one may believe in God and Divine Justice, it doesn’t remove our obligation to correct injustices against society or ourselves.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve heard similar arguments, though Jewish in souce rather than Christian.

They make sense to me, as an atheist. But they don’t make sense to me if I try and put myself in a believer’s shoes. Possibly it’s just my inability to do so that’s the problem. But it seems to me that even when the injustice is done against a person or a society, that person or that society is incapable of reacting in an appropriate manner - at least, not a perfectly appropriate manner. To go back to your child caught cheating example; what if the school elected to chuck the kid out - or on the other hand, he wasn’t punished at all? Or if he wasn’t cheating in the first place, but was mistaken for another child? Or if his parents chose to punish him by beating him? The problem is that remedies by imperfect judges might well extend the injustice, or create new injustices. When the possible result, from this thread, is death, the possible injustice created is massive.

We already allow such things. If someone kills someone else, we have trials. These evaluate the just response, not only in terms of society, but also on behalf of the families of the killed. Why? Because generally, we tend to consider that people so affected by such events, so close to them, cannot possibly be impartial, cannot be in the frame of mind to rationally judge such events, or do not have the ability or skill to make such judgements. So, too, in the case of a perfect judge, does it only make sense to push the case upwards, as it were.

[curlcoat]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

1. If we get rid of the appeals, you can be certain that innocent people will be executed. Right now it’s almost certain that we’ve executed someone, somewhere wrongly, but it’s also clear that the lengthy appeals process weeds out lots of wrongful convictions.

Is it actually clear that a lengthy appeals process weeds out truly wrongful convictions?

2. Well, yes, in some cases. However, for the most part the point is that the people who get sentenced to death are the ones who couldn’t afford enough attorney time (or a good enough attorney) or expert time to get them a more lenient sentence.

Your question suggests that if they’re guilty, we shouldn’t care why they got the death penalty - but if the point is to ensure the worst criminals get the harshest punishment (or are absolutely prevented from harming anyone else) then presumably we should care.

Why? Really, what is the difference between death penalty or incarceration with no hope of parole for decades? I am not concerned with punishment, I am concerned with not having psychos put back on the street, without having to pay to take care of them for years on end.

3. We have lots of resources. We’re the richest country in the world. In fact, we have so many resources we have the developed world’s largest per capita prison population despite a moderate overall crime rate.

Really? We have this huge debt and so many people out of work and you think we have lots of resources? Besides, I was talking about the state of California, which doesn’t have much in the way of resources left after spending for so long on far too many liberal programs. I’m not sure what the rest of that paragraph has to do with the subject, except to point out that you want to have even more folks in prison.

4. Okay, so we’re back to executing innocent people.

Really? Simply because we do away with automatic appeals, and the smoke and mirrors kind of thing we would be executing innocent people?

Also, the appeals process doesn’t take 20 years because they’re litigating stuff the whole time. It’s because courts have other shit to do. Some of the delay is the result of the numerous mandated appeals, but most of it is down to states generally not giving a shit about how long people are kept on death row.

Well, the states should start giving a shit, because it is simply costing us too much.

@Monty

Here’s a good question for those of you so bent on execution: Have you, personally, ever been falsely accused of any crime?

No. What does that have to do with anything?

@DianaG

Nonsense.

I AM morally superior to the unwashed masses clamoring for the death penalty. I need no reassurance on that point.

I’m also morally (and intellectually) superior to people who say things as ridiculous as

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
Oh, wait, you were serious?

[Guinastasia]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

My point is that God has commanded people to put criminals to death-even Paul said that had he committed crimes worthy of death he would be willing to die.

But the last time I checked, our justice system wasn’t based on Christian laws. (Or any religion, for that matter).

MY point was that I don’t believe it’s something that Jesus would want people to gloat about. (At least, that’s not what I was taught. In fact, I can see Sr. Frances Ramona shaking her head sadly at the very idea!)

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Starving_Artist

That has come up before and IIRC Norway’s recidivism rate wasn’t all that exemplary.

It is tricky to find exact figures but it seems that the general consensus is that Norway’s rate is 20% with the USA and UK at around 50-60%

And I have seen that 20% rate attached to Norway’s rather cushy prisons for the most violent criminals.

Whatever they are doing it seems to be working and the less harsh prison regimes seem to be working particularly well for them.

Still, I don’t care if a murderer becomes a model citizen after he does his 10 or 15 or 21 years.

Oh but you should care. If you have any wish for a better society then you’d better gie due consideration for the evidence. Especially that which goes against your gut reaction.
The system that can rehabilitate even the worst criminal is the system that can reduce the amount of re-offending overall. That is a working system. Assuming that you don’t define “working” as “satisfying the public thirst for vengeance”
(which unfortunately too many do).

He took someone’s life and he therefore doesn’t deserve to be drawing breath. You might be cool with somebody walking free and happy a few years after killing your parent, sibling, child or S.O., but I’m not. You murder somebody, you deserve to die. End of story.

The most pointless fallback of all. An empty appeal to emotion. I suspect I would want them dead but base animalistic reactions do not a good justice system make.
and I have to say…a smiley? really?

[Starving_Artist]

@Novelty_Bobble

It is tricky to find exact figures but it seems that the general consensus is that Norway’s rate is 20% with the USA and UK at around 50-60%

And I have seen that 20% rate attached to Norway’s rather cushy prisons for the most violent criminals.

Whatever they are doing it seems to be working and the less harsh prison regimes seem to be working particularly well for them.

Depends on how you define “working” I guess. I doubt that the family members and loved ones of those who’ve had their lives irrevocably shattered by rape, torture or murder feels that the system is working, given that the person who inflicted that misery upon them is walking free and enjoying life two decades or less later.

@Novelty_Bobble

Oh but you should care. If you have any wish for a better society then you’d better gie due consideration for the evidence. Especially that which goes against your gut reaction.
The system that can rehabilitate even the worst criminal is the system that can reduce the amount of re-offending overall. That is a working system.

Not when it comes to murder, it isn’t. If you can reduce recidivism for lesser crimes, then yes, you’re making a better society. But reducing recidivism when it comes to murder means that innocent people are still being killed by convicted murderers, and that is unacceptable.

@Novelty_Bobble

Assuming that you don’t define “working” as “satisfying the public thirst for vengeance” (which unfortunately too many do).

Well, one man’s thirst for vengeance is another man’s desire for equity and justice. To many people it’s simply unfair and unjust for a person to be able deprive someone else of life and then continue to enjoy life themselves. Every civil and criminal penalty we have is based upon punishment relative to the crime. If you commit “X” offense, then we as a society have determined that you should suffer “Y” penalty as a consequence. It’s impossible to look at criminal punishment as anything but “vengeance”. If you harm us we will make you pay. We also hold that once that penalty has been fulfilled, the offender’s “debt to society” has been paid. In other words, punishment serves to allow society to "get even. Thus, the only fair and equitable punishment for the crime of robbing someone of their life is for the murderer to forfeit their life in return. This balances the scales to the greatest degree possible and allows society to feel that the debt has been properly paid and justice has been served.

Most death penalty proponents have no “blood lust” for execution. I’m sure that the vast majority would prefer to live in a society where murder never occurred and therefore no need for execution exists. But most of us find it profoundly offensive and unfair that a person should be allowed to take the life of another while continuing to enjoy life himself, and we resent the efforts of those who strive to make this the norm. In other words, the glee you see over execution is based not upon upon blood lust or a desire for vengeance, but upon exuberance over having defeated the forces in this country that seek to thwart justice and deny the proper payment of the murderer’s debt to society for little reason but to allow its opponents to think more highly of themselves.

@Novelty_Bobble

The most pointless fallback of all. An empty appeal to emotion. I suspect I would want them dead but base animalistic reactions do not a good justice system make.

I don’t know of any creatures in the animal kingdom that seek revenge or any other form of punishment when one of their members is killed. What you prefer to think of as animalistic reactions are in point of fact a deep-seated and fundamental human desire for equity and justice, qualities which, btw, are essential in forming and maintaining a “civilized and moral” society.

@Novelty_Bobble

and I have to say…a smiley? really?

Oh, please. That smiley was in response to a comment Shodan made to Diana G. It’s disingenuous of you at best to try to make it look otherwise.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Starving_Artist

I don’t know of any creatures in the animal kingdom that seek revenge or any other form of punishment when one of their members is killed. What you prefer to think of as animalistic reactions are in point of fact a deep-seated and fundamental human desire for equity and justice, qualities which, btw, are essential in forming and maintaining a “civilized and moral” society.

Humans do, that is my point. The fact that we are higher beings means we can also perceive and seek to redress injustice. And we are free to surpress our instincts should we wish to. We can choose to do it by killing and following strict eye-for-an-eye justice, or we can choose another path that, I believe, is less harmful to society.

Oh, please. That smiley was in response to a comment Shodan made to Diana G. It’s disingenuous of you at best to try to make it look otherwise.

So it was, I apologise. The original comment box you responded to was lost when I quoted your post and your smilie appeared in a less flattering place.

[Starving_Artist]

Fair enough. Thanks for the apology and the explanation.

[Autolycus]

@FriarTed

You wanna feel viscerally ill? Read what he was executed for. By his own free will, he chose a path that removes him from consideration as a fellow human being & instead lower than a mad dog that needs to be put down. So again, I say “Hallelujah, Just and True are Your Judgments, O Yahweh, for Lawrence Russell Brewer has shed innocent blood and so his blood has been shed, as You have rightly decreed.”

And if that be vile, disgusting, barbaric and obscene, make the most of it.

Relevant quotes:

"Jesus answered him, ‘I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.’ "

“Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of judgment. For even the wise cannot see all ends.”

[elucidator]

Nov Bubb, you appear to have not been briefed on the protocols for the correct procedure for losing an argument with Starkers.

First off, Starving Artist is the World’s Foremost Authority. This title was previously held by Professor Irwin Corey, but the good Professor has gained tenure in that part of Heaven reserved for undeservedly ignored comedians. The mantle has passed.

This entails certain privileges. First and foremost, the WFA’s opinions are accepted as fact. You may have noticed that he seldom troubles himself with citation or evidence? You may have wondered why. This is why.

His feelings and intuitions, which in lesser persons are not held to be significant, are also facts. Hence, when he says “I doubt that the family members and loved ones …” feel a certain way, he is not required to bolster this intuition, his intuitions are facts, yours are only vague, unsubstantiated feelings.

Similarly, when he says:

…But reducing recidivism when it comes to murder means that innocent people are still being killed by convicted murderers, and that is unacceptable…

You must accept as a proven fact that recidivist murderers are delivering brutal death to innocent victims, and on a daily basis. I’m sure that you concur that such a result is unacceptable. Well, then, there you have it!

Similarly

…It’s impossible to look at criminal punishment as anything but “vengeance”…

This is another fact. This is the sort of question that has vexed lesser minds, theologians, philosophers, etc. But not he, his mind is a cloudless clime of sunny certainty. Reaganesque, really.

I understand your confusion, it is difficult, I know. You say to yourself “Why, this man is an utter ignoramus, without the slightest notion of argument, evidence, and conclusion!” This might well be true, if he were not the World’s Foremost Authority. But he is, and you simply have to accept it.

I find it helps if you add a “voice” to his posts, imagine Charlton Heston as Moses, delivering the Ten Commandments to the Children of Israel. Rather than Wilford Brimley bitching about his oatmeal.

[Norse]

@Starving_Artist

But reducing recidivism when it comes to murder means that innocent people are still being killed by convicted murderers, and that is unacceptable.

Our judiciary system prioritizes rehabilitation over vengeance. That’s something I’m rather proud of. And I feel a corresponding amount of contempt for a system where killing of persons and vengeance has a higher priority than ensuring that as many as possible can function together in a civilized society.

Re murder: We don’t have much of that. Why, I wonder?
Re torture: We have even less of that. Why, I wonder?
Re rape: What’s best, inhuman vengeance performed by society on behalf of some members of society, or rehabilitation ensuring that the rapist is restored as a productive, non-raping member of society?

[elucidator]

You mean, of course, after you chop off his dick with a sword, right?

[Norse]

What I’d personally like to do, and what a civilized society should do are often two quite different things

[Shodan]

@Guinastasia

Of course not. But we risk this from non prison-escapees every damned day.

Right, which is one reason I mentioned people who are sentenced to LWOP who are released anyway. Wilie Horton didn’t escape - they let him out.

But your argument, insofar as I understand it, is a non-starter. Risks from non-convicts are unrelated to risks from convicts.

Better that and have the chance of being released someday, than be executed. What do YOU choose, Shodan?

You are resisting the hypothetical. You were asked "are you willing to spend the rest of your life in prison for a crime you didn’t commit? " Obviously if you spend the rest of your life in prison, you aren’t released someday.

You asked if I was willing to be wrongfully executed. If I responded, ‘sure, because I have a chance to be exonerated before execution’. Which makes the risk no greater than LWOP.

BTW, plenty of people have offered examples of innocent people being executed or people being released upon further evidence. Other than Horton, let’s see some examples of people escaping prison.

Already done.

Cite and Cite.

Regards,
Shodan

[Kimstu]

@Starving Artist

All it takes is one liberal Supreme Court, and bingo - life without parole is “cruel and unusual” punishment.

How you figure? We’ve had many decades of liberal-dominated Supreme Courts in the history of the institution, and in all that time we’ve had exactly zero instances of the Court imposing constitutional restrictions on prison terms for adult criminals.

I think your concern about this possibility is more indicative of your own reflexive anti-liberal paranoia than of any realistic assessment of liberal views on jurisprudence.

Basically, SA, if there’s a possible future prospect that you don’t like, then you simply assume that liberals want to bring it about, completely irrespective of whether liberals in general have ever shown any interest in or enthusiasm for bringing it about.

If you don’t like something, then by your logic it must be ipso facto a liberal thing, and therefore you have to live in fear of liberals trying to inflict it on you. It must be very wearing for you, worrying about all those liberals spreading mountain pine beetle infestation and honeybee colony collapse on top of everything else.

@Starving Artist

I’m sure that the vast majority would prefer to live in a society where murder never occurred and therefore no need for execution exists. But most of us find it profoundly offensive and unfair that a person should be allowed to take the life of another while continuing to enjoy life himself, and we resent the efforts of those who strive to make this the norm.

But it is the norm, even in the most conservative of jurisdictions where there’s majority support for the death penalty.

The vast majority of murder convictions, even in the most conservative parts of the US, do not result in a capital sentence or in life imprisonment.

Were you really not aware of that, SA? Were you seriously thinking “goshdarn it, if it weren’t for those damn liberals then not one convicted murderer would ever breathe the air of liberty again!”? Because that’s just delusional.

In fact, it’s the flip side of your abovementioned “if I wouldn’t approve of it, then the liberals in general must be trying to impose it on me” delusion: namely, “if I would approve of it, then the conservatives in general would support me”.

Again, though, your inference is sheer imagination. Conservatives in general are not advocating for all convicted murderers to be punished with permanent denial of liberty through capital punishment or life imprisonment, nor have they instituted any such draconian measures even in places where they control the criminal justice system.

[Starving_Artist]

1. We haven’t had life without parole under a liberal Supreme Court before. And, IIRC, “cruel and unusual punishment” was the excuse used to ba capital punishment in the early seventies, which btw resulted in all the killers’ sentences being converted to life with parole which resulted in many of them being paroled, some immediately because of time served.

You might note also that our resident legal expert Bricker (sorry, no bold. I’m on my iPod) has acknowledged the possibility of a liberal Supreme Court overturning these sentences at some point in the future.

2. I don’t know any place in the country where the death penalty is unneeded because murders will never happen there. Your comments in this regard don’t make sense.

3. Yes, there are instances where murderers receive less than death sentences. I don’t agree with that practice either.

4. Nothing I’ve said can be attributed to paranoia or false illusion as it’s all based upon factual history. Three strikes laws and life without parole were enacted for the express purpose of thwarting liberal sentencing and parole practices.

[Bob_Baks_Noogiehead]

@elucidator

First off, Starving Artist is the World’s Foremost Authority. This title was previously held by Professor Irwin Corey, but the good Professor has gained tenure in that part of Heaven reserved for undeservedly ignored comedians. The mantle has passed.

I apologize for the brief hijack, but AFAIK Irwin Corey is still with us.

[elucidator]

Apologize? Nonsense, splendid news! And still working? Even better!

[Kimstu]

@Starving Artist

I don’t know any place in the country where the death penalty is unneeded because murders will never happen there. Your comments in this regard don’t make sense.

I think you may have failed to understand what I was saying. I don’t claim that there’s anywhere in the US where murders will never happen. What I was correcting was this misleading statement of yours:

@Starving Artist

most of us find it profoundly offensive and unfair that a person should be allowed to take the life of another while continuing to enjoy life himself, and we resent the efforts of those who strive to make this the norm.

In the first place, who’s “most of us”? Not most Americans, since Americans in general aren’t trying to impose mandatory capital sentencing (or even mandatory life imprisonment without parole) for all murder convictions. Not even most conservatives support such an extreme position.

In the second place, the prevailing “norm” is that the majority of individuals convicted of murder are eventually freed from jail to “continue to enjoy life” as best they can. That isn’t what some alleged bleeding-heart liberals are “striving to make the norm”: that’s what IS the norm, and has been ever since the late nineteenth century, when legislatures began to replace mandatory capital sentencing with discretionary capital sentencing for murder convictions.

This long-standing norm applies in both liberal and conservative jurisdictions, and reflects the general American belief that most people who commit murder can pay their debt to society with less than a capital or life sentence, and then be re-admitted to the law-abiding community.

You personally may be opposed to this norm (as you make clear in the quoted statement below), but you can’t pretend that it isn’t currently the norm in the US or that only some liberal fringe minority supports it. Like it or not, allowing most murderers to serve some jail time and then walk free is the American way.

@Starving Artist

Yes, there are instances where murderers receive less than death sentences. I don’t agree with that practice either.

But the fact is that most other Americans do, whether liberal or conservative. You are in a quite small minority, even among conservatives, if you believe that every murder conviction ought be punished with death, or even with life without parole.

Real-life people’s positions on capital punishment and its application don’t split anywhere near as neatly along standard liberal/conservative lines as you would like to believe.