I hate this issue. Te biggest trouble in my life comes from all the irritation I have with trying to convince myself to defend the bastards. The Death Penalty may not be nice, but I just have a hard time caring about people.
“Minors shouldn’t {be tried by the adult justice system/vote/sign contracts} because they don’t fully understand the implications of {criminal acts/casting a vote/committing to a contract}.”
So a minor who couldn’t make heads or tails out of a contract (I personally know of a few adults who don’t) would ipso facto have no notion of the consequences of a criminal act? Or am I twisting your words/logic here?
Whether they would or would not is irrelevant. You can’t prove it, you can’t legislate for that.
Laws have to apply to the whole population, or not at all, so the legislature has to ensure that all are adequately protected under it.
Controlled tests show that recipients of the “death” penalty show “an extremely low” propensity to recidivism!
Lissa and I seem to be in agreement on this. What’s the point of “talk” about how a murder degrades society? Is anyone defending murder? The murder is in the past, what remains is for us to decide how we are going to deal with the (presumed) murderer.
Well, of course crazy opinions are different from killing people. I was just saying that people do change. Lissa’s stories from prison say this better than I could.
As to the first question, one reason “why?” is simply that, no matter how clear the evidence seems, the person on death row might not be the guilty one. It has been proved very dramatically in recent times, via DNA evidence that has only become technically obtainable recently, that many many people who are convicted of murder are not murderers. OK, giving them life imprisonment “rewards” the guilty ones, if you like, for their crimes. Against the chance, no, the near certainty, of executing innocent people, I’ll take that hit any day. I know from reading your posts on other threads that you, Darwin’s Finch, are an intelligent and imaginative person. Try to imagine yourself on death row, convicted of a crime you didn’t commit. Or imagine a loved one in the same situation.
Another, perhaps deeper, reason, is the one already mentioned, that the death penalty makes murderers of us all. If it was wrong for Malvo to take a life, isn’t it also wrong for the state to take a life? Do you think that two wrongs make a right?
Of course, no one can do anything to make up for the lives that have been lost. I’m trying to make that point that a man in prison can make a contribution to society, while a dead man can’t. I don’t know how many times a multiple-murderer has made any positive contribution, and I don’t think the question is relevant. A life sentence leaves open the possibility, a death penalty takes away all possibilities. If you want examples of positive contributions that convicted felons have made and are making right now, I suggest you check out the Alternatives to Violence Project (AVP) .
Hey! Good point! Better yet, why don’t we just kill everyone at birth, thereby preventing all crime?
Likewise, I don’t see what good to society can be gained by keeping him locked up essentially in a cage for the remainder of his life. If he is destined for a miserable life behind bars, then why not end it? Could not forcing him to eke out such a miserable existence likewise be considered “barbaric” or inhumane, and hardly what a civilized society should strive for?
Much of the clog is a result of trying numerous “lesser” crimes. What I meant by trying all cases equally is that whether the death penalty is sought or not (for cases where the death penalty might have been an option - clearly, no prosecutor is going to seek the death penalty for insurance fraud, for example), the same level of scrutiny ought to be brought to bear.
If there is doubt in a case, this is something to take into consideration. If there is no doubt, if Malvo confessed, and shows no remorse, then there is clearly no danger of executing an innocent in this case. And, I think, this is the point of the OP: if there is no doubt that the accused is, in fact, guilty, then why should the death penalty not be invoked? This is not necessarily a plea for execution in all capital-level cases, only those where the guilt of the accused is, as in this case, pretty clear.
As I noted above, I am not arguing for blanket application of the death penalty. There are circumstances, such as in this case, however, when the possibility of executing an innocent is removed from the equation.
**
Being something of a situational ethicist, I’d have to say “sometimes”. The death penalty no more makes murders of us all than does allowing children to starve because they can’t afford food. It is the nature of society that people will die as a direct, or indirect, result of the society itself.
I do not deny that convicted felons can “turn their lives around”, as it were. However, not all convicted felons are serial murderers. Do you have any evidence of such individuals going on to make positive contributions to society? Indeed, what can such an individual do to “make up for” the lives he took?
Darwin, that was precisely my point. However, I’m not sure I wouldn’t prefer, all things considered, seeing this person imprisoned for the rest of his or her life. The carrying out of the death sentence lasts but one moment: prison lasts…a lifetime.
And should we distinguish between the one-time murderer and the serial killer (Malvo, in the present case)?
Obviously, the issue isn’t a clear cut one.
**
Considering the family of Malvo’s victims will have to live with their grief for the rest of their lives, I don’t think it’s inhumane to make Malvo live with the consequences for the rest of his.
Prison is * supposed * to be a punishment. I don’t lose a moment’s sleep over imagining the discomfort and unhappiness of a person who has intentionally ruined lives. After all, it’s not as if we’re tortuing or starving the man. We’ve just put him with people much like himself, and removed all of the little luxuries of free life.
While I would rather die than go to prison, I don’t think the conditions in a prison reflect negatively on our society. All in all, I’d say our prisons are better than those of many countries. We ensure that our inmates recieve medical care, and are housed, fed and somewhat entertained. Inmates (importantly for those with lesser sentences) can get education and job training, along with counseling and treatment programs which will hopefully give them the tools to successfully cope on the “outside.”
Nevertheless, they are not “happy” places, nor should they be. Prison inmates have done something to offend society, and they should pay for it. (Hopefully, prisons are places to which a person would never want to return, and the experience will make ex-inmates want to comply with the law to avoid going back.) I think that discomfort and unhappiness are fitting for those who have harmed others.
In your above response, I get the impression that you’re likening execution to a “mercy” killing. Does Malvo deserve that mercy, or is it fitting that he spend the rest of his life as an unhappy, lonely man?
The only benefits to society of imprisoning him for life are having this person locked safely away from the public, and not having his blood on our collective hands. By putting him in prison where he recieves all of life’s necessities instead of killing him, we demonstrate that we are better people: that we are decent and civilized, and need not stoop to killing to deal with our criminals.
Malvo’s case is a rare one indeed. Hardly any cases are so “cut-and-dried.” But even in Malvo’s case, there are issues which can be argued. A good defense attorney will find holes even in this case. Was Malvo given his rights? If not, the confession might need to be tossed. Was the confession coerced? Is his youth a reason not to invoke the death penalty? Was evidence tainted? Who really was the shooter? Did Malvo just take credit out of love for his partner, or because he thought taking blame would make him look “cool?” Is his lack of remorse just posturing? (I’m not saying that any of these arguments are necessarily justified, just that a defense attorney would most likely raise them.) There are almost always doubts to exploit in a case where the defense attorney is a good one.