That seems to be contradictory. I’m suggesting making the penalty so extreme that someone considering a violent crime would HAVE to consider the consequences, not be lulled in a complacent “they’ll plea it down to manslaughter and I’ll be out in 3 years, tops.”
People who commit murder are not rational, you say? Okay, all the more reason to have an extreme penalty. If you really want to show mercy, put them in an insitution for the criminally insane with no limit to their sentence there. If they are ever deemed ‘sane’, let them then stand trial for their crime. If they are adjudged innocent by reason of temporary insanity, perhaps the judge will send them back to the place for the criminally insane, figuring if they snapped once, they might well snap again.
C’mon. Someone kills someone just to see what it would be like to watch them die? You want to show mercy? Lower them slowly into a vat of acid.
Maybe that is the wrong way to approach it. Perhaps we could leave the penalty to the family of the killed person. If any one of them decides the criminal should be executed, let him do it himself. Otherwise, just turn them loose, they were irrational at the time they killed, and it probably won’t ever happen again, will it?
The government’s burden is proof of each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that the evidence must disprove all reasonable scenarios except those of guilt. The mere fact that the accused said some potentially racist things about white people in general doesn’t prove that this crime was motivated by race.
The evidence shows that the severity of punishment is not generally a factor that deters crime. Higher perceived likelihood of being punished and shorter time until punishment begins are factors that can deter crime. That makes sense when you consider that people who would do something like that are not thinking very far ahead.
I don’t think people who kill just for fun should ever get out of prison though. They’re just too dangerous. Most murderers are unlikely to murder again, but this type is just too fucked up I think. But I don’t expect that them getting life as opposed to 20 years or something is going to deter anyone else.
On the whole, “our youth today” are less violent than youth 10, 20, 30, or even 40 years ago. You’ve got to go back to the 1960s to find less violent youth cohorts than those of the past few years.
“If you knew your history, then you wouldn’t have to ask me”
Cruel and unusual punishments are forbidden for a reason.
The Founders knew what they were doing when they wrote that part of the Constitution.
I’m not going to go into any depth, but I will mention false convictions.
It happens. How many, nobody knows, but it could be you or I convicted falsely.
Now how do you feel about that vat of acid? Sanguine?
Enough to convict? Possible but not likely. One expert (Bricker) says no.
The prosecutor might forgo a hate crime prosecution because he can get the most severe penalty available, life without parole, without the hate crime conviction. Alternatively, he may feel that the killers’ motivations of race hatred are something the jury and future parole boards should know.
NO argument about false convictions. I’m talking about the murderer who readily confesses and says he did it because he wanted to watch someone die, or was bored, or… but does not dispute his or her guilt.
I know, cruel and unusual, and all that. Quick and certain justice more effective as a deterent, check, check. But I’d surely like to see some murderers get what they deserved, quickly and, even if you put them to sleep first, dead. What you do with the body after is not a matter of cruel or unusual punishment. He’s dead, what does he care – but his buddies might just think twice about chancing the notoriety of a head on a stick until it rots.
On the other hand, if there is no doubt, and no rational explanation for the murder…
Minor purchase or theft of a handgun - illegal
Minor in possession of a handgun - illegal
Murder - illegal
Clearly more laws would have made the difference.
Well, the gun didn’t shoot itself that’s for sure. Instead, a bunch of fucked up kids with no life decided to kill someone out of sheer boredom. The parents didn’t make them do it, but they sure as hell have some responsibility for raising such angels.
Federal law has no minimum age requirement for buying long guns. In 22 states it is perfectly legal for an 8-year-old to pick up a handgun at a gun show, though he cannot legally possess it. In 20 states that 8 year old can both legally buy a shotgun and possess it.
You have to be 18 to buy smokes, 21 to buy booze and 18 to buy porn. Of course you can get porn free online, but to go into an adult bookstore you’d get carded.
It’s way too easy for children to buy guns, perfectly legally.
Staying on topic, the student was killed with a .22 cal revolver which required a minimum of three laws to be broken to commit the crime, including unsupervised possession of a handgun under 18 years old which is Oklahoma law.
The DA has announced that this will not be tried as a hate crime. Since Mr. Edwards has tweeted that he hates 90% of White people apparently he killed one of them he doesn’t hate. Another senseless aspect.
My dog in the race here is how this can be perceived differently by different groups of people. There’s a good article at Christian Science Monitor which explains it better than I can.
As far as the hate crime aspect, that was already covered by Bricker. It’s not that it can’t be tried as such, it just requires more evidence such as a tweet that states a specific desire to kill a white person or something along those lines. Clearly this wasn’t a purely random choice because it required they get in a car and chase after the victim. So there is a brief period of meditating on who would be shot.
If the speculation in the linked article is accurate, it would make the hate crime prosecution more difficult. In this scenario, the perps had a list of people they intended to kill, and some (most?) of the people on the list were black.
I can also imagine the defense calling the the two white mothers (2 out of 3) of the perps, and asking, “Has your son ever expressed any hatred of white people?” It becomes theater of the absurd at that point.
ETA: I see my link doesn’t work and I can’t find my error. This is a common problem for me. Sorry. Search for Christian Science Monitor and scroll down the page for the article.
People talk as though these kids have no sense of right or wrong, that they were conditioned by their upbringing and the video games, etc. to commit senseless crimes. Explain the 99% who have the same situations and who manage to control their impulse to kill someone to make things more interesting?
When someone who can not be otherwise identified as a threat (suddenly, out of the blue, decides to become a thrill killer), giving anyone else in society the idea that they will become the center of attention, be studied, wondered about, written about, talked about, vilified by most but glorified by a very few…the quickest way to shut off those impulses to duplicate that sort of behavior is to provide quick and severe punishment. Demonstrate the sort of ‘attention’ that sort of behavior gets you.