News Death Penalty for cut and dried cases?

[DanP]

Against me, you won't last a minute.


Runs and hides from excessively bad pun..[/size]

Strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!

 

[nismaratwork]

So isn't it all so much more merciful to put them out of the misery ? A lethal injection and we can all move on :P

To be honest, if someone would kill one of my family, the best punishment ever IMO would be to let me kill them and walk unharmed by law.



Really what's the point ? Now you going to tell me that they are irresponsible ? Unfortunately, in the vast majority of cases they are.

If someone murdered a family member of yours, and you sought vendetta/vengence/revenge/etc... I wouldn't blame you. Codifying that as law has been done, and it's abused... see dueling. I'm pointing out something contrary: on one hand, killing a killer works for me, but holding them in limbo with their death looming is torture. Execution: nasty, but very human. The wait for execution, all the way to be strapped down: inhuman, cruel and unusual.

There is no way, within our legal framework, to allow you to seek legal revenge through reciprocal homicide. If that cannot be reconciled with the cruel nature of the death penalty (to be distinguished from simply "death" or "killing") means that we shouldn't allow it in our society. I would rather cloth and cage such people than have them suffer what amounts to psychological torture... unless it was my family member. The thing is, being a victim doesn't give you the right to violate or dictate law, so you have to ask yourself: do you prefer a country where revenge killings are dissalllowed, but you have myriad legal options, protections, and societal structure... or do you trade that in for vengeance?

In addition, let me be clear, killing takes a toll on the killer unless they're psychotic, or a sociopath, and while I'm an atheist I believe there is something to be said for the concept of mercy. Mercy may be a scant thing (living in a cage for life is rough), but in the spirit of "doing unto others..." it has a place.

I'm not claiming that these things are absolutes, they are my view, but I see value in them. There is no tangible benefit in killing someone who is harmless once incarcerated, so why take that step for the sake of a satisfaction you might feel is hollow once experienced? Maybe it's better to live in a world where hunting someone down and killing them in the name of revenge carries a price; it's murder and treated as such. I'm a moral relativist, so I don't claim a high-ground, just the ground that when all factors are accounted for, I wish to be on.

Finally, evidence mounts that sociopaths and many other career criminals, killers, rapists, pedophiles et al... do not "fire on all cylinders". fMRI anf PETscans are telling here, and so I pose this to you: Your mother is murdered by a psychopath, and a treatment exists to restore (or create) the neurological machinery that they need to be a functional person who doesn't kill on impulse. You still want them dead, sure, but can you justify that morally?

 

[DanP]

Finally, evidence mounts that sociopaths and many other career criminals, killers, rapists, pedophiles et al... do not "fire on all cylinders". fMRI anf PETscans are telling here, and so I pose this to you: Your mother is murdered by a psychopath, and a treatment exists to restore (or create) the neurological machinery that they need to be a functional person who doesn't kill on impulse. You still want them dead, sure, but can you justify that morally?

I know that there is mounting evidence of some variations in how PFC works in those individuals.

I don't need a moral justification to have them legally killed in such a case. That's my point. We are losing the sight of the forest because of the trees. What is needed is a punishment fit for the deed. Not empty philosophy. Not morals. And is very fit to kill someone who has killed. An eye for an eye works for me.

But besides, let me ask you something. You are born with sociopathic tendecies. Would you undergo voluntarily a procedure designed to change the very core of your being ? The self, what defines you ? I have the feeling that you won't find too many volunteers for such a procedure.

 

[turbo]

Please! The OP made a case for swift executions in "cut and dried" cases. It has been proven again and again that there are lots of innocent convicts on death row. Our criminal justice system is not infallible. DNA evidence has acquitted lots of "guilty" convicts. Surely, the scientists on this forum should support the application of science in the pursuit of justice and not place undue haste and emotion ahead of truth.

As I mentioned once before, Shirley Sherrod's father was killed by a white farmer. He was shot in the back before 3 eye-witnesses, but the all-white grand jury refused to indict the murderer. Criminal justice is not blind to race, social position, wealth, or other factors. Got a crime? The DA and his/her staff has a suspect that they "like" for it with or without supporting evidence.

 

[vela]

Please! The OP made a case for swift executions in "cut and dried" cases. It has been proven again and again that there are lots of innocent convicts on death row. Our criminal justice system is not infallible. DNA evidence has acquitted lots of "guilty" convicts. Surely, the scientists on this forum should support the application of science in the pursuit of justice and not place undue haste and emotion ahead of truth.

I agree, and not only because of the very real possibility of mistakes but because of the likelihood for abuse by those in power. Giving the government the legal power to kill is just plain idiotic.

 

[nismaratwork]

I agree, and not only because of the very real possibility of mistakes but because of the likelihood for abuse by those in power. Giving the government the legal power to kill is just plain idiotic.

That's a concrete reason I can get behind.

DanP: You're talking about a philosophy when you invoke the concept of fitting punishment. Murder is a simple and old deed, and without even the semblance of structure to moderate society you have a world that isn't fit to live in.

Your last point is telling, and very clear: my answer is give them a choice: Death or indefinite incarceration (depending), or the death of the self that currently exists. That seems fair, and remember that you aren't removing who they are, you're actually adding to it. I'm not talking about some sci-fi "mindwipe" which I see as the same as execution, but a restoration of executive function to moderate the existing personality.

There is also a great difference between having anti-social tendencies, and being a sociopath... one could be the result of trauma, the latter is a mechanical deficit. Asking if they should be "fixed" is a bit like asking if someone with autism should be "cured" if such were possible; it's not something you present as an option. Yes, there would probably be a period of nightmarish results similar to psychosurgeries of the past, but it still beats executing people.

 

[Evo]

Please! The OP made a case for swift executions in "cut and dried" cases.

And only in those cases. This would actually drastically reduce the number of people sentenced to death.

How many cases have every base covered, including the admission of guilt that can't be disputed? Sure, people have falsely confessed, but their confessions were dismissed because they didn't know all of the facts.

 

[Gokul43201]

How many cases have every base covered, including the admission of guilt that can't be disputed? Sure, people have falsely confessed, but their confessions were dismissed because they didn't know all of the facts.

Not sure what you mean by the last bit. But I definitely recall there being cases of people convicted on the basis of their confessions and later found innocent: Edgar Garrett comes to mind.

See also, the highly cited paper by Leo and Ofshe, "The consequences of false confessions: deprivations of liberty and miscarriages of justice in the age of psychological interrogation", Jour. Crim. Law & Criminology (1998): http://faculty.law.wayne.edu/moran/LeoOfshe.htm

 

[DanP]

DanP: You're talking about a philosophy when you invoke the concept of fitting punishment.

I am more inclined to think I am talking politics. Fitting punishment is not an universal constant
which has to be discovered by science or philosophized. It is the result of social and political negotiations.

Murder is a simple and old deed, and without even the semblance of structure to moderate society you have a world that isn't fit to live in.

We have already the structure. Now we should watch ourselves not to become too soft and too lenient. Our infatuation with the "sacred" nature of human life is costing valuable lives. Rapists released early from prison only to rape again, drunk drivers who killed then after serving they would jump in a car again, drinking and driving, killers getting out on bails, running away and killing.

Your last point is telling, and very clear: my answer is give them a choice: Death or indefinite incarceration (depending), or the death of the self that currently exists.

I am not talking of a post crime choice. If such a "treatment" exist, would you take before committing any offense ? The post crime treatment has no value. Before it may have helped and prevent loss of life. Making the choice after the crime, when your options are limited and your hand forced by the perspective of the punishment, it's just adding offense to injury. Most humans would doit if cornered and presented with a darker alternative. If for nothing, to save their miserable life. Regardless of the outcome of the treatment, the criminal deed remains. Justice must be done. He must pay. The killer must be killed.

 

[dudleysharp]

Death Penalty - deserved sanction for some crimes

For some crimes, it seems the death penalty is not punishment enough. I am for the death penalty in cases, such as this, where there is no question of guilt.

Would you agree or disagree with the death penalty in a case such as this?

I know this case well and am friends with the parents of the two girls.

I supported the executions as a consequence of these crimes.

Disclosure: I am a pro death penalty expert who was once opposed to the death penalty.

 

[dudleysharp]

Do you think there is a question as to guilt in this case? If yes, what is the doubt?

There are no doubts as to guilt in this case. None.

 

[dudleysharp]

deterrence review

Execution should be a deterent for others as well as a punishment. But if it isn't swift, then the deterent aspect is lost.

No, it is not.

The foundation for deterrence is the execution, itself, not any time between sentencing and the execution.

The various studies, since 2000, having slightly different protocols, different data sets and other variables, finds that from 3-28 murders are deterred per execution.

Some also find that just the presence of a death penalty law, by itself, deters some.

Some also find, that lessening the time between sentnece and execution would also enahnce deterrence. I think that makes sense, as well.

25 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation,
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm

 

[dudleysharp]

Not so fast

People who commit crimes have at least one of two beliefs that people who do not commit crimes don't have. They are:

1. They won't get caught.
2. They are justified in committing the crime.

If they hold the first belief, then it doesn't matter what the punishment is, it is ineffective in deterring the crime.

Many people who hold the second belief aren't concerned whether they'll be caught or not. People in this category may include the mentally ill or those involved in civil disobedience.

I suspect that many criminals hold both beliefs, justifying in their own minds their reasons for committing the crime. Perhaps what is hardest to understand for those who don't commit crimes is that the deterrents which seem logical and effective to them are not so for the criminal.

I think some criminals hold those beliefs, but not all.

A deterrent, to be effective, only needs to deters some.

All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.

Another consideration.

Both reason and the evidence support that the potential for negative consequences does affect criminal behavior.

Criminals who try to conceal their crime do so for only one reason -- fear of punishment. Likely, more than 99% of all criminals, including capital murderers, act in such a fashion. Fear of capture does not exist without an expectation of punishment.

This doesn't mean that they sit down before every crime, most crimes or even their first crime, and contemplate a cost to benefit analysis of a criminal action. Weighing negative consequences may be conscious or subconscious, thoughtful or instinctive. And we instinctively know the potential negative consequences of some actions. Even pathetically stupid or irrational criminals will demonstrate such obvious efforts to avoid detection. And there is only one reason for that -- fear of punishment.

When dealing with less marginalized personalities, those who choose not to murder, such is a more reasoned group. It would be illogical to assume that a more reasoned group would be less responsive to the potential for negative consequences. Therefore, it would be illogical to assume that some potential murderers were not additionally deterred by the more severe punishment of execution.

As legal writer and death penalty critic Stuart Taylor observes: "All criminal penalties are based on the incontestable theory that most (or at least many) criminals are somewhat rational actors who try so hard not to get caught because they would prefer not to be imprisoned. And most are even keener about staying alive than about avoiding incarceration."

Based upon the overwhelming evidence that criminals do respond to the potential of negative consequences, reason supports that executions deter and that they are an enhanced deterrent over lesser punishments.

 

[dudleysharp]

Punishments = Less crime?

Is there less serious crime in countries that have severe punishments for the crime?

I don't mean crazy punishment that does not match the crime, like the recent taliban sanctioned stoning to death of an adulterous couple, without legal process and carried out by a group of crazed villagers.

There are varying rates of crime, when looking at all criminal justice protocols, because there are many factors, often culturally related, which have a major effect of crime rates.

The easy question is this:

Would crime rates go up if 1) there were no criminal sanctions or 2) we dramatically reduced sanctions for all crimes.

I think the answer to both is yes.

Please review, This may clear the air a bit.

"Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html

 

[dudleysharp]

Appeals and costs

In my opinion, to deny someone the right to appeal would be a violation of due process. These appeals are quite costly to the state and thus millions aren't actually saved by executing criminals. Moreover, hasty executions would only increase the likelihood that an innocent person will be executed.

Access to appeals are constitutionally required and should be. Inmates may waive appeals if they so desire. Some do.

Often, in plea bargains, inmates must waive appeals when accepting a plea deal. It is voluntary, therefore constitutional.

I have found many of the cost studies to be blatanly inaccurate. Please review:

"Death Penalty Cost Studies: Saving Costs over LWOP"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2010/03/21/death-penalty-cost-studies-saving-costs-over-lwop.aspx

The abuse of appeals is a problem but, has generally, been overcome in Virginia, wherein appeals take about 6 years prior to execution.

 

[dudleysharp]

punishment and deterence

punishment, not deterrence.

I think Dan is correct.

The foundation for sanction has to be a just and appropriate punishment for the crime commited.

But, a positive outcome of that punishment is that it deters others.

 

[dudleysharp]

Justice and deterrence

But what purpose does punishment serve if not deterrence?

It serves justice, an outcome of which is deterence.

 

[dudleysharp]

Revenge vs justice

I get it, simple revenge.

No, it is morally, quite simple to distinguish between revenge and justice.

In the context of the death penalty (could be any sanction):

"The Death Penalty: Neither Hatred nor Revenge"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/20/the-death-penalty-neither-hatred-nor-revenge.aspx

 

[dudleysharp]

Cut and dried, of course, do exist

Evidence can be faked, witnesses can make mistakes or have a bias, and defendants have even been known to admit to a crime that they didn't commit - most often in hopes of cutting deal for a reduced sentence. There is no such thing as "cut and dried".

Yes, there is and many of them.

I agree to all of your examples - they have all happened, just as cut and dried cases happen, all the time, where evidence is solid, witness were 100% correct and the criminal has confessed to the crime that they did commit.

 

[dudleysharp]

Innocence vs guilt

There have been a spate of well-documented releases of innocent people from death row in recent years thanks to DNA evidence. Swift executions would have meant even more grave injustices than wrongful imprisonment.

Bear in mind that Shirley Sherrod's father was shot in the back by a white farmer when she was just 17, and the all-white GA jury didn't see that murder as rising to the level of a crime. We have come a long way since the Jim Crow days, but there is still plenty of racial injustice to go around.

Make sure to fact check the innocence claims:

1) "The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

2) "The Innocent Executed: Deception & Death Penalty Opponents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/08/the-innocent-executed-deception--death-penalty-opponents--draft.aspx

3) The 130 (now 139) death row "innocents" scam
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/04/fact-checking-issues-on-innocence-and-the-death-penalty.aspx

7) "Cameron Todd Willingham: Another Media Meltdown", A Collection of Articles
http://homicidesurvivors.com/categories/Cameron%20Todd%20Willingham.aspx

8) "A Death Penalty Red Herring: The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection", Lester Jackson Ph.D.,
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102909A

 

[dudleysharp]

Racial injustice

Bear in mind that Shirley Sherrod's father was shot in the back by a white farmer when she was just 17, and the all-white GA jury didn't see that murder as rising to the level of a crime. We have come a long way since the Jim Crow days, but there is still plenty of racial injustice to go around.

I think racial injustice, or what I call otherism, will always exist, simply because it has always been part of the bad side of human experience.

But, things are getting better, in some locations.

"Death Penalty Sentencing: No Systemic Bias"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-sentencing-no-systemic.html

 

[dudleysharp]

which suggests that the purpose of retributive punishment may be for reform or deterrence.

Again, punishment has no deterrence for one who does not believe he will be caught nor does punishment reform those who believe they were justified in committing their act.

I think it logical to find that retributive justice does have and inescapable reformative and deterrent effect, at least for some.

The deterrence can be a product of a thoughtful or instinctive process, conscious or subconscious, so a belief system may or may not come into play.

All active or prospective criminals do consider the probability of being caught and the sanction to come, that is why most of them to not rob police station of commit rapes in broad daylight while being videotaped by the toy store surveillance camera. Their behavior is effected to some degree and not infrequently to the point of not committing a crime.

 

[dudleysharp]

The most civilized death penalty

Ironic you say that and support the death penalty, a punishment that is inherently inhuman and degrading and thus totally incompatible with the norms of civilised behaviour, at the same time.

Or, it is more civilized to have it.

7. C. S. Lewis: "According to the Humanitarian theory, to punish a man because he deserves it, and as much as he deserves, is mere revenge, and, therefore, barbarous and immoral. It is maintained that the only legitimate motives for punishing are the desire to deter others by example or to mend the criminal. "

"I believe that the “Humanity” which it claims is a dangerous illusion and disguises the possibility of cruelty and injustice without end. I urge a return to the traditional or Retributive theory not solely, not even primarily, in the interests of society, but in the interests of the criminal."

"The reason is this. The Humanitarian theory removes from Punishment the concept of Desert. But the concept of Desert is the only connecting link between punishment and justice. It is only as deserved or undeserved that a sentence can be just or unjust."

"My contention is that this (Humanitarian) doctrine, merciful though it appears, really means that each one of us, from the moment he breaks the law, is deprived of the rights of a human being."

"Thus when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him or deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether . . .".

" . . . in the process of giving him what he deserved you set an example to others. But take away desert and the whole morality of the punishment disappears. Why, in Heaven’s name, am I to be sacrificed to the good of society in this way?—unless, of course, I deserve it. "

"The punishment of an innocent, that is , an undeserving, man is wicked only if we grant the traditional view that righteous punishment means deserved punishment."

"But to be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because we ‘ought to have known better’, is to be treated as a human person made in God’s image."

"This is why I think it essential to oppose the Humanitarian theory of punishment, root and branch, wherever we encounter it. It carries on its front a semblance of mercy which is wholly false. "

" . . . the Humanitarian theory wants simply to abolish Justice and substitute Mercy for it. Mercy, detached from Justice, grows unmerciful. " The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment C.S. Lewis

8) C. S. Lewis: "Some enlightened people would like to banish all conceptions of retribution or desert from their theory of punishment and place its value wholly in the deterrence of others or the reform of the criminal himself. They do not see that by so doing they render all punishment unjust. What can be more immoral than to inflict suffering on me for the sake of deterring others if I do not deserve it? And if I do deserve it, you are admitting the claims of retribution. " "The Complete C.S. Lewis", Signature Classics, The Problem of Pain, P407, Harper Collins, 2002

 

[dudleysharp]

Citing bad authority is not authoritative

It has been very clearly defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (google it). Note the word universal.

It's hard to be tolerant when they have no respect for human rights...

"The Death Penalty: Not a Human Rights Violation"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/20/the-death-penalty-not-a-human-rights-violation.aspx

 

[dudleysharp]

Justice, not protection

No, as I said above in post #12 society needs to be protected from dangerous people. Although rehabilitation is a noble goal we still are far from realizing it.

The moral purpose of sanction is that criminals deserve it for the crimes they have committed. Protection is a secondary and necesary by product of that purpose.

The death penalty, as all other criminal sanctions, are given because they are just and deserved.

 

[arildno]

But the concept of Desert is the only connecting link between punishment and justice. It is only as deserved or undeserved that a sentence can be just or unjust."

Personally, I'd keep to the maxim of Roman law, "to each his due", without accepting the horrid duenesses the Romans thought fit to impose.

Essentially, the criminal act itself initiates a double loss, a loss for the victim, and a loss in legal status for the criminal, so that some actions that would be a violation of a non-criminal's rights, are NOT the violation of the criminal's rights, since he possesses fewer rights, due to performing the criminal action.

This, of course, is in the abstract, jurisprudence must figure out precisely how, and in what manner, rights are lost (and thus, what actions can be called just punishments).

There is never a violation of a criminal's rights in the just punishment, he just has fewer such rights than non-criminals.

 

[dudleysharp]

passion and deterrence

The deterrence effect of death sentences is probably minimal, just because murder tends to be a crime of passion more than rational calculation, and even when it is not, like in this case, it's often perpetrated by nihilistic gang bangers that don't expect to live past 25 anyway and don't particularly care if they're executed (you don't join a violent gang if you're afraid of getting killed).

In the US, when it comes to capital murders, most are of the more premeditated type.

Based upon some recent deterrence studies, even "heat of the moment" murders can be prevented by deterrence.

No matter how excited or enraged, most of us bring ourselves back from that abyss, to a more sensible approach. One reason for that is deterrence, either thoughtful or instinctive.

 

[arildno]

Quoting John Stuart Mill on the deterrence aspect of the death penalty for pre-meditated murder:

7) My hon. Friend says that it does not inspire terror, and that experience proves it to be a failure.

But the influence of a punishment is not to be estimated by its effect on hardened criminals. Those whose habitual way of life keeps them, so to speak, at all times within sight of the gallows, do grow to care less about it; as, to compare good things with bad, an old soldier is not much affected by the chance of dying in battle. I can afford to admit all that is often said about the indifference of professional criminals to the gallows. Though of that indifference one-third is probably bravado and another third confidence that they shall have the luck to escape, it is quite probable that the remaining third is real. But the efficacy of a punishment which acts principally through the imagination, is chiefly to be measured by the impression it makes on those who are still innocent; by the horror with which it surrounds the first promptings of guilt; the restraining influence it exercises over the beginning of the thought which, if indulged, would become a temptation; the check which it exerts over the graded declension towards the state--never suddenly attained--in which crime no longer revolts, and punishment no longer terrifies.

8) As for what is called the failure of death punishment, who is able to judge of that? We partly know who those are whom it has not deterred; but who is there who knows whom it has deterred, or how many human beings it has saved who would have lived to be murderers if that awful association had not been thrown round the idea of murder from their earliest infancy? Let us not forget that the most imposing fact loses its power over the imagination if it is made too cheap. When a punishment fit only for the most atrocious crimes is lavished on small offences until human feeling recoils from it, then, indeed, it ceases to intimidate, because it ceases to be believed in.

http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/course...th_penalty.htm

 

[dudleysharp]

all rights alienable

Some rights - human rights - are inalienable

Both morally and immorally, all rights are alienable.

See Hitler and Jesus.

Yes, I know, I am stretching your point, which is that some rights have been established, morally, as inalienable, even if immorally, they are taken away.

I simply do not find that such has ever been established.

Both freedom and life may be taken away for moral reasons. There are many examples, such as just incarceration, killing in self defense or a just war, or execution of our worse criminals.

 

[dudleysharp]

Justice vs deterrence

SO?
Deterrence does NOT constitute the justification for punishment!

Precisely.

Justice does and a secondary benefit of just sanction is deterrence.