The Death Penalty

Here's a viewpoint you probably don't see very often. Am I for the death penalty- well the answer is yes and no. I would tend to be against it, but for very different reasons then the bleeding heart liberals have. Okay here's what I think: Why let some vile criminal leave this world semi peacefully when we can just allow them to rot away in jail. Jail seems a helluva lot worse to me then dying. In fact I personally would rather die then go to jail. I think that a lot of criminals would probably rather be dead too. Make those who commit awful crimes such as rape and murder live a miserable life in jail. Think about it, how much "punishment" is (for example) Ted Bundy facing now? He's dead- he's in peace and the victims families are still living with the pain. I read an article in L.A.Times about some really wicked cop killer who, during his sentencing turned to the victims family and said "I'd do it again" then he smiled. What an awful individual! Anyway this guys punishment is great- He is locked down 23 1/2 hours per day in a cell with just a toilet that he can't even flush himself (he was reportedly flushing notes to other inmates, don't ask how, I don't know that works but thats what the article said). He has no windows or contact with ANYTHING- not even books. He just has four walls to stare at, and if my memory serves correct he doesn't even have a pillow. Now thats justice! Imagine living out your life that way- this guy has to, and he is in his late 20's so he's got lots of time to drive himself completely mad.

So anyway, tell me what do you think is a harsher punishment, something like that or being dead?


Kris

Many criminals don't mind prison as much as you would. Particularly once they get there and get used to it. If the death penalty were such a "slap on the wrist" fewer guilty people would appeal so vigorously to save their lives. Sure some on death row give up, but the prospect of facing execution with an unknown condition afterwards is often scarier than the life known in prison. (I am assuming guilt here, the reliability of convictions is another topic.)


My guess is that the conditions that one inmate is living in are not put in place for punishment for his crime but for his prison disciplinary problems. Death row conditions can be harsh, as can conditions in max units, but not that harsh on a permanent basis typically. He will get things back when he calms down. I don't know about notes, but I have heard that inmates in some jails and prisons can communicate through the plumbing in the toilets. It involves talking when the toilets are flushed I think, not fishing notes out. A lot of guys will flood their cells by clogging the toilet and flushing it repeatedly though. This is why many new jail toilets have Al Bundy power flush capability. I have it on good authority that the toilets in our local jail can easily flush sheets and blankets. But for people who flood cells, there are cells where the toilet (sometimes a grate on the floor for these cells) is flushed from outside.


I've seen a lot of guys get sent off to prison and have always been a bit surprised that they don't fight or go crazy in court when they get a big sentence. But they generally don't. Even young guys getting a life sentence just seem to accept it. (Child molesters whine the most I have observed, but they don't go nuts.) Many of the people getting the big sentences have been there before though and have adjusted to prison life. And their lives on the street were often pretty bad. Prison may not be very good, but it is a life.

i dont see why we need to support the person for so long. after a ten year prison sentence it may as well be the death penalty as few will come out as decent people.

however after you killed someone it wouldnt be very nice to find out later that they were innocent would it.

"he was reportedly flushing notes to other inmates"


I assume one of the notes must have said, "aren't you tired of this sh*t?"

I think you're correct that most people fear the death penalty more than prison conditions. I'm not a hardened criminal (others's opinion of me to the contrary), but I think I would prefer solitary in the worst conditions on the planet than the death penalty.


One objection some people have to life imprisonment, as opposed to execution, is the cost (see Ray Zee). We should make the lifers work to support themselves. I am opposed to the death penalty, but I see no reason why the bad people shouldn't contribute towards their support.

Andy,


Actually it is well documented that millions would be saved by the states and the federal gov't if the death penalty was abolished. The cost of trying a death penalty case alone is 2-3 times as expensive than a non-capital case and that difference is rarely made-up, even if a prisoner lives an average life span in prison. You can find tons of information about this online. I will provide one link below.


Unfortunately the misperception that killing people costs more is very widespread. As if just the killing was not bad enough.


KJS

I may be simplistic, but what gives us the right to take the life of another person, no matter how wicked they are?

I think both sides in the death penalty debate should stay away from the cost issue. This is because deciding whether to put someone to death ought not be made on the basis of cost. We could put people to death cheaply if we decided to get rid of various protections for defendants. I get annoyed at criminal defense attorneys who play the cost card in sentencing hearings (not capital case hearings where I suppose anything goes.); they argue ,"well it will cost a lot to lock up my guy..." The problem is that a surefire way to cut costs is to adopt the Chinese system. No real trial and your family pays for the bullet and we auction your organs. The costs in imposing the death penalty have come because people sticking up for defendants' rights have made the system a costly one. I think it is in bad form to then argue that because of the costs imposed by death penalty opponents we should not have the death penalty. However, as a political strategy the cost issue is probably a good weapon, but not on its own. I think many states will abolish the death penalty and the cost issue will be used as a ploy by conservatives to vote to get rid of it in the state legislatures. They will badmouth the liberal groups but still vote against the death penalty. But what will make them vote against it is the scandals where innocent people are put to death. It takes a lot of guts to vote against the death penalty on the merits. In places like Illinois where there has been a huge scandal it is easier. But in states without major scandals the conservative lawmakers with doubts will need another reason. The cost issue will give them one. I think the death penalty will be phased out in America. Ideally we would decide the issue based on ideas of justice and our moral philosophy. But I doubt we will decide such an important issue by looking at the most important aspects of it.:-)

That's the complicated question, not the simplistic one. See my (too) long post above.

I agree with you (or what you seem to be implying). If taking a life is such an egregious act that it requires the maximum punishment our society exacts, then how can it justify doing the exact same thing it is punishing?

I live in New Mexico and recently I posted about an execution of a child rapist and murderer in New Mexico. There had been a lapse of 41 years since the last execution. Curiously he wanted to get it over with so I believe what you say has merit.


However, I think the real issue regarding the death penalty is whether or not is saves lives i.e. is it a deterrent to murder. I'll leave it to those who are more knowledgeable to determine whether or not it does save lives but murder rates have declined since the death penalty was reinstituted. I've posted this before so forgive my redundancy. There is no doubt in my mind that innocent people have been put to death and will be put to death. However, if the death penalty saves a substantially greater number of lives than those that are wrongfully executed then I would think that the death penalty is worthwhile. For example if 15 innocent people are put to death each year but 3000 less people are murdered then I would think you could make the argument that the death penalty is a worthwhile form of punishment for murder. If not then I think we ought to abolish it asap.

1) Do we have a moral right to take another human life? I think we do if it is in self-defense or defense of others. Thus psychopathic serial killers (which are known to be incorrigible and cannot be rehabilitated), may be killed simply to protect everyone else. However for mere criminals or someone who has committed a single murder, I don't quite feel that we have that right, morally speaking.


2) Do we want to impose punishments which are likely at times to be implemented in error or unfairly? Well, sometimes we have to. However if these are not irrevocable punishments such as the death penalty, they can later be redressed to some extent if discovered. Irrevocable punishments should constitute a separate category, and should be implemented far less routinely.


3) How much power do we want the government to have over the individual? In times of a fairly benign and democratic government, governmental authority is less likely to be horribly abused as in times when the government is not so laid back (for instance in martial law during an actual war on homeland soil). So I think we need to keep this in mind when giving the government powers. In other words our government may not always have the degree of tolerance or wisdom it has today, but the powers we give it now will probably remain.


4) How much faith do we have in other people to implement the death penalty wisely and fairly? Not enough for my liking, at all. Besides the issue of money = better defense in court, many jurors simply aren't all that smart and may be incapable of performing a truly logical analysis. They may have prejudices which influence their decision. I really don't think people on average are capable of fairly weighing any but the most clearcut capital cases.


So all of this leads me to believe that the death penalty is best relegated to a preventive measure as protection for society as a whole, and not as a punishment. Basically, just serial killers and perhaps a few others. Notice that this is in keeping with my view that al Qaida who are captured in this war should be killed, because while they do not fit the exact definition of psychopathic serial killers, their fanatical religious belief in killing us and intent to do so, combined with their actions, is enough in my mind to place them in the same sort of category where they will pose a constant and never-ending danger--their elimination would simpy be protection for the rest of us, their avowed targets and intended victims.

Tom brings up a valid consideration here. While I don't think it is so cut and dry as to say that the death penalty would be a worthwhile punishment and good idea if it merely saves a few lives on balance, if it saves a great many lives on balance then this is worthy of serious consideration. However there are also the intangible aspects such as quality of life, degree of freedom, how much power do we want the state to have over individuals, etc...and these cannot be discarded without consideration. For instance take the seatbelt and helmet laws (not intended as an analogy but just to illustrate a point). These laws have provoked much debate. Seatbelt laws surely save lives but many feel that the gov't. should not have the power to enforce them. For that matter, there are probably many hypothetical laws we could concoct that would save lives but the resulting trade-offs in convenience, personal liberty or civil rights would not seem worthwhile. So I'm not saying Tom's point is wrong, just that there are many subtle yet important considerations that should be weighed even if the statistics show that the deterrent value of the death penalty saves lives in aggregate (and I've read it both ways; some sources say it does while others say it does not or even may have a bit of a reverse effect, somewhat akin to violence on television).

This is one reason why I think the death penalty should be relegated almost exclusively to cases such as serial killers who are inherently incorrigible...just as we put rabid dogs down, these psychos are too dangerous to be allowed to live...no punishment needed or intended, just sensible preventive action in these cases.

Look it at this way, if one could prove or argue convincingly that the death penalty DID NOT save a substantial number of lives then I think it's easy to shoot down the pro death penalty arguments. Yes we'd have to define substantial.


I'm fairly certain that the death penalty does not result in a substantial saving of lives but I could be convinced otherwise.

I agree with you fully. I only brought it up because Andy stated a too often repeated argument for the death penalty based on cost. I hate it that so much of our socio-political debate centers around cost. I guess that is how people judge things in our capitalist society. A pretty pathetic statement, IMO.


KJS

Can't that same preventive action be achieved without killing?


KJS

Yes, good clarification.


To clarify my points too, all I'm really saying in the above post is that all factors need to be weighed, both the statistical as well as the intangible.

I'll reiterate my opinion from that thread too:


Only if one believes that those who commit capital crimes are considering the fact that they face death can this deterrent achieve its desired effect. I don't think that said people are thinking of getting caught when perpertrating said crimes so I think the deterrent argument is bunk.


KJS

Don't these guys pose some danger to other prisoners, and don't some prisoners or asylum inmates escape from time to time? Why should others have to bear that risk? These psychos have become so permanently mentally deranged that they have almost become inhuman anyway...better to put them out of their misery and let others live in peace without them. I really think the rabid dog analogy is not too far off.

I think it probably is too but what do the statistics infer?

I agree. I can't imagine someone deciding not to kill someone because the state he is in enforces the death penalty, or be more inclined to kill someone because it doesn't.


We have to be careful in assuming a simple cause and effect relationship between two statistics. Murders might well be down since states began reinstituting death penalties, but there is no necessary correlation between these two facts. I remember when I lived in New York there was a police strike and everyone was amazed that crime actually went down when the police weren't on duty. Well of course it went down, there was no one available to arrest criminals.

Sam Berkowitz (son of sam, the infamous New York serial killer) once wrote in childlike handwriting "I am very very sick." In the context of the book and perhaps with a picture he had drawn, it sounded like a sick child's plea for help. But serial killers are considered insusceptible to rehab...they can never get better.


I believe these guys live in constant psychological anguish, terrible pain and confusion they will have no relief from, until death. There is no cure. I believe that besides protecting society by humanely executing psychopathic serial killers, we would actually be giving them release from their suffering. I don't think they should be punished any more than a rabid dog should be punished...they're just too sick, and too dangerous to be allowed to live. It's time they left this world, that's all I'm saying.

Very thought-provoking post.


1) If someone is coming at you right now to kill you, I agree you have the right to self-defense. But if we can put a serail killer away for life, we can protect society without resorting to the same crime he commits.


2) I don't think the argument that a punishment may be applied in error or may not be applied fairly is a good one. (And this despite the fact that I am opposed to the death penalty.) It is an argument for improving the system so that the punishment is not applied in error or unfairly. A friend of mine was opposed to the Equal Rights Amendment because she didn't want her daughter to be drafted. To me, this is a reason to be against the draft, not against the Equal Rights Amendment.


3) Very good point. Even governments that treat their citizesn well most of the time do some terrible things under pressure. And there is plenty of evidence that governments that treat their own citizens well often treat citizens of others countries terribly.


4) Again I think this is an argument for improving the system, not for or against capital punishment. I know lots of people who are very smart about some things and not so smart about others. I wonder what our lawyer posters think about juries and their wisdom or lack thereof.


I happen to agree with your assessment of Bin Laden and his gang, but they also have the same assessment of us.

If memory serves me correctly the counter arguement regarding decreasing murder rates is that the population base of those who commit the most murders (males between 18 and 27) has declined.


There COULD be a correlation between murder rates and the death penalty however. I'm not aware of any studies (there must be some) that statistically make an inference one way or the other.

By the way, I brought up the argument as one used by "other people." I agree it's disgusting. I'm glad to discover it is also spurious.


Another thing I think is disgusting is that among the "special circumstances" used in deciding to apply the death penalty, at least here in California, is if you kill a police officer. Since when did a police officer's life become more important than a teacher, or a lawyer, or a prostitute, or a janitor?

The decision-making process jurors use can be scary. I have talked to jurors after various cases and have been shocked sometimes at what they say. Even when the evidence is clear-cut they might decide the correct way for a bizarre reason. Some jurors are very good and diligent. Some are nuts. I will say that the juries I have had out on murder cases have worked very hard to make a good decision. I have seen them come back with a verdict looking like they had gone through combat. Saw one where the bailiffs thought they might get violent in the jury room and made people take a break. They had the murder weapon in evidence and might have had ammo for it.:-)

I don't think we can fully protect others from psychopathic serial killers by life imprisonment. They could kill in prison, in an asylum, or they might escape, and I'm afraid I just don't see any value in keeping them alive. Besides, as I pointed out in a post above, they are in psychological torment which will never end until their death...sometimes it's just time for some to leave this world and I think this applies to serial killers. I don't see why we need to take the moral question of do we have the right to take life to this extreme. We would be doing everyone a favor by putting them out of their misery as quickly and humanely as possible.

There's a problem with general deterrence (the effect on other members of society who might commit the same crime) and that is looking at general deterrence alone will lead to the imposition of unjust punishments. The death penalty for posession of one joint is given in Singapore. They don't have a problem with drugs. But they execute 12 year olds. In the case of the death penalty, you are choosing to execute somebody to serve other needs. This adds a question to the moral debate. If we decide it is OK to kill someone in certain circumstances, is it moral to do so because it might teach someone else a lesson?


Clearly the existence of laws has a deterrent effect. There is nothing wrong with that. But the people who can be deterred will be deterred by punishments within a given range. If murder were a $50 fine there would be no deterrence. But I doubt there is much difference in general deterrence between life without and death by lethal injection. Also, since only the worst murderers get the death penalty, it is unlikely that the deterrent effect on that class of people is too great. What I am saying is that we have to decide whether a given punishment is just before we look at its deterrent effect. If a just punishment has a deterrent effect, great. But the converse is not true; having a deterrent effect does not make a punishment just.

The statutory aggravating factor probably talks about killing officers in the course of their duties or because of the exercise of their duties, i.e. killing the cop who put you away while he's off-duty. I think it's an appropriate aggravator because of the fact cops do the dirty work of society. They exercise only the powers citizens have, but don't have the choice of running away.

I agree but I think many people would argue that capital punishment is just. I don't think we can dismiss arguments regarding it's detterent effect without examining what it's deterrent effect really is. My suspicions are, like yours, that it has little effect but I really don't know nor could I convince someone persuasively at this point that it doesn't.

Andy,


I didn't think you believed the argument for a second. Your post was just the opening I needed to attack it. I'm with you on the cop thing too. That one is especially aggravating considering the fact that cops kill people under all kinds of questionable circumstances and very very rarely get much more than a slap on the wrist.


KJS

M,


I think we just have a different view about the sanctity of human life. I choose not to make judgments about the sanctity of one over another, out of respect for the fact that I am not infallible and the cost of any mistakes I or my fellow man may make are too great. In addition, I believe the world would be a better place without any hierarchies related to the worthiness of one life versus another. That is a slippery slope that I think can easily be avoided by not killing anyone.


KJS

Your assumption about people being in torment until death cannot be proven and must therefore must be ignored. Reference to other people does not bolster its claim either.


KJS

I rather doubt that we have a different view about the sanctity of human life in general. In the very special case of psychopathic serial killers I don't see why their lives should be more highly valued than the scores of lives we might potentially save by simply eliminating them. Basically what I am saying here is that it is in self-defense that you would kill Jeffrey Dahmer if he attacked you personally in some lonely area, that it is in self-defense also that society would kill him as well. There's simply no way to absolutely ensure that these lunatics won't kill again unless they are gone. Valuing their lives as much as anyone else's is preposterous and I don't think we are in danger of sliding down a slippery slope here. At some point we have to be willing to value some lives over others, and when someone kills 20 hitchhikers, this person's existence is only a danger and a negative to everyone else. And yes, I'm saying that at that point their life is not only of less worth than yours, but that their life has a net negative value to everyone else as well. I don't think that's playing God, that's just being practical and using common sense.

M,


Its applying common sense to a problem that involves the loss of human life therefore it is akin to "playing God" is it not? My very basic point is this: you cannot possibly know whether this person will kill again, has an incurable mental illness, etc.. Therefore, you cannot dismiss the value of their life. You might be wrong. If you are you have killed a person under false pretenses and that person cannot be revived from death. Your judgment is final but fallible. A bad mix.


KJS

"My very basic point is this: you cannot possibly know whether this person will kill again, has an incurable mental illness, etc.. "


I don't believe that this is true. My understanding is that it is pretty much accepted amongst psychologists/psychiatrists that serial killers and child molesters can never really be cured, and that they will always be driven by uncontrollable urges at some point in the future to perform the act again. In other words, they always do it again, and they can't help doing it again.

You brought up the point that occaisionally innocent people are executed and of course this is the biggest injustice in the world- these people will have a fighting chance to still get out through appeals if they are kept alive. This is probably another good argument against the death penalty.

I saw something on the Discovery chennel about 7 convicts whos convictions were overturned when new (at the time) DNA technology proved their innocence. It would be tragic if they didn't get that shot at life in the real world again.


Kris

Yes you are probably right that many criminals would rather live then die. I guess if they are crazy enough to commit awful I don't know how we would figure out what they would prefer. To me it would be best if we somehow knew what they would rather have done- then do the opposite!

Cops are doing a job they chose to do. Lots of people are doing things that are important to society: firemen, teachers, bureaucrats, doctors, crossing guards, even lawyers. (Sorry, couldn't resist.) Each human life should have the same value. And I'm not so sure some cops don't choose to walk away. Certainly some of them look the other way for friends, or take kickbacks to allow illegal activity. I haven't seen any evidence to convince me they're a saintlier bunch than any other group; there is certainly a lot of evidence (especially here in L.A.) that they're not.

No doubt there are bad cops. But cops come across knife and gun wielding freaks more than crossing guards or doctors because they have to go to the problem. Yes they volunteer, but that does not mean they become fair game. Also, the mindset of someone who commits a first degree murder on someone who is a cop BECAUSE they are a cop is different from the mindset of the guy who kills the doctor because the doctor was screwing his wife. The mindset of the killer is important for the aggravating factor. I don't think that by having the aggravating factor the state is saying a cop's life is worth more in the abstract than a teacher. For instance, my guess is that the aggravating factor would not apply if an off duty cop were killed in a shooting spree along with a teacher and a janitor while they were in line for coffee. (assuming the guy didn't know he was a cop.) There is an aggravating factor (I assume California has this) for mass murder, but the cop killer one probably wouldn't apply depending on the wording.


Hate crime legislation brings up a similar idea. I am not a huge fan of many of these laws as I think existing laws cover most of the conduct the statutes try to reach. One argument against them is that you make certain classes of victims somehow "better" victims. However, I think it is appropriate to sentence people more harshly for violent crimes if they did it because of racist beliefs, whether you have a hate crime statute. This is because the mindset of the criminal is worse when he decides to beat someone nearly to death because he is a given race as opposed to getting into a fight at a bar over a woman. You have to look at both halves of the equation - victim and perpetrator.

One anecdote: in a law class at the community college where I teach, the students were discussing the deterrent effect of the death penalty. One student argued forcefully for its effectiveness. Another student raised his hand and said, "It wouldn't have stopped me."


The previous semester I had the same student in a Composition class; he wrote about the incident. Telling the story, he wrote that he returned to his truck and reached up to his head and felt blood. He said, "So I grabbed my gun and headed back to the bar." My marginal comment was "Great idea, there." Of course, I hadn't finished the paper yet, and I didn't suspect he had killed someone.


I learned to read papers through first before making marginal comments.


John

Deterrence obviously doesn't work.


I assume you give this kid A's all the time.

M,


I am responding philosophically. If there is a .00000000001% chance that one person will overcome these urges, even if they are the first person in the history of the world to do so, then killing that person would amount to taking a life under false pretenses. You are talking about probability; I am talking about absolutes. When the issue is a human life, it is my opinion that absolutes matter. That is why we treat people with cancer that have less than a 1% chance of survival--because no one can possible know if a miracle will happen. In the same way, no one can possibly know if a serial killer can be reformed. You can come close maybe, but it is impossible for the fallible human mind to know for sure. Therefore, killing this person is morally unjustifiable. That my belief.


KJS

But you too are weighing probablities here perhaps without realizing it. You are weighing the incredibly remote chance that a serial killer can stop and you are assigning it a value (by the way, in the history of all case studies to present, not one serial killer has been able to stop--the only possible exception may be the current suspect in the Green River killings and this possibility is being investigated currently. If found to be true it would require some reexamination of current known behavioral models that have to date been 100% accurate in this regard). You are then comparing this value with the possibility that a serial killer may escape or kill while in custody. I think the latter clearly weighs more heavily. However although you are saying you are talking about absolutes not probabilities, in giving the former more weight, you really are giving the latter less weight, wehether you realize it or not. You are choosing one over the other and perhaps the reason you are doing this is because the death of the former appears more concrete and tangible than the probability of the deaths of others in the latter.


To date no serial killer has been known to have been able to stop. I bet that the flip side cannot boast such a record--I'll bet that some serial killers have managed to escape custody and kill again or have killed while in custody. Furthermore with today's DNA matching technology it becomes far less likely that serial killers will be wrongly convicted. This helps prevent the specter of wrong convictions in these cases...while someone might be wrongly convicted in a single murder case (and that is one main reason I do not favor the death penalty in single murder cases), if they find the same guy's DNA with a whole series of discovered bodies and have other strong evidence that he killed at least one of them, I think that reduces the possibility of mistakes enormously. I mean why would all these bodies have traces of the same unique individual's DNA unless he were involved in the killings.

I hope the death penalty doesn't cease to exist before bin Laden gets his due. People (forgive the comparison) like him are an excellent reason why the death penalty should not be abolished.


Ted Bundy is another good example - he escaped from jail at least once, possibly more often, after being arrested for murder. If Colorado had had the death penalty back then, several young women (including a 12 year old girl) in Florida would not have died in agony. Whose life, or lives mattered more?


That's the only cost that concerns me - the lives that can't be taken away because the criminal is no longer around to kill...

testing, 123, testing