’)You should check out this New Yorker story on Cameron Todd Willingham. Especially if, like me, you are a death penalty supporter. The story didn’t change my mind on the issue – I think some crimes are just so heinous we must have the ultimate penalty.
That said, it should be really hard to execute someone. For instance, you shouldn’t be able to do so with just eyewitness evidence. Also, someone in a death penalty conviction should have every opportunity to appeal their case. This should be something that’s hard to do and states like Texas make it way too easy, relatively speaking.
Anyways, give the article a read.
I think some crimes are just so heinous we must have the ultimate penalty.
What if the convicted person didn’t do it?
Then they should be released.
See, and I think that killing someone gives them an easy out.
I think imprisonment for life, in solitary, without the slightest possibility of parole, is a much harsher and more appropriate sentence for the most heinous crimes than the sweet release of death.
Then they should be released.
And what if they’ve already been capitally punished?
I think imprisonment for life, in solitary, without the slightest possibility of parole, is a much harsher and more appropriate sentence for the most heinous crimes than the sweet release of death.
Indeed. But not only that. If somehow, it turns out that the convicted person did not actually do the crime and is determined to be innocent, then they can be freed. It’s still kinda hard to raise the dead. If and when we can freeze convicted killers in carbonoite, I’ll be for that.
Nah, too many innocent people got executed in the good old days. Even today innocent people are being absolved of heinous crimes, thanks to modern technology like DNA evidence.
Anyways, the worst crimes rarely have iron-clad evidence. Think serial killers, etc.
I’ve never understood this “ultimate punishment” talk. Everyone dies. It’s not that I wouldn’t be upset about knowing exactly when I’d die, but it all sort of washes out in the end.
If the justice system was perfect and always got the right guy, then the death penalty would be fine with me. But the justice system is far from perfect, mistakes are made, and a pervasive racism ensures that often innocent people are going to be locked up and murdered by the state.
It’s strange that people like me criticize the government for incompetence (under Bush especially, but also under Obama), as do many others, but then some people turn around and think the State actually has either the competence or moral authority to murder other human beings. I certainly don’t think the government deserves that type of power. And even if they did, the burden of proof would be to show that the always get the right guy 100% of the time.
We knew this isn’t the case. Never has been and never will be.
I have to say I am against the death penalty, but if you are going to do it, making it very exclusive is the only way to make it remotely fair.
As long as we have enough bedwetters and bullies who vote, there will be a death penalty. Here is a way that we can at least make the application of it a bit less grotesque:
-Death penalty only for cases of premeditated murder, not for the outrage du jour such as drug dealing or pedophilia.
-Death penalty only for cases where guilt is found to be not only “beyond a reasonable doubt” but “absolutely certain”. This will entail the presentation of at least two of the following three types of evidence: a) unequivocal physical evidence (solid fingerprint, DNA), b) multiple eyewitness evidence (including unambiguous photo/video evidence) c) confession that is confirmed by the defendant at least three times before three different authorities. Prosecutors must also prove opportunity. Conviction could still be one on a lesser standard, but without capital punishment.
-No appeals to a capital conviction. Execution will take place by midnight on the day the verdict is read.
There is one name that gives the perfect argument for a death penalty:
Joseph Druce.
Convicted of murder in Massachusetts, sentenced to life without parole (the state has no death penalty). While in prison, stalked a fellow prisoner, followed him into a cell, jammed the door shut (with a book that had JUST enough pages torn out to block the door), and beat the man to death before guards could force open the door.
For that, Druce was tried for first-degree murder, found guilty, and sentenced to life in prison.
Which he was already serving.
So, for killing another human being, Druce was given daily trips out of prison for his trial, after which he was put back in his cell.
This time Druce killed a pedophile priest. Next time, it could be a possibly innocent man like Willingham, or a guard.
Prisoners serving life without parole in non-death-penalty states are some of the freest people in the world — they can do pretty much whatever they want without fear of penalty, because they’re already living with the worst punishment that can be inflicted.
Indeed, if they do kill someone else, then they can expect daily trips out of prison for their trials — a nice little excursion and change of scenery.
I agree with Oliver that there needs to be extraordinary proof for a death penalty conviction, but there is no question about of Druce’s guilt.
Likewise, here in New Hampshire, we had two death penalty cases in recent years. One was a gang-banger who killed a cop; the other guy a wealthy businessman who thought a guy had stolen from him, so he hired some people to help him kill the alleged thief.
The gang-banger got the death penalty (which, naturally, is under appeal). The businessman got life. (The evidence against the gang-banger was considerably stronger, among other factors.)
J.
Anyways, the worst crimes rarely have iron-clad evidence. Think serial killers, etc.
But not always.
I think the state should be prevented from being able to provide you medical care, but should be given the power to take away your life.
Convicted of murder in Massachusetts, sentenced to life without parole (the state has no death penalty). While in prison, stalked a fellow prisoner, followed him into a cell, jammed the door shut (with a book that had JUST enough pages torn out to block the door), and beat the man to death before guards could force open the door.
For that, Druce was tried for first-degree murder, found guilty, and sentenced to life in prison.
Which he was already serving.
You know, if he were sentenced to socialized vengeance (sorry “death row”) the first time, the 2nd punishment STILL wouldn’t have had a point.
Prisoners serving life without parole in non-death-penalty states are some of the freest people in the world — they can do pretty much whatever they want without fear of penalty, because they’re already living with the worst punishment that can be inflicted.
First of all, what? Second of all, the same could be said about people awaiting SV. You can only kill someone once.
There is no “perfect” argument for the death penalty since we know for a fact that innocent people have been convicted and murdered by the state.
Yes, very bad people exist. But no, the justice system is not good enough to condemn these people without also murdering innocent ones on occasion.
Making policy decisions based on emotions is always a bad idea.
Jay Tea: There is one name that gives the perfect argument for a death penalty: Joseph Druce. Convicted of murder in Massachusetts, sentenced to life without parole (the state has no death penalty). While in prison, stalked a fellow prisoner [...] and beat the man to death.
Which is why I advocate permanent solitary confinement for the most heinous crimes. People who have committed premeditated murder and who know they have nothing left to lose should not be allowed to interact with other people. Put them in a room with one very high window, a bed and a bucket; three times a day, trade the bucket for a plate of food and a fresh bucket through a slot in the door. That’s it, for the rest of their lives. End of story.
That’s a scenario that is simultaneously fairer, cheaper, and more authentically punitive than the death penalty.
Apart from the particular issue of the death penalty (which I strongly oppose for reasons others have mentioned), I believe that incarceration itself, for any crime, should be the entirety of punishment for those to whom it is meted out. If you don’t follow the rules, you get a time-out; you get separated from society. That’s the consequence. Anything beyond that is unnecessary and unjust. There should be no occasion for you to deal with raping, or shanking, or gangbanging, or cruelty of any kind, regardless of what a bad character you may be. You’re there to do time — that’s it. Anyone who messes with anyone should get solitary, duration contingent upon the intensity of the mess; repeat offenders get longer stays in the hole, and possibly there’s a threshold beyond which you stay in solitary permanently.
Again, this seems to me to be a much fairer and more efficient way to handle incarceration. I’m interested to hear what others think of this.
It is a crime how much we love the death penalty in this state (Texas).
I’m sorry, but because of people like Cameron, I can only stomach the death penalty for serial killers, because those men and women are not going to change, no matter how much therapy they have. And only when the evidence is clear cut.
There are far too many possible innocents put to death and the actual sentencing is far more racially motivated than it should be.
If a person that is put to death for a crime is then found to be innocent after death, then all the people involved in the capital punishment should be punished in the similar way and be put to death. This would ensure due process.
OW: I think some crimes are just so heinous we must have the ultimate penalty.
Serious question: Why? What is achieved?
It isn’t punishment. The person killed certainly gets an easier out than living years or decades behind bars knowing they’ll never get out.
It isn’t deterrence. The death penalty doesn’t serve as an effective deterrent, so it won’t really stop others from committing crimes. Particularly those I imagine you consider “so heinous”. (Crimes I would consider particularly heinous tend to be committed by serial killers (Dahmer, child rapists) or other extremely disturbed folks, people who certainly aren’t going to consider any potential consequences for even a fleeting moment.)
It isn’t cost savings, although I really hope you wouldn’t argue we should kill people because it’s cheaper than locking them up. Death panels for real?
It isn’t justice. Because even with a higher standard of evidence required innocent people will be convicted. Despite the protections that have supposedly been in place the justice system still remains far from perfect and it isn’t going to become flawless ever.
So, what do you see as being gained? Retribution?
Yes, some of it is retribution. A friend described me once as being very old testament, and I think that may be right. I don’t think it’s a deterrent, and I know it isn’t cheap. I just think for the truly evil and wicked we need to end their lives.
Wilbur: -No appeals to a capital conviction. Execution will take place by midnight on the day the verdict is read.
I was sorta going along with you until that last one. Why the rush and no appeals? I can appeal if convicted of assault and sentenced to several years, but not if convicted of murder and sentenced to death?
What is it you’re trying to forestall with the haste?
Really? You think the government is competent to know, without any doubt, that a person is guilty of a given crime?
Here’s the thing Oliver — we know for a fact that innocents have been executed. How does that not possibly over-ride any emotional commitment to ending “evil”?
And I’d never presume to lecture you on racial history in America, but thousands of black men lost their lives at the hands of mob justice, throngs of white folks who were convinved they needed to destroy “the truly evil and wicked” black men who supposedly “threatened” their white women, their white children, etc.
We need less Old Testament thinking, not more of it.
Jay Tea: Prisoners serving life without parole in non-death-penalty states are some of the freest people in the world — they can do pretty much whatever they want without fear of penalty
They can move about wherever they want whenever they want? They can associate with anyone they want? Freest people in the world? I don’t think so.
But, although way overstated, your point is valid and the answer isn’t the death penalty. It’s solitary. It’s bringing the court to them or simply not putting them on trial (either way preventing trips out of jail) if there is no greater penalty available than what they already have. It’s removal of that freedom you think they have so much of.
Felix Helix: Prisoners serving life without parole in non-death-penalty states are some of the freest people in the world — they can do pretty much whatever they want without fear of penalty
I’d agree. When release after serving the sentence there should be no further impediments to the ex-con re-joining society. This doesn’t mean they should be coddled, but anyone serving a sentence with a release date should be getting some rehabilitation/assistance while serving that sentence. Once out they should be allowed to vote, be provided with some assistance in finding a job, etc. This isn’t heart-on-sleeve liberalism, this is recognizing that without some help they are far more likely to re-offend and go back to jail. Further harming society and costing it more money instead of being a productive citizen.
canadian bacon: If a person that is put to death for a crime is then found to be innocent after death, then all the people involved in the capital punishment should be punished in the similar way and be put to death. This would ensure due process.
Impractical and would cause numerous other problems, of course. But I do like the general idea. Mistakes should have consequences for those who make them. Especially where others have paid the cost of those mistakes.
It’s why I’d also like to see a law that the first people sent into any warzone are the children the lawmakers who declare war. If you’re willing to send my kids to risk death, you should be willing to send your own first.
Make sure the decision makers have some skin in the game.
Sean, I thought the Druce case spelled it out: the death penalty would have been a form of deterrence — had he been executed for his first first-degree murder, he would have been “deterred” from the second one.
And I meant “freest” in the context of “no worries about the consequences of one’s actions.” Ever heard the song “Me and Bobby McGee?” “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.”
“I’m bored here in prison. If I kill some guy, I’ll get out of here every day for a few weeks, shake up my routine, get some fresh air and fresh scenery, and then end up right back where I am with no real changes. What the hell.”
J.
If he’d gotten a life sentence with no parole he wouldn’t have murdered anybody either. Well, there is murder is prison I guess, but if the jailers do their job right that shouldn’t happen either.
And being locked up in a cell if pretty much the opposite of “freedom,” despite your continuing vendetta against the English language.
No doubt there are some truly evil people that need to be taken out of circulation, but if there’s even the smallest risk of an innocent person being put to death then the death penalty is immoral.
(Here’s a hint: If you don’t trust the government to provide health care or public schooling, you probably shouldn’t trust the government to make life-or-death decisions based on potentially faulty evidence, “witnesses” with grudges, racist jurors, etc.)
Jaim, really, work on your reading comprehension. Druce committed his second first-degree murder in prison, while he was serving life without parole for the first first-degree murder.
As I said, this time it was a pedophile priest — no great loss.
Next time could be someone far less sympathetic.
J.
You put a lot more faith in the government than I do.
Can’t tell that by your stance on having government run health care, Jaim.
Or major industry.
Or the financial markets.
Or… well, that oughta be enough.
Prisons, though? That’s something the government oughta do (as part of the Justice Department, or the several states’ own systems).
J.
Prisons, yes. Death penalty, no.
Jay Tea, you’ve left out quite a few relevant details. Druce was imprisoned for violently beating to death a man who had allegedly made a pass at him, was known to hate homosexuals, and was mentally imbalanced. And yet he was housed in an open ward with Geoghan, a known pedophile priest whose case was widely publicized.
This murder could have easily been prevented without resorting to the death penalty.
Quaker, you want to cater to Druce’s prejudices and hatreds? Fine. Jack up the prison budget to give each prisoner their own individual cells and don’t let them mingle.
Druce’s plans were exceptional. He figured out just how thick a book would need to be to jam a door, and tore enough pages out of one to be just the right size. He jumped Geoghan right in front of guards, and that book bought him enough time to kill him.
And who’s to say that now the precedent has been set, some convict serving life without parole might try to pull a Druce and kill someone just for the change of scenery?
The genie’s out of the bottle now, Quaker. And as I said, this time it was a pedophile priest — no great loss to society. Next time could be a guard that an inmate doesn’t like.
And why not? What do they have to lose?
J.
There are plenty of guys in prison for relatively minor offenses who are threats to guards.
By your “logic,” we should pre-emptively kill off all prisoners.
Classy as always, Jay.
This is one area where Oliver and I disagree. I used to be a death penalty supporter, and I am now an ardent death penalty opponent. I am not an opponent for any kind of moral reason the way some people are. My opposition is practical. I’ve become involved somewhat with The Innocence Project and after seeing the amount of people freed after serving time for crimes they did not commit (not getting new trials, but being complete exonerated), I could no longer support the death penalty. I am convinced based on those cases alone, that there have been times when this country has wrongly executed people.
The only exception I can think of where it would be applicable is where the perpetrator is basically caught in the act of committing the crime. The example I cite is Colin Ferguson who shot the LIRR train back in 1993. He killed 6 people and injured 19 others before being tackled by three other passengers. There was absolutely no doubt whatsoever as to his guilt. That’s the only exception I could think of where the state isn’t going to mistakenly put somebody do death.
@Oliver
I just think for the truly evil and wicked we need to end their lives.
Why? My view is that there are people who will not or cannot control their behavior so consequently they need to be removed from society and put in places where their behavior is closely monitored and controlled. I don’t think it matters whether they are “truly evil and wicked” or not. I don’t support the death penalty at all. It’s barbaric but I do believe that we have an obligation to permanently remove certain individuals from society regardless of whether they have committed murder or not.
Jaim, give me your address. I’m going to ship you a clue. It’ll be expensive, shipping to Korea, but your need is obviously great.
The situation I outlined applies to those serving life without parole — they are the ones with nothing left to lose. Those in prison for “relatively minor offenses” have their future freedom to risk.
“I’m outta here in six months, but that guard’s pissing me off. I could just put up with it for those six months, or I could spend the rest of my life in here for killing him. Hmm… six of one, half a dozen of another.”
J.
I could spend the rest of my life in here for killing him.
What if he was convicted of murder but didn’t really do it?
Then, ed, he has even more incentive to keep his nose clean — not only the possibility of freedom, but of exoneration.
J.
Then, ed, he has even more incentive to keep his nose clean — not only the possibility of freedom, but of exoneration.
That wouldn’t work out too well for him if he’d already been executed when his innocence had been discovered. So even if he’d kept his nose clean, he’d still have been executed. Until we can deliver 100% certainty and 100% fair (also a problem, but superseded by the certainty situation) capital punishment, I’d rather not run the risk of killing someone who didn’t have it coming.
Jay Tea: Jaim, really, work on your reading comprehension. Druce committed his second first-degree murder in prison, while he was serving life without parole for the first first-degree murder.
Jay, really, work on your reading comprehension. Several comments have been posted here that suggest solutions to that problem that don’t involve the death penalty. Why so studiuosly avoiding responding to the substance of those posts?
Jay Tea: And who’s to say that now the precedent has been set, some convict serving life without parole might try to pull a Druce and kill someone just for the change of scenery?
The genie’s out of the bottle now,
You mean prior to Druce no death row or life sentence prisoner never ever figured out that they had nothing left to lose? Ever?
Well, the solution is really simple in any event. Don’t allow prisoners access to books.
I mean, if you’re going to keep focusing exclusively on the specific Druce case then, clearly, preventing those particular circumstances solves the whole problem. Right?
Jay Tea:
Then, ed, he has even more incentive to keep his nose clean — not only the possibility of freedom, but of exoneration.
You going to suggest that any convict who is innocent will get exonerated if they wait patiently long enough? You going to claim that a high percentage of innocent convicts are set free? The system as it is is stacked against that.
Far more realistic: “I’m not guilty of the murder I’m convicted of, but that guard’s pissing me off. I could put all my hopes on the very slim chance my innocence will be proved or, since I’ll already far more likely to spend the rest of my life here I might as well remove this aggravation. Folks think I’m already a killer anyway. Hmm… six hundred thousand of one, a mere half a dozen of another.”
Anyone that thinks it’s possible for a nation to have executions-FOR WHATEVER REASON-and not end up murdering innocent people is ignoring reality. You simply can not guarantee guilt 100% of the time.
To endorse the death penalty in this day and age is to state that you are okay with the deaths of innocents. Period.
Bang on the money, Jody.
I have a very good friend who works at the DOJ whose opinion is the same as Oliver’s; she’s a reasonable person with an open mind, she understands all the arguments, she has no illusions about what the death penalty accomplishes, and still: she believes that some people are so evil that they simply need to be put to death. Period.
She’s honest enough (as is Oliver) to acknowledge that this belief has an emotional basis rather than a logical or ethical one. I respect her point of view, but I cannot agree with it — for Jody’s reason, and for a host of others.
I’m not sure that this analogy is perfectly apt, but I see some parallels to the torture question. There’s the moral argument (state-sanctioned torture, like state-sanctioned murder, is unequivocally wrong) but also the practical one: it doesn’t achieve its stated objectives. Torture won’t get you the correct intel; the death penalty won’t get you deterrence. (Jay, deterrence has to do with persuasion, i.e. convincing people to make different choices. It’s been shown that the DP doesn’t deter other criminals, and it doesn’t deter those to whom it is applied, because they’re dead — and thus unable to be persuaded of anything).
But Oliver, if retribution is what you’re after — doesn’t a long lifetime of staring at four gray walls fit the bill better than a quick and permanent lights-out?
Exactly Felix.
There is no such thing as someone so heinous, so despicable, that it is worth killing innocent people just so that he may be executed as well.
And why not? What do they have to lose?
What do they have to lose if they’re
awaiting socialized vengeanceon death row?Very thought provoking responses. In my opinion death is not a punishment. I think depriving somebody of their freedom is. However, I do believe where somebody is so evil like Joseph Druce (mentioned above Jay Tea), it may be in society’s best interest to put that person to death.
In my opinion death is not a punishment. I think depriving somebody of their freedom is.
Of course death is a punishment. Among other things, you’re depriving somebody of their freedom.
However, I do believe where somebody is so evil like Joseph Druce (mentioned above Jay Tea), it may be in society’s best interest to put that person to death.
What if Druce didn’t really do the crimes for which he was convicted?
Yes, some crimes are so heinous…
Wow.
Of course, we can just let them go if they’re innocent, assuming we’ve not killed them yet.
As I get on in years I find myself more willing to accept the death penalty for those horrible crimes that people commit. I can’t fathom their actions and I know they can’t be rehabilitated. Also, it’s unfair that the victim is dead while the perpetrator lives on. But I also know that the legal system is far from perfect, that race, class and gender play a pivotal role in its execution. So in the end I err on the side of caution and accept long or infinite jail terms as the only solution to this complex problem of human frailty. At least if proven innocent, as so many on death row are, then at least the person’s not dead.
Pierre: However, I do believe where somebody is so evil like Joseph Druce (mentioned above Jay Tea), it may be in society’s best interest to put that person to death.
Why? Elaborate on your statement up a bit. What is the benefit to society that outweighs the cost?
If there is a law that allows for Druce to be executed then it would allow for others to be executed. (If it applied only to Druce you’d be saying that Druce and only Druce is so terrible that he should be killed.) And any law that allows for executions will inevitably be used against an innocent. Unintentionally, but still it will happen. That’s not in society’s interest.
canadian bacon: Also, it’s unfair that the victim is dead while the perpetrator lives on.
Not any kind of reason for having a death penalty. If the purpose is eye-for-eye retribution, to make things “fair”, the death penalty fails miserably. Someone repeatedly raped and then slowly tortured their victim to death, so you’d have them painlessly killed with a lethal injection. Doesn’t seem fair.
And even if the law were to say the criminal shall be put to death in the same manner as their victim, what of the person who’s killed several people by different methods?
“It’s unfair” is the argument of children who haven’t accepted the truth that life isn’t fair and the scales don’t always get perfectly balanced.
So in the end I err on the side of caution and accept long or infinite jail terms as the only solution to this complex problem of human frailty.
Agreed.
OW: Yes, some of it is retribution. A friend described me once as being very old testament, and I think that may be right. I don’t think it’s a deterrent, and I know it isn’t cheap. I just think for the truly evil and wicked we need to end their lives.
What would Superman say?
I said it before and I’ll say it again. If you are in favor of the death penalty you’re saying “Hey, it’s okay that we’re killing innocent people, so long as we get guilty ones too.”
A system that allows state sponsored murder is going to kill people that never committed a crime. You can’t avoid it. Justice is blind. You’re going to get overzealous prosecutors, hanging judges, and unsure witnesses that are desperate for revenge or closure.
Such a position is about as bad as the right saying health care is a privilege.