The Death Penalty

[Wiploc]

Cops make errors, judges make errors, appeal judges make errors.

An erroneous execution can't be corrected.

This may understate the case. Not everything they do wrong is done wrong accidentally.

 

[Copernicus]

There's the irretrievable error objection to capital punishment, but my main objection is different--that capital punishment is a form of revenge killing. Many murderers justify their behavior as an appropriate punishment for their victims. When the government does the same thing, it only reinforces that kind of motive as socially acceptable and justifiable. The thirst for revenge can be insatiable. Revenge negates respect for life.

 

[Jarhyn]

There's the irretrievable error objection to capital punishment, but my main objection is different--that capital punishment is a form of revenge killing. Many murderers justify their behavior as an appropriate punishment for their victims. When the government does the same thing, it only reinforces that kind of motive as socially acceptable and justifiable. The thirst for revenge can be insatiable. Revenge negates respect for life.

Hence why it cannot ever be anything like revenge. I don't stand against killings for which revenge may, accidentally, find satisfaction however for me it is about the risk vs trust function, not of political loss but of material risk of existential peril for everyone.

That implies very narrow applicability not of a death penalty but of the proper handling of existentially toxic things

 

[steve_bank]

A guy guy walked into a coffee shop and assassinated 4 police officers. Cold premeditated murder.

The guy who drove the car got 402 years. He recurrently had a re-sentencing hearing based on some things the prosecution said in his trial. He claims he never knew what the shooter was going to do.

Families of the slain officers were outraged and in tears at the idea of the guy getting a reduced sentence.

https://www.piercecountywa.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=1306&ARC=3322

The shooter was killed during apprehension.

2009 Lakewood shooting - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Maurice Clemmons (February 6, 1972 – December 1, 2009) was identified as the shooter in the November 29, 2009 murder of four police officers in Parkland, Washington.[4] After evading police for two days following the shooting, Clemmons was shot and killed by a police officer in Seattle.

Prior to his involvement in the shooting, Clemmons had five felony convictions in Arkansas and eight felony charges in Washington.[5] His first incarceration began in 1989, at age 17. Facing sentences totaling 108 years in prison, the burglary sentences were reduced in 2000 by Governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee to 47 years, which made him immediately eligible for parole. The Arkansas Parole Board unanimously moved to release him in 2000. Clemmons was subsequently arrested on other charges and was jailed several times. In the months prior to the Parkland shooting, he was in jail on charges of assaulting a police officer and raping a child. One week prior to the Parkland shooting, he was released from jail after posting a $150,000 bail bond.

If nothing else capital punishment can represent a sense of justice and closure for friends and family. The idea of someone killing their family members and being alive in prison I would expect be a lifelong cloud.

TThe left has swung the justice system to favor criminal rights over victims' rights.

 

[Copernicus]

There's the irretrievable error objection to capital punishment, but my main objection is different--that capital punishment is a form of revenge killing. Many murderers justify their behavior as an appropriate punishment for their victims. When the government does the same thing, it only reinforces that kind of motive as socially acceptable and justifiable. The thirst for revenge can be insatiable. Revenge negates respect for life.

Hence why it cannot ever be anything like revenge. I don't stand against killings for which revenge may, accidentally, find satisfaction however for me it is about the risk vs trust function, not of political loss but of material risk of existential peril for everyone.

That implies very narrow applicability not of a death penalty but of the proper handling of existentially toxic things

That makes no sense at all to me. There is no death penalty in the EU and in a great many other countries around the world. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim of this existential threat? I invite you to use some of those countries to back up your argument that countries with a death penalty experience less of this vague "existential peril". I think that most people who support the death penalty do so, because they believe it will have a greater effect of deterring the crimes and that it is a way of getting back at the killers--especially on behalf of the victims and their loved ones.

 

[Tigers!]

There's the irretrievable error objection to capital punishment, but my main objection is different--that capital punishment is a form of revenge killing. Many murderers justify their behavior as an appropriate punishment for their victims. When the government does the same thing, it only reinforces that kind of motive as socially acceptable and justifiable. The thirst for revenge can be insatiable. Revenge negates respect for life.

What about justice? You always mention revenge, never justice. It is possible to build a a system with justice for the victims. Granted the Anglo countries have certainly wobbled from that.

 

[Copernicus]

There's the irretrievable error objection to capital punishment, but my main objection is different--that capital punishment is a form of revenge killing. Many murderers justify their behavior as an appropriate punishment for their victims. When the government does the same thing, it only reinforces that kind of motive as socially acceptable and justifiable. The thirst for revenge can be insatiable. Revenge negates respect for life.

What about justice? You always mention revenge, never justice. It is possible to build a a system with justice for the victims. Granted the Anglo countries have certainly wobbled from that.

My point is that many murderers justify their actions with the belief that their act of murder was justice. Revenge is about settling scores--i.e. getting justice.

 

[steve_bank]

There's the irretrievable error objection to capital punishment, but my main objection is different--that capital punishment is a form of revenge killing. Many murderers justify their behavior as an appropriate punishment for their victims. When the government does the same thing, it only reinforces that kind of motive as socially acceptable and justifiable. The thirst for revenge can be insatiable. Revenge negates respect for life.

What about justice? You always mention revenge, never justice. It is possible to build a a system with justice for the victims. Granted the Anglo countries have certainly wobbled from that.

My point is that many murderers justify their actions with the belief that their act of murder was justice. Revenge is about settling scores--i.e. getting justice.

Can you elaborate on 'many murderers justify their actions with the belief that their act of murder was justice.'?

Yesterday about three blocks from me at Yesler and 3rd two people were shot in an apparent random drive by shooting.

There are gang related murders, murders during robbery, road rage shootings, neighbor disputes resulting in gun play, and andom shootins but I have e never heard a report on a revenge killing.

Yiu could say gnag related murders can be motivated by revenge and they feel justfied.

 

[Jarhyn]

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim of this existential threat

How do you expect the world should have handled Hitler, had he been taken alive.

Should Hitler have been executed?

Should Putin be executed? We have plenty of folks here who hope someone even gets extrajudicial about that one.

What is the threshold for the removal of a supremely problematic person?

When it comes to nonhumans, we kill them when they have demonstrated even an accidental tendency to gore individual people.

When it comes to humans, I think there is still a threshold, it's just much higher.

Nuclear secrets in a pool house basement, repeatedly lying about having those secrets, and knowing what those secrets are mean that at the very least we have to secure a human being as securely as we would expect those documents to be secured, guard them with people we would necessarily have to be able to trust with knowing those things, and I don't think it's really worth all the pain and suffering of doing that.

The remaining 5 years of that person's life simply aren't worth the risk.

 

[Playball40]

Willie Crane is one that I felt nothing about him being put to death. But I also have no problem admitting it is purely revenge and hatred. I hope he was TERRIFIED.

That said, I'm generally AGAINST the death penalty because it's too often applied to innocent people and certainly isn't applied equally. I also couldn't be the one to condemn one to death (unless he's Willy Crane).

 

[Coleman Smith]

Cops make errors, judges make errors, appeal judges make errors.

An erroneous execution can't be corrected.

This may understate the case. Not everything they do wrong is done wrong accidentally.

Example:

Former KCK detective accused of exploiting women arrested Thursday by the FBI​

Part of my job as a claims adjuster for almost 40 years was to handle claims for insurance companies that insured police departments including every thing from simple automobile accidents to cops operating burgulary rings out of their patrol cars.

After retirement one patrol officer I met at the gym said he saw me coming out of his lutenists office so many times that until he learned who I was he thought I was a detective.

BTW: The two professions that are most likely to take the 5th when they are a person of interest or a suspect are lawyers and cops.

If I were a person of interest I would not even discuss the metric system with them.

 

[Tigers!]

There's the irretrievable error objection to capital punishment, but my main objection is different--that capital punishment is a form of revenge killing. Many murderers justify their behavior as an appropriate punishment for their victims. When the government does the same thing, it only reinforces that kind of motive as socially acceptable and justifiable. The thirst for revenge can be insatiable. Revenge negates respect for life.

What about justice? You always mention revenge, never justice. It is possible to build a a system with justice for the victims. Granted the Anglo countries have certainly wobbled from that.

My point is that many murderers justify their actions with the belief that their act of murder was justice. Revenge is about settling scores--i.e. getting justice.

Equating revenge by criminals with justice delivered through the acts of a supposedly neutral 3rd party is not correct.

You might as well say any sentence passed down is revenge based.

 

[bilby]

There's the irretrievable error objection to capital punishment, but my main objection is different--that capital punishment is a form of revenge killing. Many murderers justify their behavior as an appropriate punishment for their victims. When the government does the same thing, it only reinforces that kind of motive as socially acceptable and justifiable. The thirst for revenge can be insatiable. Revenge negates respect for life.

What about justice? You always mention revenge, never justice. It is possible to build a a system with justice for the victims. Granted the Anglo countries have certainly wobbled from that.

My point is that many murderers justify their actions with the belief that their act of murder was justice. Revenge is about settling scores--i.e. getting justice.

Equating revenge by criminals with justice delivered through the acts of a supposedly neutral 3rd party is not correct.

You might as well say any sentence passed down is revenge based.

It is.

The entire point of a criminal justice system is to take revenge, so that victims don't feel the need to do it themselves.

This is a hopeful but often difficult attempt to limit the vicious cycle of the vendetta; The idea is that the victims will feel sufficiently satisfied as to take things no further.

Of course, victims tend to wildly overestimate the level of penalty that is appropriate, and setting the penalty low enough to be civilised, while also making it high enough to satisfy the victim's thirst for vengeance, is a very tricky balancing act.

Mob justice is no less ugly when it's state sanctioned.

 

[Copernicus]

There's the irretrievable error objection to capital punishment, but my main objection is different--that capital punishment is a form of revenge killing. Many murderers justify their behavior as an appropriate punishment for their victims. When the government does the same thing, it only reinforces that kind of motive as socially acceptable and justifiable. The thirst for revenge can be insatiable. Revenge negates respect for life.

What about justice? You always mention revenge, never justice. It is possible to build a a system with justice for the victims. Granted the Anglo countries have certainly wobbled from that.

My point is that many murderers justify their actions with the belief that their act of murder was justice. Revenge is about settling scores--i.e. getting justice.

Can you elaborate on 'many murderers justify their actions with the belief that their act of murder was justice.'?

Yesterday about three blocks from me at Yesler and 3rd two people were shot in an apparent random drive by shooting.

There are gang related murders, murders during robbery, road rage shootings, neighbor disputes resulting in gun play, and andom shootins but I have e never heard a report on a revenge killing.

Yiu could say gnag related murders can be motivated by revenge and they feel justfied.

Please notice that I said "many murderers", not "all murderers" or "most murderers". I obviously hedged on the quantifier, because I don't really have an idea of the exact number, but I am confident that "many murderers" is a sufficient description. I cannot comment on your own experiences, but I don't think you've really scratched the surface of how many murders are considered justified by those who commit them. I just note that we all have a strong tendency to rationalize decisions we make. After all, there are a lot of Americans who feel that they were right to vote for Donald Trump.

 

[Copernicus]

Equating revenge by criminals with justice delivered through the acts of a supposedly neutral 3rd party is not correct.

You might as well say any sentence passed down is revenge based.

I wasn't equating anything. I don't think people like to think of capital punishment as society, victims, or the public getting revenge, but, in discussion threads like this, it usually boils down to people asking questions like "What about Hitler? How would you deal with that?" The thing is that most murderers are not Hitler. They come from all walks of life, and the murders they commit can sometimes be understandable, if not justifiable. Nevertheless, the law has to be applied equally to everyone, not just those who commit mass murder on Hitler's scale. Sorry Godwin lovers!

 

[Copernicus]

The entire point of a criminal justice system is to take revenge, so that victims don't feel the need to do it themselves.

This is a hopeful but often difficult attempt to limit the vicious cycle of the vendetta; The idea is that the victims will feel sufficiently satisfied as to take things no further.

Of course, victims tend to wildly overestimate the level of penalty that is appropriate, and setting the penalty low enough to be civilised, while also making it high enough to satisfy the victim's thirst for vengeance, is a very tricky balancing act.

Mob justice is no less ugly when it's state sanctioned.

I agree, and I don't think that judges and juries should have the discretion to do that when it comes to ending a human life. If your reasoning here is correct, then those who feel most aggrieved by the murder should be the ones turning thumbs up or down on the penalty. Not all of them will necessarily want the murderer executed. A lot of people would like to see capital punishment for other crimes, as well, and maybe we should bring back torture-executions as an extra option. So I think that capital punishment is not a good idea. In fact, the penalty is actually applied so rarely, haphazardly, unevenly, and cruelly, that I do think it ought to be ruled out as unconstitutional in the US.

 

[Wiploc]

There's the irretrievable error objection to capital punishment, but my main objection is different--that capital punishment is a form of revenge killing. Many murderers justify their behavior as an appropriate punishment for their victims. When the government does the same thing, it only reinforces that kind of motive as socially acceptable and justifiable. The thirst for revenge can be insatiable. Revenge negates respect for life.

What about justice? You always mention revenge, never justice. It is possible to build a a system with justice for the victims. Granted the Anglo countries have certainly wobbled from that.

You want us to bring the victims back to life, or what?

 

[steve_bank]

At Nuremberg the Russians wanted to line up all Nazis and summarily hang them. The Allies and rule of law prevailed.

Some were executed, some jailed, and some released. There was hypocrysis. Wern VonBarin whi o oversaw some of the worse slave labor in his rocket factory got a pass because we wanted his rocket expertise. Over here he became an American science hero. IMO he shoud have been hung.

Tojo was executed. The Japanese emperor was given a pass because he was considered important for post war Japanese stability.

 

[TomC]

What about justice? You always mention revenge, never justice. It is possible to build a a system with justice for the victims. Granted the Anglo countries have certainly wobbled from that.

I'm not sure what you mean by "justice" in this post. It sure sounds like raw vengeance to me.

I find vengeance, as a concept, primitive ethics. It's immoral and irrational, IMHO. Building a system to accomplish that is ugly.

There is a tiny fraction of criminals who can continue to cause deaths and mayhem from a prison cell. Terrorist leaders and drug lords come to mind.

I'm sure that the public execution of Saddam Hussein prevented many innocent people from being murdered. It removed "Free Saddam" from the list of motivations for blowing up market places.

Equating revenge by criminals with justice delivered through the acts of a supposedly neutral 3rd party is not correct.

You might as well say any sentence passed down is revenge based.

I've little trust in the neutrality of the 3rd parties you're referring to.

Spending tons of taxpayer dollars to prosecute a capital case in order to pander to the ethically primitive voters is all too common.
We taxpayers could spend a small fraction of the lawyer bills on prevention and rehabilitation and get better results. But that won't get as much political support from the ethically challenged.
Tom

 

[Copernicus]

I'm sure that the public execution of Saddam Hussein prevented many innocent people from being murdered. It removed "Free Saddam" from the list of motivations for blowing up market places.

Actually, I'm not at all sure of that. Afterwards, my wife and I were visiting India and decided to visit a mosque in Delhi. We encountered a rather large demonstration of emotional shouters carrying a casket. They were carrying a casket with the label "Saddam Hussein" on it. They wanted revenge. We tried not to look too much like American tourists.

And then, of course, there was the fact that the military arm of ISIS was formed with the help of some of Saddam's army. There was never a more revenge-thirsty movement.