The Death Penalty

[Marvin Edwards]

A major topic, the death penalty. Is it cruel and unusual punishment? I doubt the founders would have thought so.

Here in Washington in 1980. a man killed 3 people and tortured two. One person was shot in the head while bound. One was strangled. He was sentenced to three life terms. Recently a parole board recommended parole saying he was rehabilitated and not a danger to society. Public outcry resulted in the governor overriding the decision.

He was caught and admitted to it and was dismissive of the victims. There is no issue of the man not being guilty.

Should such a person forfeit his life for having taken three lives?

My objection to the death penalty is irreversible error, an innocent man being executed. That does not apply in this case.

Would you have voted for parole?
If you were on a jury would you vote for the death penalty?

Gov. Inslee cancels parole for man convicted of infamous 1980 triple-homicide

Gov. Jay Inslee has canceled parole for a man convicted of the infamous triple murder at the Barn Door Tavern in SeaTac in June 1980.

www.kiro7.com

I've got to go with the formula for a just penalty:
(A) Repair the harm to the victim if possible (in this case of multiple murders, impossible),
(B) Correct the offender's future behavior if corrigible (weigh the risk of recidivism)
(C) Secure the offender to protect others until his behavior is corrected (prison), and
(D) Do no more harm to the offender and his rights than is necessary to accomplish (A), (B), and (C).

Obviously, we're not going to bring any of the victims back to life, so (A) is off the table.

If the offence is murder, then the harm of misdiagnosing whether he is (B) corrected is great. So, we want to exercise extreme caution before pronouncing the offender "rehabilitated" and "safe to release".

Securing the offender in prison to prevent others from being murdered would seem reasonably necessary. But there is also the possibility that the offender will attempt to murder the guards or other prisoners. If this is the case, then I would support the death penalty, as it seems the only way to secure others.

The demand of morality is that we do no unnecessary harm. And the death penalty, in most cases, is unnecessary to protect others. So, I would oppose it until it becomes necessary to protect other prisoners and guards.

 

[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.

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

Can you do that? Such a flippant response. I expected better from you.

No. What I would like is more reference to the victims, their families, friends, They have suffered a grievous loss . They will never see their loved one again. That should be be considered. But all we consider seems to be the criminal. We talk about their domineering mother, poor toilet training etc. Nothing to little about their deliberate culpability.
Did they get a fair trial? How much the imprisonment will affect their poor mother. Pity the criminal didn't take such into consideration before the killing.

 

[Tigers!]

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

I didn't realise that desiring justice be served made me "ethically primitive". Learn something new every day.

 

[Hermit]

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.

You're not thinking of Osama bin Laden by any chance? He is the only person I am aware of who has been justifiably executed without trial. The justification was to deprive Islamic terrorists of one motive to perpetrate acts of murder.

 

[Hermit]

What I would like is more reference to the victims, their families, friends, They have suffered a grievous loss . They will never see their loved one again.

Killing the murderers will never result in bringing the victims back to life and the their loved ones ever seeing them again either. Capital punishment is revenge.

 

[Wiploc]

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?

Can you do that? Such a flippant response. I expected better from you.

In speaking of motives for punishment, I addressed deterrence, rehabilitation, isolation, and vengeance (revenge).

You said you want to talk about justice rather than vengeance. But you didn't say what you meant. Instead of explaining what you meant, you drifted off to talk about potty training.

I don't see potty training as the core of this exercise, so I tried to bring you back on topic:

If a thief steals $100, justice would have the thief make restitution in the amount of $100. That is justice.

It's not even punishment. Restitution isn't based on deterrence, rehabilitation, isolation, or vengeance. The intent is to make the victim whole, not to cope with the perpetrator.

I don't see how you can do anything like that in the case of murder. So I made that point, and I asked you to expound on what you mean by justice.

No. What I would like is more reference to the victims, their families, friends, They have suffered a grievous loss . They will never see their loved one again. That should be be considered.

Again, I invite you to expound.

But all we consider seems to be the criminal.

Yes, we want to deter other criminals, and we want to rehabilitate or isolate this criminal.

We talk about their domineering mother, poor toilet training etc.

I don't know where this comes from. Is anyone here other than you talking about potty training? Is this where I'm supposed to lament your flippancy and say I expected better from you?

Nothing to little about their deliberate culpability.

This would fall under deterrence, rehabilitation, and isolation. Typhoid Mary demonstrated that she'd be steadfast in her culpability, so she had to be isolated for the rest of her life. But if a kid steals her first cigarette, and it makes her sick, and she really repents of the theft, then she may not need any additional punishment.

Did they get a fair trial?

You astound me.

How much the imprisonment will affect their poor mother. Pity the criminal didn't take such into consideration before the killing.

Seriously, oh person from whom I expected better, will you now discuss your concept of justice (or your disdain for fair trials), or will you continue trying to bait and derail?

 

[TomC]

I didn't realise that desiring justice be served made me "ethically primitive". Learn something new every day.

You've never said what you mean by justice. It's a very subjective term.

For most of human history it was primitive. Justice included vendetta, escalation, group culpability, stuff like that. Mosaic justice was more sophisticated, "an eye for an eye" was better. Equal damage, only to the perp, then it's over with for good was a big improvement. But it still included putting out eyes with no more benefit than an injured party feeling better. I consider that ethically primitive justice.

We can do better than that and it would be the moral thing to do. I say that as a citizen of a first world country, with plenty of resources and a representative government, not everyone has that. Here in the USA we can do far better than escalating vengeance. We can do better than Mosaic vengeance. Not doing better as a society is primitive immoral ethics. I'm opposed to primitive ethics.

If you mean something else by "justice" please explain.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

justice would have the thief make restitution in the amount of $100

Rather, justice would see 100 dollars back in the pocket of the victim. It's not really important how it gets there.

Justice would see that there are as few times as possible where this restitution would need to be rendered, and render it consistently within reason.

Justice would see that when someone does these things for reasons whose goals remain or return a person to such means that the cycle of return is broken, assuming it injures the system less to fix it than tolerate it's continuance over the log term.

The only reason that punishment is seen as justice is that humans are irrational and when wronged build a desire for revenge that we can't always shake without seeing such regrettable 'consequences', and making someone suffer a little is preferable to spawning an otherwise implacable need to make someone suffer a lot.

But let's not imagine that this makes us anything but broken and weak creatures when the demand is this that we revenge ourselves.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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?

Can you do that? Such a flippant response. I expected better from you.

No. What I would like is more reference to the victims, their families, friends, They have suffered a grievous loss .

Their loss is undefinable, unquantifiable, unbearable. How does that get equated into a particular judgment here or there that is equally applied to all perpetrators of a particular crime?

There is this talk about "Justice", just not much definition of it. There is the underlying knowledge that a person is caught and judged as to having committed a terrible crime. But then there is the public restitution. Where is the formula there? What is justice? What is the price they must pay? Can they manage to pay that price, become healed themselves, and move on? Do we want them to be able to? (<-- this is the hardest one to resolve)

The concept of "Justice" carries with it some myth and truth and hope and pain. Saying one demands "justice" is like going to a restaurant and demanding "food".

 

[steve_bank]

If you have been following the news.

Non-Unanimous Florida Jury Sentences Nikolas Cruz to Life Without Parole for Parkland School Shootings

A non-unanimous Florida jury has returned a verdict of life without parole for Nikolas Cruz , the teen offender convicted of killing 17 people in the February 14, 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School (pictured) in Parkland, Florida. Florida law, like that of nearly every…

deathpenaltyinfo.org

A non-unanimous Florida jury has returned a verdict of life without parole for Nikolas Cruz, the teen offender convicted of killing 17 people in the February 14, 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School (pictured) in Parkland, Florida. The October 13, 2022 verdict, in which three jurors voted to spare Cruz’s life, concluded a six-month sentencing trial. Florida law, like that of nearly every death-penalty state, requires a unanimous jury verdict before a

Prosecutors had rejected a defense offer in 2019 for Cruz to plead guilty and be sentenced to 34 consecutive life sentences. They remained adamant in their desire to pursue a death sentence in 2021 after Cruz pleaded guilty to 17 counts of murder and 17 counts of attempted murder.

Jurors unanimously found that the state had proven aggravating circumstances in each of the 17 counts of murder, but three jurors found that the mitigating evidence outweighed the aggravating evidence. The jury foreman, Benjamin Thomas, told CBS Miami that one juror had strongly believed that Cruz should not be sentenced to death because he was mentally ill and that two other jurors also voted to spare his life.

The outcome was reminiscent of the August 2015 life verdict imposed by a Colorado death-penalty jury in the Aurora movie theater mass shooting that killed 12 people and injured dozens more. In that case, James Holmes was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole after one juror stated her firm opposition to condemning Holmes because of his severe mental illness and two other jurors joined her in opposition to the death penalty.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The trditional argument was the death penalty was a deterrent.

I forget who originally made the argument, but they attempted to refute the "death penalty as deterrent" argument by pointing out that killers generally fall under 3 categories:

1. Professionals -- the mobsters, gangsters, cartel hitmen, etc... They're not deterred because they don't plan on getting caught, and they know their bosses will do a lot worse to them if they don't kill.

2. Passion -- You come home early one day and find your wife in bed with your neighbor... you flip out, grab the nearest blunt object, and bash both their brains in. You're not deterred because you weren't thinking -- that's what it means to "flip out," after all.

3. Psychos -- The serial killers, mass shooters, etc... They're not deterred because, well.... they're nucking futs, aren't they?

So...who's left?

 

[Jarhyn]

The trditional argument was the death penalty was a deterrent.

I forget who originally made the argument, but they attempted to refute the "death penalty as deterrent" argument by pointing out that killers generally fall under 3 categories:

1. Professionals -- the mobsters, gangsters, cartel hitmen, etc... They're not deterred because they don't plan on getting caught, and they know their bosses will do a lot worse to them if they don't kill.

2. Passion -- You come home early one day and find your wife in bed with your neighbor... you flip out, grab the nearest blunt object, and bash both their brains in. You're not deterred because you weren't thinking -- that's what it means to "flip out," after all.

3. Psychos -- The serial killers, mass shooters, etc... They're not deterred because, well.... they're nucking futs, aren't they?

So...who's left?

Those who are somewhere between 2 and 3: they go a little psycho after an event such that they gain a passion towards killing someone specific. The knowledge of not being 1, and being past best-by date on 2 while being just enough 3 leads someone to be more motivated to be none of the above when chances of getting caught are high.

This is how people become inducted into 3 properly, though, and occasionally into 1.

 

[steve_bank]

In the old west a cattle rustler or horse thief could get lynched on the spot. Not a complete deterrent but certainly gave people pause.

Stealing cattle took food away from someone. Stealing a horse could mean a farmer could not plow or someone got stranded on foot far from help.

If someone does not care if he lives or die then the death penalty is not much of a deterrent.

 

[bilby]

certainly gave people pause.

Did it?

How do you know?

Certainly it's not the complete cessation of cattle rustling that tipped you off, 'cos that didn't happen.

 

[TLK Valentine]

certainly gave people pause.

Did it?

How do you know?

Certainly it's not the complete cessation of cattle rustling that tipped you off, 'cos that didn't happen.

People need to realize that it's not the severity of punishment that deters crime, it's the certainty.

"If you're caught, we'll put you in front of a firing squad" deters less crime than "You WILL get caught."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

certainly gave people pause.

Did it?

How do you know?

Certainly it's not the complete cessation of cattle rustling that tipped you off, 'cos that didn't happen.

People need to realize that it's not the severity of punishment that deters crime, it's the certainty.

"If you're caught, we'll put you in front of a firing squad" deters less crime than "You WILL get caught."

Of course, a lot of people that commit crimes don't think they'll get caught or in the heat of the moment, don't even consider the issue of being caught at all. Texas sends murderers to death row... and Texas still has murderers. The math really implies that the death penalty isn't about deterrence at all. It is about revenge. And most often, a sense of revenge for people not remotely adjacent to the crime.

 

[TomC]

Texas sends murderers to death row... and Texas still has murderers. The math really implies that the death penalty isn't about deterrence at all. It is about revenge. And most often, a sense of revenge for people not remotely adjacent to the crime.

I think you're being too kind. I see it as much worse than that.

As done here in the USA, I see capital punishment as political theater. It's an ugly kind of performance art.

It's a big expensive episode of "Tough on Crime". The same politicians who cannot find fundage for prevention can find millions of dollars to pay lawyers, both defense and prosecution, in order to justify a state sponsored killing. They haven't the political will to deal with the NRA and get rid of some of the guns, but they get lots of airtime to talk about their valiant efforts to make America Safe. They get political ads on the internet and news shows without doing anything more than spending taxpayer dollars on lawyers bills.

Call me a Prolifer if you must, but I remain opposed to people choosing death for other people.
Tom

 

[senor boogie woogie]

I support the Death Penalty if the person's guilt is direct and cannot be unproven. Famous killers like John Wayne Gacy, Willaim Bonin, and Ted Bundy deserved to be executed. So did Jeffrey Dahmer. These people murdered for their own pleasures and there is no other recourse than the Death Penalty. Maybe the other recourse would be them locked up in a cell with nothing to read or do, a cot, a toilet and a sink for the rest of their lives. But I think this would be a worse punishment than death itself. But I also support the Death Penalty for someone who kills a clerk in a convenience store robbery for instance. I think rape of a child under 10 deserves the Death Penalty although the Supreme Court disallows this.

I will say if I was a juror for the Boston Bomber, Tsarnev, during the penalty phase, I would have voted neutral on whether to execute him or not. It would not have mattered to me. Life without parole meant a life in Supermax ADX at his young age. I mean, which is worse. For myself, if I was convicted of Capital Murder, sentence me to death. I dont want to spend the rest of my life in prison. A maximum security prison is Hell. To sit in a cememnt box most of the day, having to live with a stranger using the same toilet in a room the size of a closet. The real possibility of being murdered by someone over a slight, or being used as a sex toy for rape. Eating awful food bought the cheapest possible. Execute me, I'll even drive the van to the execution site.

No, Capital Punishment is not a deterrant. Nor is people committing other crimes. Someone strung out on heroin sticking up a liquor store and leaving are not thinking that getting caught might mean years in prison. People driving drunk home from a party doesnt think that getting caught means heavy fines and imprisonment. Other people get caught, not me.

The Death Penalty is not given equally since there are plea deals and things, and people end up escaping it to spend the rest of their lives in prison. There is an inmate in Indiana named Frederick Baer who was in a documentary on Youtube called (Welcome to Indiana State Prison) who home invaded the home of a young mother and her three year old child and he slit both of their throats. He was caught and was sentenced to death. The guy was hated on Death Row and the other inmates openly stated that they would kill him if they could. Baer lamented in the interview that if his penalty was overturned to life, he would have to live in solitary the rest of his life or get killed. His penalty was overturned to life (somehow). Again, I would rather make my peace with God (I know, this is an atheist board) and then be executed, my life is over, why wait?

Lastly, lethal injection is not painless. Better than gas or the electric chair but the person is strapped down and shot up with chemicals that puts them to sleep, suffocates them and incurs a heart attack. Not fun.

 

[DBT]

It may be satisfying for some, but shouldn't a progressive society seek a higher standard of morality than using execution as a solution?

 

[Tigers!]

It may be satisfying for some, but shouldn't a progressive society seek a higher standard of morality than using execution as a solution?

Why is non-execution considered a higher standard of morality? I would prefer a standard of morality that protects society and its members.