This, for example, works just fine: quick, cheap, virtually painless.
Capital punishment foes have no shame, and (I know I am a broken record on this, and it cheers me no more than it pleases you), the knee-jerk journalists who have been squarely in their camp for decades refuse to illuminate their constant hypocrisy. In Connecticut, for example, holding that putting to death the monstrous perpetrators of the Petit home invasion was “immoral,” anti-death penalty advocates argued that the extended time it took to handle appeals made the death penalty more expensive than life imprisonment—an added expense for which the advocates themselves are accountable.
A similar dynamic is at work in the aftermath of the execution of convicted murderer and rapist Clayton Lockett in Oklahoma.Witnesses to his execution by lethal injection said Lockett convulsed and writhed on the gurney, sat up and started to speak before officials blocked the witnesses’ view by pulling a curtain. Apparently his vein “blew,” and instead of killing him efficiently, the new, three-drug “cocktail” arrived at as the means of execution in Oklahoma after extensive study and litigation failed to work as advertised. Why was there an excessively complex system involving multiple drugs used in this execution? It was the result of cumulative efforts by anti-death penalty zealots to make sure the process was above all, “humane.” Of course, the more complicated a process is, the more moving parts it has, the more likely it is to fail.
Do I think the result in Lockett’s execution was the source of glee at Amnesty International? Do I suspect that this is part of the continuing long-term strategy to make executions impossible, no matter what the crime? I do.
“We have a fundamental standard in this country that even when the death penalty is justified, it must be carried out humanely — and I think everyone would recognize that this case fell short of that standard,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said Wednesday, in a rare moment when he wasn’t spinning, lying, or otherwise trying to deceive. What is meant by “humanely,” however, has been the foundation of pure obstruction by death penalty opponants. Humanely should mean “quick.” There is no reason why it should be painless, just not intentionally painful.
All of the disingenuous tap-dancing focuses on the Constitution’s 8th Amendment, prohibiting “cruel and unusual punishment.” The opponents of the death penalty believe it is inherently cruel, which is obviously a position that can’t be squared with the Bill of Rights. The men who wrote that Amendment were perfectly satisfied with hanging or death by firing squad, knowing well that occasionally the hangman, or the hangman’s knot, slipped up, or the marksmen missed their targets. “Not cruel” was not intended to mean “humane.” As for unusual: the Founder were thinking of the horrible execution methods used in the past, like drawing and quartering. Ironically, the “humane” Oklahoma method was certainly unusual, even baroque. The method had never been used before: you can’t get more unusual than that.
Richard W. Garnett, a former Supreme Court law clerk who teaches criminal and constitutional law at the University of Notre Dame, told the press that Lockett’s messy death “will not only cause officials in that state to review carefully their execution procedures and methods,” but “will also almost prompt many Americans across the country to rethink the wisdom, and the morality, of capital punishment.” It will do the latter only if they aren’t thinking clearly, don’t comprehend the reasons for the death penalty, or are thoroughly confused by the double -talk of anti-capital punishment pundits.
This “botched” execution—in my view, it would only be truly botched if Lockett survived it—occurred because, and only because, the foes of capital punishment have made what should be a simple and quick process ridiculously difficult. Adam Leathers, co-chair of the Oklahoma Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, accused the state of having ‘tortured a human being in an unconstitutional experimental act of evil,’ reported CNN. That’s right, Adam, the state trying to rid society of this killer while you and your allies throw obstacles in their way was the evil party here.
Let’s consider the real evil party. Lockett, as you may know, was a four-time convicted felon, and convicted of shooting 19-year-old Stephanie Neiman with a sawed-off shotgun. He was engaged in robbing a man in his home with two accomplices when Neiman and a friend arrived unexpectedly. The girls were dragged into the house and hit in their faces with a shotgun. All three men raped Neiman’s friend—she was the pretty one—and Lockett announced that he was going to kill both women. He shot Neiman twice because she refused to surrender her pickup truck’s keys and alarm code. Stephanie was then buried, still breathing, by one of Lockett’s accomplices, Shawn Mathis, as Lockett watched.
No, I am not troubled that he suffered a bit longer than is ideal during his execution.
There was no question of Lockett’s guilt, and his crime was inhuman. Such wanton cruelty and disregard for innocent life warrants society’s most emphatic rebuke, and the most emphatic rebuke is death. It is essential that any healthy society make it clear to all that some crimes forfeit the continued right to not just liberty, but also life. Anyone who weeps because this sadistic murderer experienced a few extra minutes of agony in the process of being sent to his just rewards has seriously misaligned values.
No method of execution will work every time, and to make perfection the standard is a dishonest way to rig the debate. If the death penalty is justified, and it is, then we should expect and accept the rare “botch.” Meanwhile, if the concern really is efficiency, reliability, speed of death and minimal pain, there are literally dozens, maybe hundreds of methods of swift execution that would accomplish this. They just won’t pass the standards of death penalty opponents, because no method will.
The execution of Clayton Lockett doesn’t bolster the anti-death penalty position, it exposed it. Meanwhile, he’s dead.
Good.
____________________________
Facts: New Republic, CNN, Daily Mail, Mirror
Ethics Alarms 
Well done.
Good explanation of what “cruel and unusual” was meant to convey.
And good sign off on the notion that no standard will pass their test because they will accept nothing short of no death penalty.
Under Supreme Court precedent, the definition of “cruel and unusual” relies on “evolving standards of decency” Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 at 101 (1958) If a majority of Americans condone torturing criminals to death, then under Trop, it is not considered cruel and unusual.
Lockett is dead. Good. And I don’t really care how he died. He deserved to die. Period. And if his death was unpleasant, I also blame the anti-death penalty folks, who devised this “experimental” system as more “humane.”
As you so succinctly put it: “It is essential that any healthy society make it clear to all that some crimes forfeit the continued right to not just liberty, but also life. Anyone who weeps because this sadistic murderer experienced a few extra minutes of agony in the process of being sent to his just rewards has seriously misaligned values.”
“Suffered a bit longer than was ideal.” Bullshit. Fucking bullshit. When a man dies writhing in pain, that IS cruel, and it IS botched. Even if you are pro death-penalty (I’m not), you owe it to the very concept of civilization to make that death quick and painless. Is that better than his victim? Of course. If our purpose is that he has forfeited his right to live, fine, but gleefully smirking at barbarity is BULLSHIT. And fuck you for saying my values are misaligned because I despise the notion of ANYONE dying in writhing agony.
Calm down, friend. Your values are misaligned, because Locket by his actions forfeited any right to compassion or pity at all. He brought this on himself 100%, placed the state in the position where such an imperfect execution could occur, and is accountable for his own pain…along with the death penalty foes that forced such a fallible and stupid method on Oklahoma.
His suffering was not intentional—that would be cruel–and if you are so concerned about such accidents, then you can join me advocating simple, easy, quick and virtually fail-safe methods of execution, such as a point blank bullet in the brain, a swift and heavy bat ot sledge hammer to the head, an overdoes of heroin, a visit to a pile-driver, or placing the condemned in a small box with a live hand-grenade.
Who’s smirking? I’m glad he’s dead. Nobody sane shouldn’t be glad he’s dead. I’m not glad he suffered, especially, but I’m less concerned about it than, say, the New York Yankee pitching issues. (They have two starters hurting, and CC is failing.)
By the way, you get one fuck you to the moderator, and that’s it. You used yours, and not well, since you misrepresented the post and my position.
You’re WRONG, point blank. If he forfeited any right to compassion or pity, we may as well have let the crowd beat him to death with bats. The fact that you’re not horrified by a man being tortured to death and chucklingly blow it off as being less worth notice than fucking BASEBALL terrifies me.
And yes, I know it wasn’t intentional torture, but he died. In agony. And you just shrug? Abhorrent. Dispicable. That this doesn’t stun you and make you sick to your stomach makes me question your very sanity.
Which really puzzles me, Luke. I explained why. It should make me sick to my stomach that the death of a guy who buried a girl alive after shooting her involved more pain and suffering than planned in his extremely well earned execution? Wow. How does someone even end up thinking like this?
He turned in his human being card. I am troubled by animals suffering, because they are innocents—this guy wasn’t. Sentimentalizing the likes of Lockett makes rational justice impossible. And why stunned? Killing people is complicated; it’s hard, and death penalty obstructors have made it harder. Stunned? This is bound to happen occasionally. It’s unfortunate.
And it’s unlucky for the Yankees to lose their #4 starter just as the #3 had to be operated on too. Seriously. I think you’re the odd one here on this issue.
Your central confusion is this: suffering for an extra period is still the lesser misfortune than death. I would choose the former over the latter every time—after the suffering, I’m still alive. If killing a murderer doesn’t cause overwhelming grief, why should the suffering? You are incapable of being rational because you find both the death and the suffering unbearable. If death, the far worse result, is not going to upset me, why should the relatively incidental suffering?
1. He wasn’t tortured. That’s a dishonest misrepresentation, any more than patients whose anaesthesia fails are tortured. Torture is a willful act.
2. “If he forfeited any right to compassion or pity, we may as well have let the crowd beat him to death with bats.” He did forfeit that right, and your conclusion doesn’t follow.
3. You are completely emotional and beyond reason on this topic, and just ranting at this point. It’s neither persuasive nor enlightening.
#2 is where Luke is applying a subtle false dichotomy.
He seems to assert that when you say the murderer forfeits a right to pity and compassion that you are also saying citizens gain the liberty to intentionally inflict suffering.
And it’s that little word “intentionally” that destroys the dichotomy. Of course we for gain a right to inflict suffering just because another forfeits a right to pity and compassion. There is the middle ground.
And I mean it when I say the unintended but short term suffering of a sadistic killer gives me no sadness at all. Regret, sure—things should be done right and professionally, and when the state takes on a grave duty, it should do it well. But that’s criticism of the system, not pity for Lockett. If I learned that his transport on the way to execution had crashed and he was eaten by roaming coyotes, I’d think, “Ouch! That’s a shame. What’s for lunch?”
And I mean it when I say the unintended but short term suffering of a sadistic killer gives me no sadness at all.
*************
Well, maybe I should change my screen name to “Sadistic Bitch” because I don’t feel bad about it, either.
I do feel bad that the second guy in line (he of the raping and murdering of an 11 month old baby) is getting to live at least two weeks longer.
Now, instead of looking at the situation from a hysterical, let’s-keep-the-news-off-of-Benghazi, bleeding heart angle being frothed up by the drooling, idiot media, let’s look at it from a medical standpoint:
It is not unusual for persons undergoing this type of sedation to react unexpectedly.
Sometimes they even go completely off the rails and destroy the whole OR before they are wrestled down and sedated further.
All of that could be guaranteed avoided if hands weren’t being tied by the very people who claim to want a humane procedure.
Pentobarbital was a much better drug but of course, Europe doesn’t want to share anymore, you know, with murdering American scum.
Maybe we should start referring to a failure to cause unconsciousness as “The French Effect”.
The vein problem could be avoided by placing a permanent catheter or port in a neck vein.
Just like patients receive for chemotherapy.
Someone will say that is cruel, of course.
A heroin overdose would render the patient unconscious immediately and dead shortly thereafter.
There is probably a lot of it just lying around in police evidence rooms.
What is wrong with that?
Carbon monoxide is another. Completely painless.
The problem today is that people who know nothing about the human body and how it works are dictating decisions based on what “feels’ right to them and not on actual medical knowledge or facts.
So, I say, to all of those who wanted to make things better for these poor, suffering, misunderstood criminals…take your bow,
So, did you cancel his ticket? When a discussion heats up it’s time to step back and re-marshal your arguments, not ratchet up to eff you.
My ticket stays valid, thanks, but at least for the time being I’m going to be steering clear of the blog. I can’t even begin to understand the logic at play here, other than that it’s easiest to countenance the death penalty once you’ve convinced yourself that the condemned is subhuman and deserving of no pity and compassoin, then laughingly comparing it to baseball statistics. Whatever helps you sleep at night I guess.
It is clear that you don’t understand the logic, and my guess is that the reason is that you are not applying any yourself. You have not even attempted to address my points, like why a few minutes of extra pain should be a big deal when the sufferer is being killed anyway. Or why being painless is a prerequisite of an execution. Or why anyone should care about the quality of life in the final minutes of a monster who shot a girl and buried her alive. Presumably you weep as well that bin Laden was treated roughly before he was executed, at least if you are going to be consistent. And are really upset that Mussolini was hung on a hook. I suppose we are supposed to just accept that reflex, touchy-feely, attitude..lighting candles for serial killers, that sort of thing. The fact that’s it is popular doesn’t mean it is ethical, sensical or consistent with the realities of justice.
It’s popular with elites, not popular with the rank and file. A recent poll taken in Europe shows a majority of people would vote to bring back the death penalty if allowed to by the EU.
I read plenty of specious quotes from MLK and Gandhi posted by liberal friends in the days following the shooting of bin Laden, mostly to the effect that justice was not served by killing him and that the US had lost the moral high ground. “It won’t bring those he killed back.” was another line bandied about. Of course it won’t, the point wasn’t to try to resurrect the dead, the point was to punish him and stop his evil from continuing to wound the world. I’m a churchgoer but these idiotic statements from the so-called “peace churches” about how bin Laden was created in the image of God and God loved him like everyone else and so on so killing him was nothing to celebrate made me want to vomit. 2,000+ people dead, including 343 firemen and a big chunk of lower Manhattan destroyed and killing the man who masterminded that made US the bad guys?
Better still, a Jesuit named Father John Dear, who seems to fancy himself a successor to Philip Berrigan but has yet to achieve anything like the notoriety made a post to the effect that he wasn’t surprised that 9/11 had happened, because in his opinion it was just the United States’ own terrorism in the world coming home to roost. In other words, those people deserved to die because of United States foreign policy. While United States foreign policy is certainly debatable, the reasoning that ordinary people and emergency workers DESERVE to be murdered – not killed in a war, murdered – simply for being in the United States because of that past policy is a sick, twisted worldview not worthy of a man holding himself out as learned and moral.
That sick twisted worldview seems to trickle down to somehow holding up murderers and even serial killers as saints, simply because they are under the inherently wrong sentence of death. How much garbage did we have to hear about Stanley “Tookie” Williams having written a children’s book while in prison for any number of murders, the victims of some of which were from Taiwan and he referred to as “Buddhaheads.” How much pleading was there for Karla Tucker, who described getting a sexual thrill when she hit her victim with a pickaxe? And the list goes on and on.
It got to the point where even some hardened prosecutors have said they are in favor of life in prison rather than death, just because of the political firestorm. One, I think it was Terrance Farley, who served as both the Director of the Division of Criminal Justice and First Assistant Prosecutor of Ocean County in NJ (where the death penalty was done away with but not on his watch) said something to the effect of when someone is sentenced to life the families of the victim only have to read about him in the paper when he is found guilty and when he is sentenced, and that’s the last you hear of him, but if he is sentenced to death they have to keep hearing about him again and again and again, even after the sentence is carried out, because he becomes a cause celebre’ for grandstanders on the left.
Opposition to the death penalty is just more moral gloss in an attempt to polish a turd of an idea.
P.S. John Dear was finally kicked out of the Jesuits the end of last year. I say good for them. His writings and actions are frankly those of a sociopath, flavored with nonviolence and also rife with out-and-out lies.
Heck no. I’ll cop to intentionally tweaking the reflex “woe is the vicious, irredeemable sociopath” types who reliably bleed all over this subject. I wasn’t targeting Luke specifically, but he’ll do. His arguments are irrational, and emotional, as the absolutists on this topic tend to be. (The rest say they don’t approve of CP, until they really don’t like someone earning it, like Osama.
I also cop to using the baseball analogy…though I mean it…to drive him to distraction. I wonder if he recalls that I’m a Red Sox fan, which further informs my sympathy for Yankee pitching problems.
Wait, we can do that?
Is there a signup list or something?
Yes, he did forfeit any claim to compassion or pity. He raped a young woman and murdered another one – a teenager, point of fact. That it took him a bit longer to die should not bother anyone unless they are dead set against the death penalty under any circumstances, and anyone who is dead set against it in any circumstances is saying that murderers have more value than their victims. THAT, sir, is warped. It may sound and even be moral, in the sense that most religions teach that all life has value, but it’s not ethical, in the sense that not delivering the ultimate punishment means that wrongdoers don’t get appropriate punishment. Likewise, nonviolence may be moral in the sense that all the major religions teach peace, but it’s not ethical in the sense that not opposing tyranny means that tyranny wins.
Jack: You forgot the guillotine. Probably the quickest, most painless, and efficient method there is.
Too bad the French ruined it for the rest of us.
-Jut
Not the Widow, J.G. There’s evidence to suggest that the head is conscious for up to 12 seconds after being “loosed”!
Like I said: pretty quick; pretty painless; hard to botch. Lethal injection has nothing on that as far as timing goes (what is it? 9 minutes until death is pronounced?)
Hanging? Quicker and equally painless, but far easier to botch.
Firing squad? Quicker and probably painless, but, again, easier to botch. Better to do it the Chinese way and fire the gun at point-blank range into the head.
But for Jack, an avid baseball fan, to suggest a baseball bat to the head is troubling. It’s as if he has not seen how poor Boston’s batting average is this year. Just don’t put the Houston Astros in charge of carrying out such executions: that would be cruel and unusual!
-Jut
Your observation about the Houston Astros is, regrettably, justified. As a firing squad, however, they might just cut it!
If baseballs were head-size, I’m pretty sure the Sox would be raking…
The Romans practiced crucifixion. If civilized people believed that crucifixion was consistent with the concept of civilization…
I see things about executions gone wrong, and all I can think is: “Have these people never heard of carbon monoxide?”
That’s on my list!
So many ways to kill a person yet they pick something that adds fuel to the anti capital punishment fire. Granted, I know there will be complaints about any execution method, but why choose something that’s harder to defend?
I do not weep for rightly convicted criminals who are executed, but what of the injustice of incarceration and execution of the wrongly convicted?
I don’t really have the time to get into an extended argument about this (and certainly any comment by me, the Roman Catholic bleeding heart liberal, is going to incite argument). However, the mere fact that you included the photo of the aluminum baseball bat is part of my objection to CP. The vengeance/vendetta stream that runs through the pro-CP debate is disturbing. The entire concept runs the danger of awakening that dark side of each of us that craves retaliation. We love to see the bad guy/gal suffer, because they “deserve it.” Christianity left all of that behind with the gospel passage where Jesus debunks the “eye for an eye” justice found rampant in the Middle East then and now. I dread your response (and the response of your readers) to the ridiculousness of Christian cheek turning values. This is why many thinking Christians talk about the Church as being “counter cultural.” Violence in the name of justice is still violence.
I acknowledge that there are times when violence, though regrettable, is necessary. Violence in the defense of the defenseless, for example, which is often the source of the violence of war. It’s a wicked slippery slope, though — does war always require the “kill shot” or can a defensive war be waged, etc. — and one can find justifications everywhere.
I maintain that the problem is not anti-CP vs. pro-CP. The problem is that we, the United States of America, appear to be doing nothing about prevention. I don’t desire a “Minority Report” type of world, nor a “Person of Interest” type of world. But is there anything being done proactively to shut down the causes and sources of violent crime? Other democracies that have outlawed capital punishment — are they merely deluded or weak or, seriously, unjust? Responses to this last sentence I am truly interested in seeing.
1. The wrongly executed/convicted individual is irrelevant here. Right?
2. I have written elsewhere that I would be perfectly satisfied with an enhanced standard of proof for death penalty cases.
3. No system, even this, should have to meet the impossible standard of perfection.
4. The bat symbolizes a quick, certain, painless death. The claim that it implies vengeance is emotional. It works. It’s messy—that’s not going to bother the executed man. The batsman will have to wear plastic and a helmet. But no “botched” executions. One way or the other, it will be over in three seconds or less. Humane.
5.”But is there anything being done proactively to shut down the causes and sources of violent crime?” Yes. Catch them, convict them, and lock them up. It works.
6.”Other democracies that have outlawed capital punishment — are they merely deluded or weak or, seriously, unjust?” Yes.
The anti-death-penalty position can join nonviolence and the ambiguous “social justice” in the paint shop of what I am now terming “moral glosses,” good-sounding covers for bad ideas and bad ideologies. Eventually I’ll do a full essay on moral gloss.
Please. And don’t forget “Give Peace A Chance.”
Yup. and “root causes.”
Seriously? The entire idealogy of non-violence can be reduced to a “moral gloss”?
Yes. There’s not one time in history it’s ever achieved anything great without other factors entering the equation, and time and time and time again it’s been used as a cover for leftist ideology. Principled peaceful people are few and far between, and the idea that fighting is never justified is idiotic if you just use one shred of logic. But people buff up their leftism with the idea of “I’m for peace, I win” all the time.
Your #5 doesn’t answer the question. I was talking about prevention of violent crime. Is there any proof (I chuckle at the thought) that “Catch them, convict them, and lock them up” is or has EVER BEEN a deterrent?
Sure! They can’t commit more crimes when they are in jail. Violent crime in the US is way down now, and jail population is way up.
Well… technically, they CAN commit crimes. They just do them in jail.
What’s the statistics on that? How many people in jail commit another crime while in jail?
Regarding #6 — then I guess I am, along with the rest of us who are anti-capital punishment, deluded, weak, and unjust. Is that seriously what you would conclude to be the logical extension of your statement?
You asked about countries, not individuals. I tend to think of people who hate capital punishment as “nice.”
Hmm, damning with faint praise, perhaps?
Not at all. Nice people make the world bearable. They save us, over and over again.
You mean SOME people who hate it, I hope. Hugo Chavez and Amiri Baraka the elder were both opposed, just as two quick examples of despicable CP opponents.
1) No. This was brought up in the context of approval and disapproval of the death penalty. The existence of wrongful executions is a very relevant argument against it, as are the assorted biases in sentencing (although the latter is, by far, a weaker argument).
3) The most conservative recent estimate I’ve seen is that at least 4.1% of people sent to death row are would be exonerated given time and investigation ( http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/04/23/1306417111 ). This, of course, is an extremely conservative estimate based on what statistically happens to people sent to death row, but can be used as a starting point. How many false convictions — and executions — are acceptable?
4) Umm… beating someone to death with a baseball bat would take a whole lot longer than three seconds. Hell, as has been observed elsewhere, people survive, conscious, at least twelve seconds or so after being subjected to a _guillotine_.
5) The question of whether that strategy works is an empirical one, and must be subjected to empirical tests. Look at a map of which countries allow the death penalty ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_country or http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/abolitionist-and-retentionist-countries ), then compare to any of the assorted infographics of worldwide murder rates (e.g. http://chartsbin.com/view/1454 ). We can also do the same thing by state ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/04/30/map-how-each-state-chooses-to-execute-its-death-row-inmates/ for the death penalty, vs. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10320691/US-crime-murders-and-manslaughters-by-state.html ).
Or, if we trust the Death Penalty Information Center’s numbers, we can look at the numbers at http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates .
Of course, this is a classic case of “correlation does not prove causation”, and proves nothing… but similar tests at least represent a starting point when it comes to assertions like “catch them, convict them, and lock them up. It works.” The short answer is that it _doesn’t_ — the convict recidivism rates, among other things, consistently show this.
We can also address the availability of alternate options — Sweden, for instance, is very clearly not depending on locking people in its prison system for preventing violent crime (e.g. see http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/01/why-sweden-closing-prisons ), but still has an obscenely low, if increasing, rate of it ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Sweden ).
(And before you think that I’m holding out Sweden’s as a model justice system — no. Just… no. Look up how their adoption practices deal with sex offenders if you ever want to be horrified. Case in point: http://www.thelocal.se/20131129/convicted-swedish-paedophile-allowed-to-adopt )
What all of this does point to is that crime rates are most strongly influenced by factors other than criminal sentences… and, accordingly, that the most effective measures are likely to be found elsewhere.
TL;DR? Finding a solution to the societal ills of violent crime is going to be a whole heck of a lot more complicated than that.
6) As I think that just about every government is deluded (to the extent that the evidence taken into account in political decision-making is distorted by political processes), I will give you that. Weak… well, you can make that argument. I do, however, think that there are fair and just reasons to oppose the death penalty.
What do you mean, “no”? How is the issue of wrongfully convicted CP victims relevant in the context of the execution of a correctly convicted one? I’ve dealt with the mistake issue elsewhere—it’s a canard. Fine, fix the problem. The issue of fallibility is irrelevant to the principle of capital punishment itself—is it right or wrong for the state to have the death penalty for citizens who have committed crimes so heinous that they must be rejected in the strongest and clearest manner possible. Citizens who have NOT committed such crimes are not involved in this equation at all.
I have written this again and again: make the standards as tough as possible: DNA match, eye-witness testimony, video, physical evidence, motive, corroboration by Boy Scout troops, whatever you want. Not “reasonable doubt” but beyond ANY doubt. OK? That issue, fallibility, is now off the table.
Under those conditions, is capital punishment necessary and ethical?
Yes.
And please—Sweden??? Sweden has about as much in common with the culture and traditions of the US as OZ.
I don’t know, you post-Enlightenment Germanic speaking First World nations all look the same to me.
There’s also Minnesota, but I consider them pseudo-Canadians anyways.
Good point, you betcha.
The issue being brought up, however, wasn’t the context. It was the broader matter and issue of capital punishment *itself*.
And, since people who aren’t guilty of such crimes are charged with them, are at risk of being convicted of them, and are exactly who we’re talking about when we mention wrongful execution… yes, they are relevant.
As for standards… you’re talking about massive judicial reform… which, frankly, isn’t happening. We have the legal system that we have — for better or for worse — and changing things gets into a whole ‘nother set of issues and politics.
But, even beyond that, fallibility will *never* be off the table — even if only because humans can never design perfect systems or have perfect certainty. We may think we have the latter at times… but, well, long experience has proven otherwise. As such, it becomes a pair of questions — how many wrongful executions are we willing to tolerate? Is the number of wrongful executions we have below this threshold?
As the latter is an empirical question, I tried to get at it with, well, data and cases. I addressed an empirical assertion of yours in such a manner as well (namely that harsh punishment, including execution, represents a solution to America’s crime problem). The data I found — and cited — does not really support that assertion, and the history of policies that are “tough on crime” doesn’t support the assertion either. Heck, even social psychology research on consequence schemes doesn’t (generally).
You disagree? Fine. Show me the data.
I’ll also note that this is hardly the only valid reason to oppose the death penalty (even if it is, in essence, mine). I have come across others (power limitation, for instance).
As for the Sweden thing… the societal differences and their impact on crime are *entirely my point*.
As I put it: “What all of this does point to is that crime rates *are most strongly influenced by factors other than criminal sentences*….”
The issue being brought up, however, wasn’t the context. It was the broader matter and issue of capital punishment *itself*.
Wrong. Capital punishment must be debated in the context of whether it is appropriate when it is deserved. If course it is wrong when it is mistakenly applied. So is all punishment. Nor will it take massive judicial reform to preserve society’s necessary option of punishing the worst of the worst with the absolute penalty. It simply requires a sufficiently rigorous standard of proof.
If you read what I have written on the subject, the issue of whether the data supports or doesn’t support the contention that CP reduces violent crime is a non sequitur, besides noting that the data absolutely supports the contention that it ends violent crime by those executed, a not immaterial consideration. I don’t care whether it does or not. I care that a mass murderer be executed so a mere serial killer doesn’t get 20 years with a chance of parole, causing an armed robber to get only 15. Look at the absurd sentences in Europe, where euthanasia is taking hold and abortion isn’t even questioned. Citizens recoil at the dirty work of keeping societal standards functioning; opposing capital punishment is the domestic equivalent of pacifism. “Show me the data that wars stop wars!” There is no such data. But I don’t need data to convince me that society has to suck it up and declare that certain inhuman acts forfeit mercy, compassion and life, and must, or law, life and civilization itself is devalued.
And, since people who aren’t guilty of such crimes are charged with them, are at risk of being convicted of them, and are exactly who we’re talking about when we mention wrongful execution… yes, they are relevant.
As for standards… you’re talking about massive judicial reform… which, frankly, isn’t happening. We have the legal system that we have — for better or for worse — and changing things gets into a whole ‘nother set of issues and politics.
But, even beyond that, fallibility will *never* be off the table — even if only because humans can never design perfect systems or have perfect certainty. We may think we have the latter at times… but, well, long experience has proven otherwise. As such, it becomes a pair of questions — how many wrongful executions are we willing to tolerate? Is the number of wrongful executions we have below this threshold?
As the latter is an empirical question, I tried to get at it with, well, data and cases. I addressed an empirical assertion of yours in such a manner as well (namely that harsh punishment, including execution, represents a solution to America’s crime problem). The data I found — and cited — does not really support that assertion, and the history of policies that are “tough on crime” doesn’t support the assertion either. Heck, even social psychology research on consequence schemes doesn’t (generally).
You disagree? Fine. Show me the data.
I’ll also note that this is hardly the only valid reason to oppose the death penalty (even if it is, in essence, mine). I have come across others (power limitation, for instance).
As for the Sweden thing… the societal differences and their impact on crime are *entirely my point*.
As I put it: “What all of this does point to is that crime rates *are most strongly influenced by factors other than criminal sentences*….”
“Wrong. Capital punishment must be debated in the context of whether it is appropriate when it is deserved.”
No. It must be debated in the context of whether the institution and practice — taken as a whole — is helpful or harmful on the whole.
Executing criminals isn’t a primary ethical obligation — by which I mean that it’s a means to an end (or multiple ends). As such, questioning whether it’s the best means to achieve those ends is not only appropriate, but a societal obligation.
“If course it is wrong when it is mistakenly applied. So is all punishment. Nor will it take massive judicial reform to preserve society’s necessary option of punishing the worst of the worst with the absolute penalty. It simply requires a sufficiently rigorous standard of proof.”
Applying a sufficiently rigorous standard of proof would require massive judicial reform.
We have a good body of research on what factors influence sentences — and what types of evidence are considered credible within the system. These are, bluntly, not anywhere close to what they should be. The first step to applying a rigorous standard of proof would be to straightening out that mess — even if only in death penalty cases, given the scope of this discussion — which would require… massive judicial reform.
And, even without that, there’s the fact that raising the standard of proof for the death penalty would also increase the monetary cost of executing a criminal — a cost that’s already higher than the cost of life imprisonment.
It requires changing statutes. Judicial reform has just about nothing to do with it.
And the validity of the principle of capital punishment and the utility of it as currently practiced are two separate, non-exclusive issues. You have to agree on the first before the second is worth considering.
I would disagree, and say that reform of the judicial system is certainly called for.
Until such time as prosecutors cops, and lab technicians receive actual, substantive punishment for lying on the stand, Brady violations, falsifying statements or tests results, or any other action that results in clearly innocent people being convicted for even lengthy prison sentences (let alone death), then the system will continue to have a problem with people like me who have a hard time supporting the death of the clearly guilty, because the system produces, while not a large number, a significant number of false convictions.
But if it depends on none of those, and it wouldn’t have to, then that objection no longer matters.
Serial or mass murderers with multiple eye-witnesses, forensic evidence checked by multiple choices, with undoctored photographic evidence, plus clear motive, weapon and opportunity. A full trial by jury that must be independently supported by a judicial panel.
This would let John Wilkes Booth off with life imprisonment.
It requires changing the way the courts process and interpret evidence, the ways juries are selected, the sort of instructions juries are given, and several major elements of judicial procedure… at a minimum.
Sure, most of that can be accomplished via statute. It’s still overhauling major elements of the judicial system.
As for the second part… no. The issue of capital punishment in the United States — the issue that most of this discussion has been about — is about whether or not the United States should be in the business of executing convicts. What you are referencing are two different types of arguments which pertain to that.
Given the fact that America is executing prisoners, this creates a variety differences of opinion on both sides of the debate.
There are those who disagree with the practice on principle. There are those who agree with the idea on principle but object to the practice as useless, unhelpful, or harmful in practice or in the context of the current judicial system. There are those who disagree on both.
There are those who think the practice is both good and helpful. There are those who think that the practice does more harm than good, but believe that a moral imperative to execute certain people overrides that (frankly, these are rare given the human capacity to find evidence for their position and the ambiguity of the data). There are those who think that the utility of the practice justifies an abrogation of principle (even more rare, given the ambiguity of the evidence and the cognitive dissonance that this position generates).
There are even those — on both sides — who haven’t even considered one line of reasoning or the other.
It’s still a single societal debate.
the last confirmed case was in 1927.
so what? If they are exonerated, they are not executed.
How is putting people on death row when it later turns out they did not deserve to be there any more different than a cop pulling a gun on a person who turns out to be unarmed?
The problem is that we don’t care about people who were *exonerated* after execution — we care about people who were and/or are *innocent* and executed. Attempts to exonerate the individual typically cease after the execution — for the obvious reason of any such attempts being moot. This was even rather spectacularly demonstrated in the case of Joseph Roger O’Dell III — where potentially exonerating evidence was deliberately destroyed following the execution (see http://www.truthinjustice.org/DNA-DP.htm for a transcript of news coverage).
The PNAS article I linked is an attempt to get at the number of innocent people sent to Death Row via on the pattern of exonerations. Admittedly, it only gets to a proxy (the number of people who would be exonerated if the execution was delayed indefinitely), and yields an extremely conservative estimate, but it’s around as close as we can get.
Finally, your 1927 number is also very much disingenuous — even five minutes of half-assed research yields several cases of people who were executed based on questionable evidence or even who were subsequently exonerated… many of which were far more recent. For instance: Cameron Todd Willingham (2004), Johnny Garrett (1992), Jesse Tafero (1990), and Carlos DeLuna (1989).
Also, like I’ve mentioned before, a wrongful shooting can take place in situations where there really is a split second to make a decision, with the cost of making the wrong one being the death of yourself, your comrades, or other bystanders. With the death penalty, it’s statistically unlikely that simply condemning the perp to life in prison will result in him escaping custody and harming another innocent (well under .005% of all state prison inmates escaped in 2008, with the rate being presumably lower in high security ones where the worst are kept).
Of course, I’m saying this as someone who would accept the death penalty if they made burden of evidence for its use much more stringent.
so then the whole Willie Horton thing was a hoax?
surely serving a life sentence in Massachusetts is an airtight alibi for an accusation of commiting a crime in Maryland…
Ted Bundy…who was something of an escape artist as well as a serial killer…
“Statistically unlikely” doesn’t equate “impossible”, as you’re no doubt smart enough to realize; it does mean, however, like in baseball, you need to be very wary of letting small sample sizes influence your judgement (it’s part of the reason why we tend to get moral panics everytime a school shooting happens, despite how rare they are overall).
Other democracies that have outlawed capital punishment — are they merely deluded or weak or, seriously, unjust?
************
You forgot hopelessly Liberal and totally out of touch with what goes on in the US.
I’m pro-death penalty for all the reasons Jack regularly cites, but the thought of experimental execution methods does not help me sleep at night. The use of an unusual procedure already crosses a Constitutional line, and I would argue that the choice of unusual punishment is inherently cruel. Don’t mistake that as sympathy for the condemned. (Please, just shoot them! A poorly aimed bullet may at least be quickly corrected.) I’m far more worried about government disregard for its own power and principles, as well as what our tolerance of it will mean in the long run.
We got to this point by trying to find a “humane” means of offing the enemies of society in a way that will mollify the liberals who rail against the death penalty. It was a useless endeavor from the get-go. They’re not going to give up an emotional issue that stands to give them political power. (Note that this quest for humane execution also gave us the chair and the gas chamber.) The quickest- and cheapest- means of execution remains a bullet to the back of the head. Just because the Nazis did it a lot doesn’t mean that it’s any less effective.
Sigh, “quickly corrected” not “quickly correctly”. I’m getting sloppy.
Fixed!
I am pro-death-penalty for one reason and one reason only…it gets the person being executed out of society and, hence, the gene pool. I have no interest in vengeance, especially for a crime to which I have only a tenuous connection, and that philosophically (Any man’s death diminishes me etc.), nor do I see the death penalty as being a deterrent (nor do I care whether it is or not). As I said, it removes one bad apple from the bushel of my society.
There’s a bunch of definitional problems here. For the death penalty to be a useful tool (putting aside the moral/ethical issues for the moment), it should be effective as a deterrent to crime. The death penalty may be effective as a specific deterrent (either directly or as a bargaining chip for prosecutors), but it’s not particularly effective as a general deterrent. So the question is, is it enough of a specific deterrent to warrant its extra costs, ethical questions about unequal application, and whatever moral and ethical problems it presents. When its moral/ethical problems increase substantially due to the kinds of problems the Oklahoma case presents, we should be talking about whether this changes the calculus for capital punishment as a tool. The rest of this is just inflammatory rhetoric. Sure, people up for capital punishment tend to be pretty awful people. But that’s not what the relevant question should be, the question is about the punishment itself.
I don’t think deterrence is essential in the least. What matters is that the penalty expresses society’s standards of conduct, rules of belonging, and respect for innocent life. We set the cost of taking life, and if we set it too low, then all lesser crimes become devalued too.
Yeah that’s general deterrence. But most people don’t know the status of death penalty law in their state, so that doesn’t actually work.
The deterrent argument isn’t completely honest. As much as it can be said that statistics don’t show the Death Penalty to be a deterrent, that is a far cry from saying that the statistics show the Death Penalty not to be a deterrent. Because quite frankly the stats show no support for the DP as deterrent, nor as it not being a deterrent. The statistics are silent on this.
But, as Jack says, it’s deterrent effect is irrelevant.
Also, the “extra costs” argument is dishonest as well, read some of the comments above to see why, but in short, DP costs so much more because anti-DPers have made it so.
Quite right of course. And if the death penalty deterred one, 10, 50 innocent lives in exchange for ending 100 guilty, murderous ones, I’d take that trade—and so would Ben Franklin, I bet.
Pretty sure Blackstone wouldn’t agree.
Exactly right. It’s not “Capital Deterrent”. It’s “Capital Punishment”. Any crimes deterred by the existence of the punishment is simply an added bonus.
It is called capital punishment. But the reason we as a free society have criminal punishment is to deter crime. The other options are rehabilitation (clearly not an option with capital punishment), and retribution (an eye for an eye), which is generally considered to cause greater harm to a society than good.
I’ll agree in some form: You have a criminal code and punishment system to deter crime AND deliver justice. Regardless of whether the inclusion of the death penalty in such a system adds any deterrent effect, it certainly adds to the justice of the system.
The real problem that should be addressed is that “justice” means different things to different people and even then, it varies depending on different situations and fact patterns.
When the statistics show that capital punishment is not a general deterrent, that’s what they show. The statistics aren’t silent, they show that the existence of capital punishment doesn’t seem to reduce the crime rate. They do show a specific reduction in certain cases at specific deterrence, and that would be your better argument. But even that reduction in specific deterrence does not address the problems with capital punishment.
Jack said deterrence was irrelevant, then gave a reason for using the death penalty that is the definition of general deterrence.
It’s not dishonest to talk about extra costs when they exist. You can’t wish away costs used by people being afforded their right to counsel in America. The right to counsel was not created by people who oppose the death penalty, it’s in the Constitution. Besides which unless you propose taking away the rights of people who oppose the death penalty, it’s pretty silly to pretend that they are increasing the costs of the death penalty and therefore those costs don’t count: we still have to pay those costs, and it’s not like Italy or Denmark is suddenly going to be okay with exporting drugs for lethal injection in the United States anytime in the near future. It’s realistic to look at existing costs, not “dishonest.” It’s how we should conduct the business of government.
I have deep personal feelings about this topic. Before explaining why, I’d like to point out a few highlights from Luke’s arguments:
“…at least for the time being I’m going to be steering clear of the blog. I can’t even begin to understand the logic at play here, other than that it’s easiest to countenance the death penalty once you’ve convinced yourself that the condemned is subhuman and deserving of no pity and compassion…Whatever helps you sleep at night I guess.”
“…he died. In agony. And you just shrug? Abhorrent. Dispicable. That this doesn’t stun you and make you sick to your stomach makes me question your very sanity.”
“And fuck you for saying my values are misaligned because I despise the notion of ANYONE dying in writhing agony.”
These are not reasoned arguments, nor are they truly compassionate. They are (although Luke may not recognize them as such) pure self-glorification. An almost transparent attempt to convince oneself that he/she lives permanently on the moral high ground, above the inhumane masses. This line of thinking stems from the innate human desire to believe oneself good and noble. It’s a substitute morality for people who don’t want to make the sacrifices and commitments necessary to actually be compassionate and well-reasoned. It’s on par with one-upping everyone else’s love for animals by trumpeting to the world that you believe eating meat is evil.
Not long ago my sister was murdered by her boyfriend. She had tried to break up with him; he snapped and assaulted her. Then he decided that he didn’t want to live with the public shame of being a rapist…so he decided to kill her.
Since the death penalty is, in practicality, non-existent in California, it’s quite possible that this murderer weighed the risks in his mind. If his rape was discovered, the rest of his life would be miserable and he would probably go to jail for a while. If he killed her and was caught…he’d go to jail longer, but wouldn’t die, and his life was going to be miserable either way. If he killed her and got away with it…he wins. Did the lack of any kind of real threat poised by the State of California factor into his decision to stab my sister 39 times? I don’t know.
Most of human history is filled with violent acts committed in a rage as retribution for other violent acts. When someone murders a loved one, a natural human reaction is to desire to punish that person appropriately (and deservedly). When you rape and kill a helpless girl, life in prison is not an appropriate punishment; it doesn’t begin to fit the crime. I don’t need to tell you that emotions run high when it’s your daughter, sister, or mother who is a victim of a killer. You want that person appropriately punished. Dead. Not simply because you want personal revenge, but because you cannot fathom the injustice of society protecting the guilty after failing to protect the innocent. And contrary to what a great many buffoons think, it doesn’t make you “no better than he is.” It makes you a functional human, with a working idea of what’s fair, and a concept of the difference between innocent life and guilty.
Society demands justice for truly inhumane acts committed against innocent people. This is the job of the State. Where there is no State, then there is vigilante/Southern/tribal justice, without due process. If the State is present, but is too cowardly to appropriately punish evil, then you have a cruel system rigged in favor of rapists, killers, and swindlers, at the expense of everyone else. People will not stand to live long under such a system. Even when the economy’s good and everyone has free bread and circuses.
There is no logical argument against the death penalty. There are only the most shallow of emotional arguments.
If your argument is that any death at all is too great a tragedy to be a party to, then be aware that the State doesn’t get to play Switzerland; they enforce ethics/morals upon a populace filled with crime and conflict. They either tacitly endorse atrocities against the innocent, or they hurt the guilty. They can’t do neither.
There certainly is no Biblical argument against the death penalty: all of Jesus’ teachings about pacifism concerned our personal conflicts and struggles. In regards to the State’s role, we have this:
“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil..for he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.”
The government’s responsibility (if they’re doing their job right) is to leave good people alone, hurt and inconvenience bad guys doing bad things, and make it clear to anyone on the fence that being a bad guy is not a desirable option. If they do that fairly and correctly, the rest of us can trust the system and be assured that we won’t have to take matters into our own hands.
Anti-death penalty opinions are not benign or gentle. They are a slap in the face of victims, an invitation to despair and desperation for anyone who has ever lost a loved one to a hateful act. They are salt in the wounds; reminders that the person who raped your daughter or killed your son will always have more supporters, advocates, and champions then your dead loved one does…because he or she is dead.
Comment of the Day.
Wow. Wow. Wow.
Isaac, excellent comment.
The method of execution shouldn’t be conflated with whether there should be executions. Opponents of all executions really shouldn’t have an influential opinion on method because they will be angry about any execution even if the method of execution is a cloud of angry butterflies. Choosing that one case is so heinous that the guilty that death is warranted should be carefully vetted and never routine. I personally think “cruel and unusual” should be applied to vetting the crimes for that punishment, and this case fits that.
But the issue with Lockett really isn’t, and shouldn’t be, about whether he deserves the steepest punishment. It’s about how his death was brought about. Quick and relatively painless is as much for the sanity and humanity of the witnesses and professionals involved. That’s the scandal of botched executions. I’ve come to believe the ‘humane’ punishment of one generation is the abomination of a later day. Permanent solitary confinement was once cutting edge reform. Finding a better way is not a refutation that it’s unnecessary. Carbon monoxide sounds good, or maybe the french madame guillotine, but the heinously guilty will must be removed and we have no way to truly prevent all further crimes even if we lock them up for the rest of their lives (at billions of dollars a year, yet).
And letting these worst back out among the innocents is not acceptable.
I am against the death penalty for several reasons (possible irreversible error and disparate application) but the main one IS that I do think I have the moral high ground here. Full disclosure — I too have had a family member (a great aunt) outright killed by her husband and I unfortunately have come face to face with the absolute scum of the earth on more than one occasion (including, but not limited to pedophiles (not me), sexual assaults (me), a mugging (me) — and again please note the “not limited to” language and some of the plurals used). I, however, will not roll around in the gutter and think and behave on their level. In my opinion (and I understand the pro-death penalty side too — I used to be there in my youth), the ONLY thing more abhorrent than the crimes they commit is a dispassionate jury deciding that a person should die for his crimes. It doesn’t matter the method — obviously a bullet through the brain would be quicker — but taking a human being’s life is worse than the depraved crimes that they have committed. We are supposed to be reason, and the rule of law, and civility — lock them away forever but do not end their lives.
What is more inhumane than a supposed-rational person torturing another person for any length of time — whether for a few seconds or thirty minutes? And if we think and accept that torture is okay, then why aren’t we doing torture for the benefit of society — like organ donation, drug testing, hell, why not Nazi-doctor type techniques like cutting open their brains and trying to figure out why they became criminals while they are living? Because we all would agree that this type of “torture” is cruel and unusual, yet, we don’t think hanging, or the electric chair, or drug cocktails are cruel and unusual. Strange. At least the Nazi-doctors could claim some nominal societal benefit for their sadistic torture — but there is no benefit from executions. None. Every study has shown that it does not deter crime and every time we do it, it dehumanizes us a little more.
So before you criticize anyone for emotional beliefs here — both sides are being emotional. I don’t want to torture and kill someone — you DO want to torture and kill someone because HE tortured and killed someone. His conduct doesn’t make your conduct right — which, in fact, is a consistent theme throughout your blog. You seem to check this rule at the door though when it comes to the death penalty.
Completely untrue, and dishonest to boot. Torture is illegal and unconstitutional, and I deplore it in all cases. I have not endorsed torture here or anywhere, ever. Dishonesty redefining torture to mean what it does not (hanging is not and has never been defined as or considered as torture. Long imprisonment has been called torture, ironically, as has being imprisoned in overcrowded facilities.)
Now you just pointed out that you are intelligent, and you don’t have to be especially so to see the difference between not especially caring that an overly complex execution method misfires and causes more pain than planned to someone who is going to die, and deservedly so, anyway (that is, not sentimentalizing a worthless, deadly societal scourge) , and intentionally inflicting pain on him (torture, and barbaric). Nor is tit for tat even vaguely involved. He needs to die. And, needing to die, his comfort levels in the process couldn’t concern me less. Sure—don’t inflict pain intentionally—that’s torture and an abuse of power. Pain incidental to the job of killing him? Sure. Cry me a river.
If I had learned that Ted Bundy had been mauled to death by coyotes before being captured and put to death, would I care? Would I feel bad for old Ted? Would you? I cannot see how that is any different from being unmoved by Lockett’s unplanned 20 minutes of agony. Because it isn’t
So I’m just going to ignore this comment Beth, because it either willfully ignores everything I’ve written on this topic, and it’s been a lot, and consistent, or
The Oklahoma execution is irrelevant to my thinking — I believe ALL executions are cruel/unusual. I will never get on board with “he needs to die” because two wrongs never make a right. You write about that every damned day. And I agree with you — you just won’t extend it to this topic.
As for the coyotes, as long as I didn’t release the rabid coyotes against Ted Bundy, I particularly do not care if he died either. And I wouldn’t care if he committed suicide or if he died in a prison riot. But I would care if I had been on the jury.
I’m not ignoring what you wrote on the topic — I just disagree with your premise. Not agreeing with you is not willful ignorance. I’m not attacking you Jack.
Write, not right. Ack.
I’ll fix it. Also “Jack” not “Ack”….
“Two wrongs never make a right.” Another tired old saw that compares just punishment of the guilty with simple revenge. If I stole from you or assaulted you I think you’d want me punished, no? Or are you just a wilfull weakling who’d just surrender before the attack?
I’m with you, Beth, and I appreciate your more reasoned approach to this opinion. And I agree that we ought to be able to disagree with Jack and not be thought willfully ignorant!
I don’t feel attacked, Beth. But you know, you can’t have your own facts. “Cruel and unusual” punishment can’t include the death penalty, because we know, without doubt, that the authors of the Founding documents meant something else entirely by those words. If anybody opposed capital punishment in that group, I haven’t encountered it. Now, as a society we can decide to ban capital punishment, but the 8th Amendment is a dishonest way to try it.
It is not “two wrongs make a right.” There are exceptions to all absolutes, and CP, like warfare and self defense, are legal killings for a reason—they are right. They meet utilitarian essentials. Your position is the justice equivalent of pacifism, placing abstract ideals over reality. As I told Patrice, that’s nice. It is not realistic or wise, however.
Capital punishment is both right and necessary for a healthy and functioning society.
It is responsible, because it enforces the boundaries of civilized conduct, which must be done.
It is respectful, because it asserts that a high value is placed on human life, and a higher value on those who are the victims of wanton cruelty and depraved violence than the lives of their killers.
It is fair, because sufficiently vile, cruel and depraved acts constitute a breaking of the social contract, and society should not be forced to house and feed someone who has rejected the terms whereby we live together.
It is prudent, because it removes any chance that a destructive force will be able to harm trusting citizens again.
It is courageous, because doing what is necessary entails a sacrifice by society, performing a taboo—killing—in order to preserve values, standards and society itself.
The Founders? I don’t have to agree with the Founders’ definition of cruel and unusual! Society changes — and, in fact, they could have been wrong in the first place. They weren’t Gods.
I would never lump self-defense and warfare in with CP. We must engage in self-defense (to protect society), we often have to engage in warfare (to protect society), but we don’t have to commit CP to protect society.
I don’t agree with your remaining points in bold — but I used to. In fact, they look like they could be taken from an old essay of mine — so I obviously understand your point of view.
I won’t write any more on this topic. I only engaged in the first place because I didn’t see anybody bring up my main point in detail and it seemed odd to me that nobody was addressing it.
We must engage in self-defense?
What? At what point between the possibility of an innocent killing an assailant in self-defense and the assailant killing the innocent and earning the death penalty, does the morality of killing the assailant change?*
Yet another inconsistency in your argument.
* I have no issues with Self-Defense, merely pointing out another flaw.
Self-defense involves protecting life. CP does not protect life if the alternative exists for permanent incarceration. It is just ending another life. How is that inconsistent?
At the root of it, we acknowledge the right to self-defense because we believe in the upholding the value of innocent life. That is the same as capital punishment.
Was not Willie Horton sentenced to life imprisonment in Massachusetts? How, pray tell, did he end up in a Maryland prison for a crime he allegedly committed in Maryland while serving a life sentence in Massachusetts? Surely serving a life sentence in another state would be an airtight alibi…
As far as I understand-
Cruel implies the wrongful intentions of those applying the punishment… do they seek to disproportionately apply pain and suffering for a purpose other than punishment or beyond the necessary limits?
Unusual implies a punishment not prescribed by the laws of the land. That is to say if Crime X is lawfully punished by Punishment X, then it would be unusual to apply Punishment Z…
Unusual, as it has been defined by the Supreme Court, seems to now involve an “everybody doesn’t do it” analysis. Thus in evaluating whether life sentences for juveniles were an 8th Amendment breach, SCOTUS examined what most states and other Western nations did.
I’m really struggling with this topic. As a young man, I was very much against the death penalty for most of the traditional liberal reasons. As I’ve aged, I must honestly say, it bothers me less. I simply don’t care as much. As I continue to struggle, I also am aware of the inconsistencies in my positions. As an example, in my world, the death penalty would not exist. However, I’m more than willing to turn a blind eye to violent criminals being dealt with in jail. As extreme as this might sound, the emotional part of me would lose no sleep over family members of victims carrying out the death penalty. Unless it was in the heat of battle, I doubt that I would personally elect to do this, but thankfully have never had to seriously contemplate it. And I don’t usually condone vigilante justice.
Where I draw a distinction, and why the “botched execution in OK concerns me is the fact that it’s state sanctioned killing. I’m uncomfortable with what this says, and ultimately will do to those of us who mostly obey the law, and live on after we’ve killed people, no matter how justified. It seems to me that the throwing criminals to the lions ended not because of a shortage of criminals., but because ancient Rome evolved, and was no longer willing to accept what such a practice said about them as a people.
What happened in OK regardless of how badly Lockett needed killing, didn’t feel or sound like something the state should be involved with. It harms us all to be associated with sanctioned killings that are so messy. It’s also a little disheartening to read such cavalier attitudes about the methods we could potentially use to kill people. Who among your readers would volunteer to serve as executioner? Why do you think the faces of those carrying out executions were covered? Could it have been that in spite of the law being on their side, some segment of our conscience new that something was still wrong, and we didn’t want the executioner to have to be so closely associated with the killing? Or that he might be recognized as a killer? I don’t know. But I suspect that played a role. The bottom line is that this is really not as simple as punishing a killer by killing him/her. The fact that we do it or not, remains open to debate. The way we choose to do it is critical because it effects us as a society long after the criminal is dead and gone….
See, I can’t agree.
Oh, I can (and do) get behind the “as implemented it blows” part, but only because there are, frankly, so few checks on proprietorial misconduct – if the State cheats, not only might it happen that we won’t ever know, but even if we do find out it is possible for it to not matter due to various legal issues.
So there is the “I hate that innocent people may (and certainly likely have) die.
But I certainly have no moral or ethical difficulty with the death penalty – if you kill someone, you have forfeited your claim to life. I would even support the idea that if you kill someone, your death takes the exact same form – buried alive, shot and left to bleed out, burned alive, drowned, whatever it might be.
I think it only equitable.
This guy’s execution was “botched” (hey, it worked, didn’t it? That’s a success in my book – a sloppy W is still a W, amirite?) just as intended by those who don’t think anyone should be put to death, and they will use it as fuel for their dishonest, unrealistic campaign to convince everyone that no one should ever be made to suffer the real consequences of their action.
Oddly enough, these are frequently the same people who don’t like the idea of folks being allowed to shoot their own attackers in self defense.
Or what, Jack? Don’t hold back, finish her!
Seriously? “Finish her”? You really kind of get off on calling people names (e.g., idiot, weakling) and turning what ought to be civil dialogue into a gladiatorial competition, don’t you? As disturbing as much of the statements in this comment stream are, yours is the most creepy. I can’t wait to see what you have to say about this.
Yeah, that was a bit ugly. Though it is a tongue in cheek video game reference, as you know…
I didn’t take you for a Mortal Kombat maven…
And now I can’t get that damn Mortal Kombat song out of my head. Just great.
I’m not. I am a walking archive of popular culture, and it will kill me one day.
It’s ok, Jack, you don’t need to fess up to the sleepless nights in the 90’s playing Sega for hours on end until you realized it was an addiction.
If only it were true. My electronic game prowess began and ended with Intelavision, and I still play the dice version of Strat-O-Matic. This is why my son is embarrassed to be seen with me.
The ghosts always got me on Pac Man also.
My geezerdom on full display. The most challenging videogame I play is Minesweeper, and I haven’t even played that for years.
Hold on now. Minesweeper can be a brain game if you do the biggest grid with 600+ mines on it.
Correction, 300 or so.
The point of the death penalty isn’t tit for tat, you idiot. It’s about some crimes deserving the ultimate penalty and the final removal from society. No one was specifically aiming to torture this guy (although I’d have no problem torturing someone who knew where an H-bomb was in Manhattan). He just took a few minutes more to die. And don’t give us that crap about comparing death penalty retentionists to the Nazis. That’s just more moral gloss trying to polish this garbage idea.
I won’t call you an idiot but I will repeat myself — this particular execution is irrelevant to my beliefs, whether it took one second or 10 hours. I don’t believe that any crime deserves “the ultimate penalty and the final removal from society.” Because I can’t agree with that premise, I don’t agree with any of the reasoning that follows. Note that I am NOT calling you an idiot, but all this negativity is interesting to me. I don’t think you, or Jack, or anyone else is an idiot for supporting the death penalty. I just don’t agree with you. Can you be as charitable in return?
Beth, please let me know if I understand you correctly: You don’t believe that any crime deserves “the ultimate penalty and the final removal from society.” You accept only the premise that the benefit of doubt reigns supreme in due process, such that no criminal deserves deliberate imposition by others of such penalty and removal.
If that is correct, then I am led to believe that you also don’t believe that the innocence of any natural person (or alleged natural person) is necessarily relevant to The People’s obligations (as individuals or in the collective) to prevent or hinder such a person’s “final removal” by any means by any other person (let alone, to so prevent or hinder in any circumstance that would necessitate use of deadly force).
Well, CRAP. Ten comments by Tex and Beth rolled in, while I was getting my comment above ready to post. I guess I should know better.
Just means you put more thought into your comments.
Beth,
Your moral equation of the legitimate function of government with the criminal behavior of deviants undoes your objection. Completely.
If it is wrong for the Community to end the life of a murderer because is supposedly puts us on the murderer’s level of brute force and violence, then it must equally be wrong for the Community to lock someone away for years for lesser crimes.
As long as the Community ending the life of a murderer is an act equally wrong as the murder itself, and therefore a kind of murder, then incarceration must be seen as an equally unjust act akin to kidnapping. Indeed, even fines must be the same low-brow thinking of the thief.
By your “punishment makes us like the criminals themselves” standard (and that’s what it ultimately is) then we ought not to punish any crime.
Utter folly.
Tex — I don’t agree with that either. I do believe that criminals need to be removed from society — for our safety. I also could give a damn re how much they enjoy prison. Certainly prison should rehabilitate those who can/should be rehabilitated but violent criminals need to be locked away forever. Locking someone away cannot be “equally wrong” as ending someone’s life. I am not ending someone’s right to breathe. I think I would choose incarceration over death and I suspect you would too. And, to the extent that the prosecution was incorrect, that person can be released and sums can be paid to at least partially compensate the individual.
How cruel of you. Kidnapping in the name of the community and forcibly holding them against their will. How cruel.
Yes. But I have to kidnap people for the benefit of society. But it would be “more” cruel to kidnap people and then torture/kill them — wouldn’t you agree? Is there a greater benefit to society if I kill the people I have kidnapped? No, there is isn’t. In either scenario, the kidnapped individuals will NEVER interact with society again. So why kill them and dehumanize myself?
Ok, you are dense.
this comment addresses the false equivalency you claim I am making. Read that comment it will set you right on the actual analogy used.
False that incarcerated individuals will NEVER interact with society again. That they drain resources and interact with other inmates IS still membership in the Community.
Try again.
The draining resources argument is stupid — of course it takes money to feed people. It also takes MORE money to execute them. And my community argument refers to the community outside of prison. You are so %$@ literal it drives me crazy.
Cost of execution argument has been demonstrated in this discussion to be dishonest. Try again.
If they have shitty representation, that can be true or don’t go through the entire appeals process. It’s not true across the board.
Plus, we can cut costs in prisons. Let’s start with cable and the gym for violent criminals. So that argument can be dishonest too. You have a habit of cherry-picking studies to prove your point.
1) Locking someone away is not equal to killing them. Duh. But that isn’t the analogy, is it? Killing someone justly for the crime of murder is analogous (by proportion) to locking someone up for say, kidnapping, or fining someone for say, property damage. So, if you establish the precedent that the State using force to kill in the name of the Community against murderers is WRONG. Then it must follow that it is also WRONG for the State to use force to incarcerate or fine someone for a proportionately equal crime.
Don’t skew the terms. You are wrong on this and allow emotional arguments to win your mind.
2a) You continue to drum out the “false convictions” argument. Got it. That IS NOT a problem with the Death Penalty. That is a problem with standard for conviction… and I don’t think you’ll find a pro-Death Penalty individual on this blog who doesn’t believe the standard ought to be “Beyond All Doubt”, not just “reasonable doubt”.
2b) You also mentioned above the “disparate impact”. Also, not a problem with the Death Penalty.
So, until you can have a logical and non-emotional argument directed actually at the death penalty, I’m afraid you are sunk.
Agree to disagree. For me, there is no such think as a “just” execution. You are wrong re 2a and 2b, but that’s just window dressing anyway. I’m morally opposed to the death penalty because I am morally opposed to killing people period. It’s not emotional — what’s emotional (yet understandable) is wanting to kill someone who hurts someone in your family. Those killings rarely are prosecuted or result in jury nullification. What is emotional and NOT understandable to me is deciding that it is a greater benefit to society to kill someone rather than locking them away with no chance of parole.
1) Agree to Disagree. Lame.
2) re 2a) 2b) prove it.
3) Are you morally opposed to kidnapping and holding people against their will or forcibly confiscating their property?
4) Locking someone up with no chance of parole tells the Community that the life of a rotten heinous miscreant is worth more than the life of an innocent that same rotten heinous miscreant came across.
1. Folly to discuss more. Positions on CP require an intial point of view and ours are different.
2. I don’t have to. Do your own research. I studied it for years and actually worked on death penalty cases.
3. If they committed a crime? No.
4. Disagree. We are telling the community that they are entitled to food, water, and a bunk bed — nothing more, but we will show that we will not sink to their level by killing them. Civilzed society can do better — especially when we have the means to send them away forever. I acknowledge that this is my opinion, but at the end of the day, this entire debate goes back to opinion only.
1) Correct, Mine is consistent and logical. Yours isn’t.
2) Yes, you do. I demonstrated how 2a) is a matter of standard for conviction, not a problem with the punishment. 2b) is a matter of who decides the appropriate punishment, not a problem with the punishment. You can’t say “No it isn’t. Neener neener” and stick your fingers in your ears.
3) Ok, so if they committed a crime equivalent to society holding them against their will or society confiscating their property and society acts thusly, how the HELL does logic then not also conclude that if they commit crime equivalent to society killing them and society acts thusly. HOW? You CANNOT answer and refuse, because you are inconsistent and have an emotional (flawed) justification.
4) Uh huh, entitled to continue alive, while their innocent victim is not. Nice.
5) It doesn’t boil down to opinion, it boils down to a logical and thoughtful analysis of community values. Which yours are upside down.
Ha. I am the most consistent person and least emotional person on this thread. Bye.
Wait, Beth: Are you so morally opposed to killing people – so consistently morally opposed – that you are declaring that you would take the fall to someone who intended to murder you, just because they happened to possess successful means of carrying out their murdering of you, instead of defending yourself with deadly force and killing the would-be killer first?
See above. Self-defense is different — it protects current life and does not involve state-sanctioned murder. CP does not protect current or future life if permanent incarceration is an option.
Actually, a Duke study showed that CP did in fact act as a deterrent, and so would in fact be saving lives…
Despite my prejudice, going in (or going on), that my doing so is as insane as what I am trying to understand, for now I will keep trying to understand how allowability of killing in self-defense is not also state-sanctioned killing.
“No it isn’t. Neener neener.”
That’s why there’s no point in discussing capital punishment with those opposed. You can argue ethics and reason until you’re blue in the face, but there’s no persuading them. Check out the comments on Huffpoo’s article on this. Among the more enlightening comments “Are you more humane than a rapist murderer?” and “Fallin and her buddies need to be thrown out of office fast, today would be great.”
“Neener neener” made me spit coffee on my computer. Thanks a bunch…
Beth, in reply to your May 1 11:41 pm comment, you are describing yourself as, frankly, an unbelievably exceptional person. I have lived long (perhaps too long), and met many people of all kinds, but I have not yet met a morally conscientious person who was not heavily, if not fully, invested emotionally in line with their moral convictions. So you can’t be morally opposed to the death penalty as you say you are, and at the same time, say you have invested (or attached) little to no emotion in (or to) your convictions against the death penalty. Please point out if necessary where I may be misunderstanding you.
Well, don’t quit your day job and become a psychic, that’s for sure! Your read on me is completely off. This is my position — and it is a principled one — even if you disagree with it. I don’t write op-eds, participate in demonstrations, go to speeches, etc. on this topic. If presented with the opportunity to vote on this issue though, I vote accordingly.
So you are actually saying that if someone raped your child and buried them alive, you would not want that person to be put to death?
And you think that makes you morally superior?
You don’t understand — I would want to put that person in the grave personally and it’s quite possible that I would. I hope that I never am placed in that position. State-sanctioned executions are different.
Oh, I see – you prefer vigilante justice.
Welcome to my side of the fence.
I was on this side of the fence a long time ago. However, while I possibly could act as a vigilante, I would oppose the State killing somebody who harmed by family — and I would say that in Court.
I would also make it my life’s mission to make sure that he never got out of prison – assuming that the police arrested him before I got to him.
Psychic? [replying to Beth’s May 2 6:01 pm] I was only drawing conclusions from what you have written here.
So, no perpetrator of any crime that’s been committed deserves the death penalty. But, would-be perpetrators of some kinds of crimes deserve to be killed before those crimes are committed. To me, that is inconsistent.
Back to one of the central points of the original commentary. It is hypocrisy for those progressively restricting access to drugs which allow a painless execution to bemoan less painless executions. If people are opposed to the death penalty, OK. I, and a majority of the American people, and the people of the various states that have the death penalty disagree. The Supreme Court also says it is not illegal, or “cruel and unusual punishment”. I like Obamacare; a lot of people vehemently object to it, but a majority voted for it through their representatives, so there it is.
But it is just as morally bankrupt to then, through legal and/or administrative chicanery, try to intentionally sabotage Obamacare administration or painless execution. And sickeningly two-faced and entirely unjustifiable to then turn around and claim bad administration of either.
In each case, some minority cannot get its way, so it attempts to sabotage the will of the people (and carrying out of the law) through endless appeals (on the taxpayer dime largely) and seeking outcomes such as that in this execution as a pretext for abolition of the death penalty through the back door.
As if that’s not integrity-bereft enough, need I remind all the restrictions on some of these drugs are not just for execution, but for the health care industry full-stop, i.e. everyone. These are not all “death drugs”, they include very clinically useful and effective sedatives and paralyzers. So now those needing those drugs medically can’t get them. Thanks.
What should happen, until the death penalty is overturned by the. People of a state, or federally, is that those in the legal profession and those pursuing such administrative/legal sabotage of the administration of legal punishment should themselves become defendants in cases brought for cruel and unusual punishment. Similar to someone who breaks the rope next to a guillotine with the intention of forcing the execution by hanging, because they know the hanging process is more likely to take longer and has a higher rate of complications……because they intend to produce a spectacle to try and turn observers against the death penalty. They stand shamelessly afterwards loudly proclaiming its cruelness, with the guillotine rope hidden behind their backs.
One last point. As several have indicated, it is definitely not uncommon for anyone or any living thing to lash out or undergo involuntary movement while undergoing sedation. Why do you think they carefully watch and/or restrain people undergoing sedation for routine medical procedures? Indeed, it is one of the first “disturbing” things those on the profession have to get used to. Not always, not even most of the time, but just as you twitch autonomically every time you go from semi-consciousness to deep sleep, the same type of thing happens to varying degrees when being sedated. Cruel and unusual or suffering have absolutely nothing to do with it. But nice try.
Why can we not use crucifixion as a method of execution? The last time it failed to keep someone dead was over one thousand nine hundred eighty-four years ago, due to quite unique circumstances…
HA! Thanks, I needed that for a laugh this morning. Crucifixion certainly was “usual” CP back then. But I suspect the founders of the U.S. would have all but unanimously (accurately, I think) judged crucifixion as cruel.
AH! [Daffy Duck voice] Conjunction Trouble! The founders’ criterion (which was a COMBINATION of criteria) was “cruel AND unusual.” So…there IS a loophole! It can be cruel. OR, it can be unusual. As long as it is not cruel AND unusual, it’s OK! WOHOOOOOO!!! Let’s get those crosses ready to plant!
Jack: we once shot rabid dogs because they were a danger to the population. That is, dogs with no reason or conscience were shot because they could hurt or even kill. Humans have the ability to choose. And the anti-CP crowd wants us to give them a pass we wouldn’t give a dog. Moral morons, as are the skidmark journalists who are happy to give us a “time-line” of this convict’s last hours while failing to provide a similar timeline for the victims of this scum.