Comments on: Dark days for the death penalty

Dark days for the death penalty

snortlebort — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 08:44:29 -0800

This year, Maryland has been on a path to become the first state to abolish capital punishment, and a bill to repeal the death penalty will be voted on in committee within days. Exonerated death row inmates have been campaigning fervently in support of the bill (including Kirk Bloodsworth, a Marylander who was the first death row inmate ever to be proven innocent by DNA)--and the exonerated are joined by a gamut of other voices that one might not normally expect in the debate. Murder victim family members are vocally supporting abolition. Law enforcement officials, including prosecutors, wardens and police chiefs, are vocally supporting abolition. The Baltimore city council – which presides over the lion's share of Maryland's violent crime -- is unanimously in support of abolition. Even Maryland's governor, Martin O'Malley, has taken a bold stance in support of abolishing executions, going so far as to publish an op-ed, "Why I Oppose the Death Penalty," in the Washington Post on the day of the abolition bill's hearings in Annapolis. And, last but not least, the public is more than 60% in support of replacing the death penalty with life without parole.

So why are so many legislators still supporting death penalty?
Even if the bill doesn't pass in this session, it seems like Governor O'Malley has nothing to worry about for having come out ahead of the legislature on this issue. It's the legislatures—in Maryland and elsewhere—that are falling behind, as the entire country backs steadily away from capital punishment.

By: Thorzdad

Thorzdad — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 08:50:18 -0800

So why are so many legislators still supporting death penalty? Because the people who actually turn-out to vote tend to cast their ballots for "tough-on-crime" legislators? Just a guess...

By: imperium

imperium — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 08:52:45 -0800

The third link there is an excellent rebuttal to the proposition that victims' families always want an execution. Very moving. I still never worked out how the Supremes decided that lethal injection etc were not "cruel and unusual" in 1976. I mean, the more you do something, the less unusual it gets, but surely "cruel" is beyond doubt? Anyway, good luck Maryland. I hope you get to join the majority of the non-executing civilised world.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 08:53:23 -0800

This year, Maryland has been on a path to become the first state to abolish capital punishment I'm pretty sure that several states do not currently execute people According to this page states without the death penalty are: Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

By: drezdn

drezdn — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 08:54:36 -0800

I'm proud of my state (Wisconsin) because in our entire history, we've only put one person to death for a crime. I was disappointed in my state this year though, because a pro-death penalty advisory ref. passed.

By: anotherpanacea

anotherpanacea — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 08:57:48 -0800

My thoughts on the death penalty are so important that they cannot be sequestered, nay, censored! inside the comments thread. Information wants to be free!

By: snortlebort

snortlebort — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 08:59:20 -0800

I'm pretty sure that several states do not currently execute people According to this page states without the death penalty are: Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. True, but those states haven't had a death penalty to abolish. Of the 38 states who reinstated capital punishment after the Supreme Court allowed it 1976, none have abolished it. Montana's senate just voted to abolish it last month, but the bill died in the House.

By: phaedon

phaedon — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:06:06 -0800

I was hoping that first sentence started, "This year, Maryland has been on the path to the Final Four..."

By: parmanparman

parmanparman — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:12:19 -0800

The third link there is an excellent rebuttal to the proposition that victims' families always want an execution. Very moving. Seconded. I have been working so hard to get this to the people on my radio show. The problem is that people are either very passionate about the death penalty (passionately for and passionately against) or they simply do not see it as an issue. I remember when Tookie Williams was put to death trying to get someone from Focus on the Family who had said a lot of things in the press about the case (he felt as a matter of his Christian faith the death penalty should be abolished, but that is not in line with the doctrine of Focus on the Family) to appear on my show and him telling me: "This is not an issue I think our constituency actually cares about." I think everyone of faith cares about this issue.

By: Mayor Curley

Mayor Curley — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:17:08 -0800

So why are so many legislators still supporting death penalty? Because of their constituents with bloodlust. It's a Can't Lose situation. A lot of us voted for Clinton even though we're strongly against the death penalty, but there were plenty of people who might have tipped against him if he was anti-execution. Also, ask anyone who's an outspoken death penalty proponent: most of the people who get fried are darkies or retards (or both) so it's not like they're executing human beings.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:21:34 -0800

More from that MD poll: "The poll found that 56 percent of those surveyed favor the death penalty, 34 percent oppose it, and 10 percent are undecided. However, 61 percent said they would be supportive of a life-without-parole sentence instead." So it's not like legislators are at odds with the majority, who do favor the death penalty. The DPIC just omits the numbers that don't help their case.

By: davy

davy — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:36:25 -0800

I'm neither a "darky" nor a "retard," and I'd rather be humanely executed -- veterinary-style, not with today's methods -- than live in prison "forever." In fact I'd rather face a firing squad than life without parole. But then I'm weird enough to consider the objective reality of prison conditions instead of staggering around blindfolded by some religious bullshit about the "value of human life": any prison I won't rather die than spend much time in is unlikely to function well at what prisons are supposed to do. My hunch is that most death penalty opponents are too "privileged" to imagine they'll ever be prison inmates. Y'all will do good to get over that: the police state is not diminishing, so the new stalins will always need victims and slaves.

By: Lentrohamsanin

Lentrohamsanin — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:41:47 -0800

In fact I'd rather face a firing squad than life without parole. But then I'm weird enough to consider the objective reality of prison conditions instead of staggering around blindfolded by some religious bullshit about the "value of human life"... Similarly, one of my dad's reasons for being against the death penalty is that life in prison is a much worse and therefore more deserved punishment than a quick execution.

By: koeselitz

koeselitz — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:42:56 -0800

I feel like that Martin O'Malley op-ed, while very interesting and good on most counts, is pretty spare when it comes to dealing with whether the death penalty is correct in some circumstances. All practical considerations aside-- and those practical considerations are many and important-- there are some cases where a person deserves to die; not because there's some cosmic tally that says that a life must be taken for a life (there's not, even for Jews) but because there is no way to live a happy or fulfilled life after a person has done certain things. A multiple, remorseless murderer, a serial rapist: these people have had all of the good things in life that they're ever going to have. Killing them is sparing them the torture (which will come either in the form of insanity or extreme, incomprehensible moral pain) that is continued existence. Executions should always be viewed as mercy killings, and the decision to execute should be based on whether the person being executed is capable of later life. This is the purpose of any good and true punishment: to better the life of the one punished. There are some people whose lives would be bettered if they were ended. This is a difficult fact for our minds to confront, not least because we lovers of democracy would rather not face the truth: sometimes people just don't know what's good for them, and the government has to decide.

By: PhatLobley

PhatLobley — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:44:43 -0800

davy, is your preference true regardless of your innocence or guilt?

By: koeselitz

koeselitz — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:46:47 -0800

Lentrohamsanin: "Similarly, one of my dad's reasons for being against the death penalty is that life in prison is a much worse and therefore more deserved punishment than a quick execution." Cruelty should never be the basis of punishment. The basis of punishment should always be "to better the life of the punished." A forgotten fact: sometimes people need to go through rough shit to make up for things they've done in order to be happy. That's the purpose of punishment.

By: Secret Life of Gravy

Secret Life of Gravy — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:49:19 -0800

Also, ask anyone who's an outspoken death penalty proponent: most of the people who get fried are darkies or retards (or both) so it's not like they're executing human beings. posted by Mayor Curley at 12:17 PM EST on March 15 It is precisely because most of the people who get fried are black or have mental problems that I am against the death penalty. John Evander Couey is mentally retarded and suffers from chronic mental illness but the jury in the Jessica Lumsford trial just recommended the death penalty after deliberating for one hour.

By: wfc123

wfc123 — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:50:04 -0800

Like immigration, abortion, flag-burning, the "gay marriage referendum", capital punishment is a tool the Right uses to get the middle class to vote for Republicans. That means there will always be pro-death penalty/pro-police (ever see "Cops"?) propaganda in the corporate media. Local news bureaus now hire "law-enforcement producers"- people who have established a rapport with the police - to help them get crime stories. And you can guess which way the slant goes for 99% of these stories. Legislators work hardest at getting re-elected. So they will always go along with what the voters are being brainwashed into believing.

By: Lentrohamsanin

Lentrohamsanin — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:53:10 -0800

Cruelty should never be the basis of punishment. No, but retribution can be. I agree with you that the most effective punishments have reform at heart, but the punitive aspects of punishment are important as well.

By: davy

davy — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:53:43 -0800

A quick search for "prison laborers." That some prisoners chaingang "voluntarily" says nothing about how people become prisoners in the first place: will all Mefites who've never done anything illegal (such as smoking marijuana) please raise your virtual hands? (Hint: if the new stalins ever run out of pot smokers they'd rather declare jaywalking a heinous offense.) And koeselitz, your doublethink is so cute. Or maybe you're overgeneralizing, projecting your own masochism?

By: tkchrist

tkchrist — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:54:17 -0800

In Washington the Death Penalty is simply broken because of the deals prosecutors made with the Green River serial killer Gary Ridgway - who got life and NOT our states halloed death Penalty. He played those stupid fuckers - baiting them with "victim" information. Then once he got his deal and the Judge passes sentence he clammed up. How can prosecutors ask for the death penalty for one murder when Ridgway raped, tortured, and killed 40+ women and now gets to have 3 hots and cable TV for the next thirty five years. It's FUCKED up. There is a capital case right now before out state supreme court and there is no way the death penalty can be looked at as fair and impartial. BTW. Ridgway was white. What are the chances he'd be walking around if he was black?

By: koeselitz

koeselitz — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:54:26 -0800

imperium: "The third link there is an excellent rebuttal to the proposition that victims' families always want an execution. Very moving." Thirded. Revenge is the basest, lowest, worst principle of government. Families of victims of criminals shouldn't even be allowed to be at the trial; it only makes the grieving process more difficult, and it's tantamount to obstruction of justice.

By: dios

dios — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:54:40 -0800

Good for them actually pursuing this in the state legislature. Our state laboratories of democracy are well designed to deal with these issues. I whole-heartedly applaud people who seek social change through the proper path instead of begging for their change through the courts. So good on Maryland. Go through the process, show us your results, and let the rest of the states learn from your success or failure. The Framers would be proud.

By: parmanparman

parmanparman — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:55:32 -0800

Executions should always be viewed as mercy killings, and the decision to execute should be based on whether the person being executed is capable of later life. This is the purpose of any good and true punishment: to better the life of the one punished. There are some people whose lives would be bettered if they were ended. It's not about "Is the death penalty moral?" or "Is the death penalty worth it?", the question is "Is the death penalty good public policy?" I do not think it should be the job of the government to kill people. It's not good public policy.

By: koeselitz

koeselitz — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:57:54 -0800

davy: "And koeselitz, your doublethink is so cute. Or maybe you're overgeneralizing, projecting your own masochism?" It's not "doublethink" to insist that punishment should be merciful, and that execution can be merciful.

By: dios

dios — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:59:27 -0800

It's not about "Is the death penalty moral?" or "Is the death penalty worth it?", the question is "Is the death penalty good public policy?" Actually, the question is "do the people of the state of Maryland wish to incorporate capital punishment into their penological system, and if so, is it against the interest of the common good?"

By: snortlebort

snortlebort — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:00:09 -0800

"The poll found that 56 percent of those surveyed favor the death penalty, 34 percent oppose it, and 10 percent are undecided. However, 61 percent said they would be supportive of a life-without-parole sentence instead."

So it's not like legislators are at odds with the majority, who do favor the death penalty. The DPIC just omits the numbers that don't help their case. The case of many of the law enforcement officials who have spoken out against the death penalty is that though they may support the idea of putting a truly heinous criminal to death, they've seen how the capital punishment system itself is broken in such profound ways that the alternative of life without parole is clearly preferable. This is true for many people in the public--who might support the death penalty in theory but, when faced with the facts about how it works, support life without parole instead.

By: interrobang

interrobang — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:03:25 -0800

The death penalty is one of those things you have to be weak and cowardly to support.

By: Cookiebastard

Cookiebastard — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:04:39 -0800

Metafilter: I'm neither a darky nor a retard.

By: Lentrohamsanin

Lentrohamsanin — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:06:11 -0800

It's not about "Is the death penalty moral?" or "Is the death penalty worth it?", the question is "Is the death penalty good public policy?" Actually, the question is "do the people of the state of Maryland wish to incorporate capital punishment into their penological system, and if so, is it against the interest of the common good?" A larger discussion of the issue of capital punishment in general can't come from a discussion that starts with that point? Why not? We are not the Maryland state legislature, and are in no way constrained to the same considerations as them.

By: ROU_Xenophobe

ROU_Xenophobe — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:17:08 -0800

True, but those states haven't had a death penalty to abolish. Of the 38 states who reinstated capital punishment after the Supreme Court allowed it 1976, none have abolished it. That seems a useless distinction to make. Iowa abolished the death penalty in 1965. Maine in 1887. Michigan in 1846. Minnesota in 1911. West Virginia in 1965. Wisconsin in 1853. These were not states that just forgot to re-implement the death penalty after 1973, they're states that formally chose not to have the death penalty. So it's hardly the case that a state abolishing the death penalty is something amazingly unique, though your language implies that it is. Even your distinction isn't true. Massachussetts formally abolished the death penalty in 1984. So did Rhode Island. Vermont waited until 1987 to finish formally repealing death penalty laws. So why are so many legislators still supporting death penalty? Because they're worried that they'll lose elections if they vote to abolish it. Opinion polls are sometimes poor guides to voting behavior, especially on divisive issues with minorities who feel strongly about them.

By: dios

dios — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:17:51 -0800

A larger discussion of the issue of capital punishment in general can't come from a discussion that starts with that point? Erm, I thought that on Metafilter the purpose was to discuss the post, which has to do with Maryland. I think a larger philosophical discussion, completely unrelated to the post would qualify as a derail, don't you?

By: davy

davy — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:21:46 -0800

By the way, the narcs and snitches reading this thread should not construe my remarks herein as an admission that I'm currently in possession of marijuana: the War On Drugs has made pot too expensive and hard to find. Around here folks in my tax bracket are likelier to get locked up for meth (which by the way I won't do even if it's free; I'd rather just drink cheap Cabernet Sauvignon late at night). And dios, on what planet are you reading what web site?

By: davy

davy — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:25:09 -0800

Cookiebastard, surely you know Metafilter skews "white" and "articulate"? You've seen those Meetup photos, eh?

By: exlotuseater

exlotuseater — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:25:41 -0800

sometimes people just don't know what's good for them, and the government has to decide Really. Please, tell me more. I am interested in subscribing to your newsletter. Is it entitled the Republic?

By: Lentrohamsanin

Lentrohamsanin — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:26:23 -0800

Erm, I thought that on Metafilter the purpose was to discuss the post, which has to do with Maryland. I think a larger philosophical discussion, completely unrelated to the post would qualify as a derail, don't you? Nope. Organic expansion of the discussion has always happened here. You're taking a far too narrow view of what's permissable.

By: davy

davy — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:27:20 -0800

Convict leasing.

By: nofundy

nofundy — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:28:32 -0800

So this is what those "Choose Life" bumpoer stickers are about? Opposed to war, opposed the the death penalty, opposed to abortions. Errr, well, maybe not so much opposed to war or the death penalty eh? But it's a "culture of Life" dude!

By: pax digita

pax digita — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:30:01 -0800

The Execution of Private Slovik, The Executioner's Song and Breaker Morant have reinforced my view that execution by firing squad is about the only 100% sure execution method that minimizes the "cruel and unusual" factor. This lethal-injection stuff in particular is ghastly BS.

By: davy

davy — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:30:39 -0800

"[T]taking a far too narrow view of what's permissable." Lots of Americans do. It's why they let politicians screw us so bad.

By: dios

dios — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:31:43 -0800

Because they're worried that they'll lose elections if they vote to abolish it. Opinion polls are sometimes poor guides to voting behavior, especially on divisive issues with minorities who feel strongly about them. posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:17 PM CST on March 15 Or perhaps they are doing what Madison wanted: A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.... [but a republic fixes this by] on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.

By: davy

davy — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:35:09 -0800

And pax_digita, I've held a cancerous ferret as it was euthanized. As that vet did it it is humane; in fact that's how I'd rather die, none of that messy and painful-looking "natural causes" crap for me. But given that the taxpayers won't spend the money on phenobarb I'd take a hail of bullets if that was on the menu instead.

By: davy

davy — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:38:14 -0800

Now dios has reason: even during the Civil War most American voters and politicians, Union and Confederate, were not in favor of abolishing slavery. This is why a Republic is no better than a Pure Democracy.

By: davy

davy — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:39:42 -0800

I declare dibs on "Choose Convict Leasing" bumper stickers.

By: exlotuseater

exlotuseater — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:46:36 -0800

lethal injection is not always "nice". 9. December 13, 1988. Texas. Raymond Landry. Lethal Injection. Pronounced dead 40 minutes after being strapped to the execution gurney and 24 minutes after the drugs first started flowing into his arms.12 Two minutes after the drugs were administered, the syringe came out of Landry's vein, spraying the deadly chemicals across the room toward witnesses. The curtain separating the witnesses from the inmate was then pulled, and not reopened for fourteen minutes while the execution team reinserted the catheter into the vein. Witnesses reported "at least one groan." A spokesman for the Texas Department of Correction, Charles Brown (sic), said, "There was something of a delay in the execution because of what officials called a 'blowout.' The syringe came out of the vein, and the warden ordered the (execution) team to reinsert the catheter into the vein." 10. May 24, 1989. Texas. Stephen McCoy. Lethal Injection. He had such a violent physical reaction to the drugs (heaving chest, gasping, choking, back arching off the gurney, etc.) that one of the witnesses (male) fainted, crashing into and knocking over another witness. Houston attorney Karen Zellars, who represented McCoy and witnessed the execution, thought the fainting would catalyze a chain reaction. The Texas Attorney General admitted the inmate "seemed to have a somewhat stronger reaction," adding "The drugs might have been administered in a heavier dose or more rapidly." I admit the language is a bit biased, histrionic even. ("spraying the deadly chemicals")

By: PeterMcDermott

PeterMcDermott — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:52:07 -0800

davy writes "In fact I'd rather face a firing squad than life without parole. But then I'm weird enough to consider the objective reality of prison conditions instead of staggering around blindfolded by some religious bullshit about the 'value of human life': any prison I won't rather die than spend much time in is unlikely to function well at what prisons are supposed to do." All prisons are not like US prisons. Many European countries (Netherlands, Scandinavia in particular) have prison systems that are actually quite civilized. You lose your liberty -- for a period that's proportional to the offence committed -- but you don't lose your hope or your dignity, or your right not to be buttfucked on another inmate's whim. Not only does this model *not* stop them from fulfilling their intended functions -- punishment, rehabilitation, containment, etc. -- it actually makes these goals more attainable.

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:02:02 -0800

"10. May 24, 1989. Texas. Stephen McCoy. Lethal Injection. He had such a violent physical reaction to the drugs (heaving chest, gasping, choking, back arching off the gurney, etc.) that one of the witnesses (male) fainted, crashing into and knocking over another witness." Stephen McCoy was convicted of capital murder in the rape/strangulation death of 18 year old Cynthia Johnson in Houston on January 1 1981. Johnson was abducted by McCoy and co-defendants James Emery Paster and Gary Louis LeBlanc after her car broke down while returning home from a New Year's Eve party. Evidence showed that McCoy raped the woman and then held her legs while Paster and LeBlanc strangled her with electrical wire. "9. December 13, 1988. Texas. Raymond Landry. Lethal Injection. Pronounced dead 40 minutes after being strapped to the execution gurney and 24 minutes after the drugs first started flowing into his arms.12 Two minutes after the drugs were administered, the syringe came out of Landry's vein, spraying the deadly chemicals across the room toward witnesses." Landry robbed and fatally shot restaurateur Kosmas Prittis, 33, in front of his wife as they prepared to close their East Bellfort business for the day on Aug. 6, 1982. Landry's arms were so muscular and the veins so scarred from years of drug abuse that the needle popped out as he lay on the gurney, spurting the lethal drug cocktail toward witnesses and delaying the execution for 14 minutes as prison staffers reinserted the catheter.

By: DevilsAdvocate

DevilsAdvocate — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:02:43 -0800

I liked this exchange (reproduced from memory here, so the quotes may not be exact) from the debate episode of The West Wing:

Moderator: Congressman Santos, do you support abolishing capital punishment? Santos: Yes. Moderator: That's it? Santos: That's it. Moderator: Senator Vinick? Vinick: No. Moderator: That's it? Vinick: That's it.

(My interpretation: you've all heard the arguments for and against a hundred times over. There's nothing we can add.)

By: solid-one-love

solid-one-love — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:02:44 -0800

This is a difficult fact for our minds to confront Because it's batshit insane.

By: ROU_Xenophobe

ROU_Xenophobe — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:37:35 -0800

Or perhaps they are doing what Madison wanted: A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Oh, I agree completely. Surely there can be no better example of the majority wickedly crushing the minority under its bootheels than a legislature voting to stop killing its citizens.

By: pax digita

pax digita — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:38:22 -0800

But given that the taxpayers won't spend the money on phenobarb I'd take a hail of bullets if that was on the menu instead. Well, sure. "Say 'No' to Drugs" and all that, y'know. The "hail of bullets" method has the Second Amendment and the NRA going for it, too.

By: parmanparman

parmanparman — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:48:33 -0800

The bad news is that just a few minutes ago, Maryland senators voted 5-5 on a repeal of the death penalty. Senator Alex Mooney, agreed to vote for the amendment, and he did. The Chair of the committee, who had voiced in favor of repeal, however, said he'd never seen the amendment and voted against it, making the final count on the amendment 5-5. The chair then called a vote for straight repeal and Senator Mooney voted against it, again, making the vote 5-5. The Chair, Senator Frosh, voted for the repeal.

By: Bookhouse

Bookhouse — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:52:54 -0800

The death penalty is one of those things you have to be weak and cowardly to support. What a strong, brave thing to say on Metafilter!

By: 23skidoo

23skidoo — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:03:22 -0800

I am better than other people because I have different opinions than they do concerning matters which I am doing nothing to change.

By: davy

davy — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:07:32 -0800

But PeterMcDermott, if I'm ever busted in Kentucky I doubt they'll let me do my time in Sweden. But if I ever want to go to prison I'll keep that in mind; a cheap plane ticket is only slightly more pricey than a baggie of sensimilla. And actually, the death penalty is something I find it okay to disagree with me over. Unlike, oh, rape and forced labor.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:13:03 -0800

Can we please stop referring to the Supreme Court as 'The Supremes?' It conjures up images of Thomas and Scalia dancing in sequined gowns. Thanks.

By: PEAK OIL

PEAK OIL — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:15:16 -0800

My hunch is that most death penalty opponents are too "privileged" to imagine they'll ever be prison inmates. That or perhaps they understand that there will always be some error in the system, and they don't want to execute the innocent. Or perhaps they don't care if a convicted rapist would rather die than be imprisoned. Or perhaps they just follow a morality that forbids killing, and doesn't have an asterisk that says "except if the person you kill was really bad first."

By: PEAK OIL

PEAK OIL — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:23:58 -0800

The death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment. It is not an effective deterrent. It cannot be undone if later review proves that the original conviction was incorrect. It is nothing more than a state-sanctioned revenge killing that may or may not target the original perpetrator. Some people like revenge killings, some people don't. mr_crash_davis clearly likes them (his post makes clear that he understands it's nothing more than that). Personally, I'm not a murderer, so I don't.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:46:15 -0800

or maybe crash just dosen't want you to forget that that not all the people on death row are poor matyred sweethearts. Most are guilty of some pretty heinous stuff. But feel free to keep polishing your halo. (and for the record, I'm against the death penalty, but I understand the feelings of those who aren't)

By: Mocata

Mocata — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:21:02 -0800

Metafilter: I've held a cancerous ferret as it was euthanized.

By: PEAK OIL

PEAK OIL — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:34:55 -0800

or maybe crash just dosen't want you to forget that that not all the people on death row are poor matyred sweethearts. Nobody is saying they're all innocent, but crash is clearly implying that he supports revenge killings, and feels that those people got what they deserved. it's silly to pretend that his post meant anything else. I understand why people support revenge killings, but that doesn't make them right. The worst part of this is that even death penalty advocates admit that a small percentage of those convicted were wrongly convicted. As such, death penalty advocates are actively supporting the murder of innocent people, simply because they like revenge.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:42:39 -0800

it's silly to pretend that his post meant anything else. so now you're a mind reader? Come down from Mt. Olympus sir. also 'deserving' is beside the point. I think we've all had the experience of hearing about some horrendous crime on the news and think 'just shoot the bastard.' That dosen't make us evil, merely humans with natural impulses of disgust at heinous actions. But the point is that we can't let those impulses rule the world. The reason not to support the death penalty is because of the chance of executing someone innocent, because it's unfairly applied, and even from a vengeance standpoint, a long life in a miserble prison with no hope of ever leaving is a worse fate than death. We shouldn't use the issue as an excuse to act holier-than-thou, since it accomplishes nothing and is dismissive of the very real suffering that many of these criminals cause.

By: zennie

zennie — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:54:29 -0800

Thanks for posting this, snortlebort. The picture you paint is a bit rosier than reality, but death penalty activists in Maryland are ecstatic about the forward movement on this issue.

By: me & my monkey

me & my monkey — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 16:14:13 -0800

crash is clearly implying that he supports revenge killings, and feels that those people got what they deserved I don't support revenge killings, or the death penalty, but I feel those people got what they deserved. The two things aren't related. If you think that the death penalty is nothing more than revenge killing, you must also think that life imprisonment is nothing more than revenge imprisonment. Is that the case? There are three commonly identified reasons for punishment: retribution, rehabilitation and deterrence. Neither the death penalty nor life imprisonment are rehabilitative in any meaningful way. The worst part of this is that even death penalty advocates admit that a small percentage of those convicted were wrongly convicted. As such, death penalty advocates are actively supporting the murder of innocent people, simply because they like revenge. This is not necessarily the case. Plenty of death penalty advocates surely believe that the death penalty can be applied fairly. They may be wrong - that is my own belief - but believe it nonetheless. The fact that it hasn't always been applied fairly doesn't mean that it couldn't be in the future, with additional safeguards, etc.

By: kafziel

kafziel — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 16:30:47 -0800

The death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment. Hold up. I'm in favor of abolishing the death penalty completely, and agree with the rest of what you say there, but I've heard this a lot, and never seen numbers backing it up. I'm not saying it can't be true, but it seems wildly unintuitive. Where is this drawn from?

By: SBMike

SBMike — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 16:41:42 -0800

There are three commonly identified reasons for punishment: retribution, rehabilitation and deterrence. Neither the death penalty nor life imprisonment are rehabilitative in any meaningful way. And one reason that almost never gets mentioned but may be the most important: separation.

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:10:48 -0800

Hey, crash can speak for himself. I used to be an absolute death-penalty supporter. Now, after years of listening to other people (here and elsewhere, but mostly here) argue against it, not so much. I'd say at this point I'm against it. However, if your argument is "oh, it was so cruel that the poor man arched his back and groaned when he was being executed", you're not going to get much traction, especially when the murder victim suffered through repeated rapes before being strangled with an electrical cord. And the "it's cruel because the IV line popped out" doesn't really bother me when the reason it popped out was because the murderer's veins were fucked-up from years of drug abuse. "The death penalty is wrong because it's applied far too often to minorities" seems logical to me, as does "it's impossible to be sure innocent people aren't occasionally executed". These are reasonable arguments to me, and I can support the elimination of the death penalty on those arguments alone. Cold-blooded killers having a little discomfort? Not so much. Does that make me a "supporter of revenge killings"? I guess to some people, it does. So be it. We all choose to draw our lines in the sand.

By: zennie

zennie — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:24:54 -0800

I'm not saying it can't be true, but it seems wildly unintuitive. Death penalty cases can involve more exensive use of government resources in processing, because you can't undo an execution. They really do tend to cost more than putting someone away for life. There are a number of citations to back this, but I'll be lazy and copy what O'Malley put in his op-ed:

In 2002, Judge Dale Cathell of the Maryland Court of Appeals wrote that, according to his research, processing and imprisoning a death penalty defendant "costs $400,000 over and above... a prisoner serving a life sentence." Given that 56 people have been sentenced to death in Maryland since 1978, our state has spent about $22.4 million more than the cost of life imprisonment. That's nearly $4.5 million "extra" for each of the five executions carried out.

Monetary justification for abolishing the death penaltys is beside the point to me, but it at least helps neutralize the idea that executing people is less costly than simply imprisoning them. It's not.

By: bad grammar

bad grammar — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:26:21 -0800

The worst part of this is that even death penalty advocates admit that a small percentage of those convicted were wrongly convicted. As such, death penalty advocates are actively supporting the murder of innocent people, simply because they like revenge.

A very old authoritarian argument. Pour encourager les autres. A good argument to derail a right-wing supporter of the death penalty might be, "Do you want to give the government that much power over you?" It separates the libertarians from the authoritarians.

By: avriette

avriette — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:42:28 -0800

It seems to kind of miss the irony to talk about exonerated death row inmates campaigning against the death penalty when we cannot discuss persons who were guilty of the crimes they were executed for explaining how they were correctly convicted and that they would no longer commit such crimes. Not taking a stance on the issue, per se, just that it's kind of a silly argument.

By: exlotuseater

exlotuseater — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:20:39 -0800

whoa now. Where I stand on the death penalty isn't necessarily reflected in my comment-- my comment was directed at Davy, and I was simply pointing out that lethal injections aren't always as 'clean' as people imagine., seeing as he was saying it would be a lovely way to go. My reasons for being against the death penalty are much more rooted in sense, thanks. Like killing the wrong person, the idea of institutional killing, state sanctioned murder, the fact that it does not operate as a deterrent, etc. Crash, I figured that's what you were saying, but I didn't feel the need to come back and be all like "no, no, you don't understand, blah blah blah". I totally get that those guys were scum of the lowest order. Sorry for not being clearer, folks.

By: davy

davy — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:47:12 -0800

"[M]y comment was directed at Davy, and I was simply pointing out that lethal injections aren't always as 'clean' as people imagine." Which is why I specified as veterinarians do it with the drugs they use -- not as unskilled "technicians" do it with the drugs they use. There's a world of difference.

By: forforf

forforf — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 19:03:38 -0800

I think the death penalty is justified in some crimes, namely: mass murders serial murders murder/attempted murder/kidnapping/rape where the victim(s) were forcibly made to do something under a threat of violence that threatened their lives and instilled fear HOWEVER, I think the burden of proof for any capital punishment should NOT be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It should be proof beyond any doubt. Each member of the jury should be absolutely certain that the person accused committed the crime. If that burden of proof can't be reached, then it should not result in capital punishment. I'd also support an expedited appeal process (but would not be in favor of eliminating any steps).

By: kafziel

kafziel — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:27:18 -0800

In terms of when the death penalty is justified, I'm inclined to think two criteria need to be met. 1) If let loose, this person will commit violent crimes. Rape, murder, assault, etc. Not probably will, but known with near-certainty. Someone order 2) If confined in even a maximum-security prison, this person will get loose. Confinement and isolation will not prevent additional crimes. And even then, this should be determined only by the SCOTUS or the highest court of the state, depending on jurisdiction. So we need not only certainty beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt, but certainty beyond a reasonable doubt that if left alive, there will be violent crime, and this is a decision left in the hands of the highest court of law. Barring such a construction, I say abolish the thing. It's demonstratably unfair as applied now, and until a method of applying it fairly is implemented, it shouldn't be applied at all.

By: rob511

rob511 — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:00:34 -0800

According to Amnesty International, besides the US, in 2005 executions were known to have been carried out in:

BANGLADESH, BELARUS, CHINA, INDONESIA, IRAN, IRAQ, JAPAN, JORDAN, KOREA (North), KUWAIT, LIBYA, MONGOLIA, PAKISTAN, PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY, SAUDI ARABIA, SINGAPORE, SOMALIA, TAIWAN, UZBEKISTAN, VIET NAM, YEMEN

Turds of a feather.

By: PEAK OIL

PEAK OIL — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 07:22:08 -0800

It seems to kind of miss the irony to talk about exonerated death row inmates campaigning against the death penalty when we cannot discuss persons who were guilty of the crimes they were executed for explaining how they were correctly convicted and that they would no longer commit such crimes. This is only a silly argument if you think the choices are Death Penalty versus Let Them Roam Free.

By: PEAK OIL

PEAK OIL — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 07:27:10 -0800

I'm not saying it can't be true, but it seems wildly unintuitive. Where is this drawn from?

* A 2003 legislative audit in Kansas found that the estimated cost of a death penalty case was 70% more than the cost of a comparable non-death penalty case. Death penalty case costs were counted through to execution (median cost $1.26 million). Non-death penalty case costs were counted through to the end of incarceration (median cost $740,000). (December 2003 Survey by the Kansas Legislative Post Audit) * The estimated costs for the death penalty in New York since 1995 (when it was reinstated): $160 million, or approximately $23 million for each person sentenced to death. To date, no executions have been carried out. (The Times Union, Sept. 22, 2003) * In Tennessee, death penalty trials cost an average of 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment. (2004 Report from Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury Office of Research)

It's intuitive because death penalty cases get far more appeals, and each piece of the process takes far longer to proceed, thus eating up court and prosecutor time, which costs a lot more than simple incarceration. And then there is the fact that death penalty prisoners tend to be incarcerated for extended periods of time prior to execution anyway.

By: PEAK OIL

PEAK OIL — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 07:30:42 -0800

crash: our lines certainly do differ, but not by as much as your original post led me to believe. I take the view that I cannot control others actions, only my own. As such, if somebody does something terrible, I cannot stop that. It is sad, and terrible, but it is not my fault. The only thing I can control is whether or not I do something terrible. And even if the person in question was violent, cruel or dangerous, I cannot justify torturing them. Doing so will not help the victim, or their loved ones. It succeeds only in lowering me to their level for a moment.

By: Bookhouse

Bookhouse — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 07:32:33 -0800

* A 2003 legislative audit in Kansas found that the estimated cost of a death penalty case was 70% more than the cost of a comparable non-death penalty case. Hardcore death-penalty advocates have a pretty simple answer to that: all those appeals and all that time spent waiting is due to the hand-wringing of DP opponents, and in a perfect world folks would get killed pretty soon after convicted. (Of course, that opens up lots of other problems)

By: koeselitz

koeselitz — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:14:23 -0800

PEAK OIL: "The only thing I can control is whether or not I do something terrible. And even if the person in question was violent, cruel or dangerous, I cannot justify torturing them. Doing so will not help the victim, or their loved ones. It succeeds only in lowering me to their level for a moment." Is it even remotely possible that an executioner and a murderer might have different motivations? It's cute to assume they don't, but I'm not so sure. Granted, our society has muddied the issue by making a show of executions and inviting the families of victims; but isn't it possible for an execution to have an element of mercy? It used to be that many of us experienced intentional death from a young age; we watched animals put down because they were in irreconcileable pain. We don't see that anymore; we don't tend to like to think about death. So we assume, as you do, that death is simply a pointless cruelty. But there are worse things than death.

By: PEAK OIL

PEAK OIL — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:49:16 -0800

Is it even remotely possible that an executioner and a murderer might have different motivations? Many members of American society believe that state-sponsored revenge killings are justified. I'd imagine that all executioners subscribe to that logic as well. If one believes that human life has no inherent value, this view can be justified, but if one believes that human life has any value whatsoever, then it falls apart. It comes apart even further when one realizes that some small percentage of those murdered by the state are certain to either be innocent of wrongdoing. isn't it possible for an execution to have an element of mercy? I don't generally view murder as an act of mercy, but if it were to be one, the person to be killed would have to request the killing. After all, if the killing is thrust upon them, it is clearly not what they want, and therefore is clearly not merciful. It's just cold-hearted murder, of a sort that modern American society happens to support.

By: koeselitz

koeselitz — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 11:09:41 -0800

PEAK OIL: "Many members of American society believe that state-sponsored revenge killings are justified. I'd imagine that all executioners subscribe to that logic as well." I guess what I was trying to point out was this: calling them "revenge killings" is like calling abortions "baby murders." It's inflammatory language based on a foregone conclusion. If anyone believed that execution were merely "revenge killing," they'd be against it. They obviously believe that it is something more. You're trying to convince them that they're wrong, no? So it'd help your case if you presented a thoughtful argument rather than rubbed your own assumptions in our faces. "If one believes that human life has no inherent value, this view can be justified, but if one believes that human life has any value whatsoever, then it falls apart." I guess the point is that I don't really think that human life has inherent value. I don't think that a life that will forever be lived in constant pain, for example, struggling for breath inside a a machine, has so much "inherent value" that it should be continued at any cost. Likewise, I don't believe that anyone who is enduring the real and undeniable torture of having raped several people should be forced to go on living. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I feel as though the notion that "human life has inherent value" is silly. Do you really believe that human life must necessarily be extended as far as possible, and that this is our goal as human beings? You can believe that there are good things in human life, things worth fighting for, without believing that infinitely extended continued existence is one of them. "It comes apart even further when one realizes that some small percentage of those murdered by the state are certain to either be innocent of wrongdoing." I never denied that. In fact, that's why I'd probably abolish the death penalty in practice until it can be sorted out just how it ought to be administered. But there are good reasons to support a just and well-constructed system of execution. "I don't generally view murder as an act of mercy, but if it were to be one, the person to be killed would have to request the killing. After all, if the killing is thrust upon them, it is clearly not what they want, and therefore is clearly not merciful. It's just cold-hearted murder, of a sort that modern American society happens to support." First of all, anyone who believes that all merciful acts of punishment are requested by the person punished has never disciplined a child. The point of punishing is to better the person punished; and it should be observed that, human nature being what it is, people who need to be punished hardly ever understand that they need it. I certainly didn't when I was a child; and the whole point of just execution is that certain people do certain things that bring them back morally to a state of childlike innocence that removes their ability to comprehend the enormity of what they've done. If you've raped several people, for example, you're almost certainly incapable of forging a new, working relationship with women. The best you can hope for is a kind of ignorant innocence. Second of all, anyone who believes that there is no such thing as mercy killing hasn't seen an animal put down. If you'd ever seen a horse shot because it'd broken its leg, because it was doomed to live the rest of its life in pain, you'd understand that sometimes human beings have to make the difficult decision that the fullness of a life has already been lived, and all potential for a full life in the future is gone; which is to say, sometimes human beings have to kill for merciful reasons. If you think my comparison of death-row inmates like murderers and serial rapists to animals and children is crude, please understand that I hold animals and children in the highest esteem. I've spent a good deal of my life trying to be around animals as much as I can; and I hope to raise children at some point. I do believe that the comparison is apt. Human beings are social creatures; after we mature, a large part (perhaps the only part) of what is valuable in our lives is wrapped up in our interactions with others. Certain people, through their acts, have irrevocably fractured their ability to relate to other human beings. Like animals or children, they are cut off completely from the social and political world we humans create for ourselves. Most people don't like to think about that possibility; that's why murderers and serial rapists are invariably portrayed in one of two ways: as monsters (by the pro-death-penalty people) or victims (by the anti-death-penalty people). No one really wants to think about what those people are actually going through. It would be a fine world if a man who has raped a young girl could throw a switch in his mind and turn off the past. It would be wonderful if he could go to a seminar or a workshop or a prison program or something to remove what he's done and give him back a certain amount of happiness and contentment with life. Sometimes, this might be possible. But I'm not going to ignore the fact that, nine times out of ten, it won't be. And I'm not going to ignore the fact that society owes that rapist the mercy of some sort of closure on a life that's gone totally wrong.

By: zennie

zennie — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:24:33 -0800

If anyone believed that execution were merely "revenge killing," they'd be against it. koeselitz, in my personal experience of talking to people about the death penalty over the years, I have found that this statement is only true as a passing sentiment. "The death penalty" is a euphamism for "execution by the state," and people object to the latter phrase, accurate as it is. However, if you ask those same people why the death penalty is fair, they will mostly tell you it's "because there are some people who deserve it." You can call it justice, or you can call it a "mercy killing" if you please, but I assure you that calling it vengeance is not too far off the mark for many people. As a former veterinary technician who helped put down animals, I feel that an analogy to death row convicts is untenable. There are, fundamentally, more differences than similarities between the reasons we kill animals and the reasons we kill people. Should we put all suffering people out of their misery, like non-people animals, and allow them no choice in the matter? Well, no. So that kind of rules out mercy as a justification for the death penalty. Mercy would be more of a fringe benefit.

By: koeselitz

koeselitz — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:48:11 -0800

zennie: "You can call it justice, or you can call it a "mercy killing" if you please, but I assure you that calling it vengeance is not too far off the mark for many people." Unfortunately, zennie, I agree. I think we've got some very mixed-up notions about punishment in general, and one of them is that punishment is a kind of payback. I have a feeling, as I said before, that this has to do with the fact that we haven't thought much about what it means to discipline children. Suffice it to say, however, that I agree with you. As I said earlier in the thread, I don't believe the families of victims should even be allowed to watch the trial, much less the execution. It's bad for all involved; revenge only causes more suffering. "There are, fundamentally, more differences than similarities between the reasons we kill animals and the reasons we kill people. Should we put all suffering people out of their misery, like non-people animals, and allow them no choice in the matter? Well, no." I don't deny that there are more differences. I was arguing that there ought to be more similarities. We do indeed punish crime nowadays as though society were exacting some sort of vengeance upon the criminal. We see punishment as society's revenge upon people who have little moral worth. But criminals, like animals, do have moral worth; their moral worth may be strange to us, because it is different from our own, but it is moral worth nonetheless. We ought to punish precisely because criminals have moral worth; society owes the thief, the gangmember, the violent man, and the criminal in general a chance to feel the weight of their actions lift. In cases where it's not possible to lift that weight, society owes it to them to remove the burden of living. Since humans are choice-driven creatures, it's good to try to afford them a choice in their own lives. But choice is not the greatest good, and while it might be possible for a person who is suffering physically to see that death is desirable, to ask someone with a healthy body and a tortured mind whether they'd prefer to live with what they've done or die is in itself unnecessarily cruel. I grant that it might not even be possible to institute the just system of execution that I propose. However, I feel as though the only solution to the current problems is some hard thinking about what punishment means. That's what I'm trying to do.

By: solid-one-love

solid-one-love — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:00:33 -0800

[...]I don't believe that anyone who is enduring the real and undeniable torture[...] That's language based on a foregone conclusion. It'd help your case if you presented a thoughtful argument rather than rubbed your own assumptions in our faces.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:01:37 -0800

Turds of a feather People love quoting that, but Japan and Taiwan are on that list too.

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:41:58 -0800

"there are some cases where a person deserves to die...Executions should always be viewed as mercy killings" I have to disagree. There are some cases where a person deserves to live. But there are principles higher and more pressing than life. Someone chooses euthenasia we should not stop them. Someone chooses to live in pain no matter how agonizing, it's not our right to deny them that choice. Similarly, unborn fetuses deserve the right to life. We cannot make someone support that life however, no matter how much that innocent life is deserved. Similarly, no matter how much we think someone 'deserves' to die, we have no right to take that life on that basis. Particularly when they're already in the power of the state. (as what parmanparman sed, it's not good policy) "sometimes people just don't know what's good for them, and the government has to decide." I'd pretty much give my life if necessary in opposition to that sentiment. If people don't know what's good for them, they need to be informed of all the facts so they can make a decision. Typically this'd be the press. Not so much anymore. But ignorance of the law or issues cannot justify usurpation of a citizen's right to choose what best serves their needs. Indeed, it's this very excuse that is the foundation of tyrrany - forces actively work to keep people ignorant of what's in their best interests and erode communication, education, and other avenues of information so they can exploit people. "A good argument to derail a right-wing supporter of the death penalty might be, "Do you want to give the government that much power over you?"" Pretty much nails it for me. Same reason I'm pro-choice.

By: PEAK OIL

PEAK OIL — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:13:15 -0800

Koeselitz, so what are they, then? We take people, put them in a facility where they cannot cause harm to anybody else, and then kill them. What good does that last step do, except satisfy a desire for revenge? There's no increase in public safety, as the person is already incarcerated in a secure facility. There's no benefit to the prisoner, who simply loses any chance to do some good with their life, or to prove their innocence if applicable. As such, I ask you to explain to me what they are, if they are not state-sponsored revenge killings.

By: PEAK OIL

PEAK OIL — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:20:42 -0800

The point of punishing is to better the person punished; and it should be observed that, human nature being what it is, people who need to be punished hardly ever understand that they need it. So your argument is that it is merciful and good to kill death row criminals, because they need killing. I strongly suggest that you take some more time to consider your position. As it stands, your beliefs seem fragmented and incoherent. My belief is much simpler: It is wrong to kill, so when any viable alternative exists, I will not kill.

By: koeselitz

koeselitz — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 19:19:38 -0800

PEAK OIL: "We take people, put them in a facility where they cannot cause harm to anybody else, and then kill them. What good does that last step do, except satisfy a desire for revenge? ... There's no benefit to the prisoner, who simply loses any chance to do some good with their life, or to prove their innocence if applicable." Again, your assumption, which I believe is false, is that there is nothing worse than death, not even life entirely cut off from society. I don't know if my side is correct in every case-- that's why we have judges and juries, because individual lives are complex-- but it's certainly not as easy and simple as "all execution is revenge killing." "I strongly suggest that you take some more time to consider your position. As it stands, your beliefs seem fragmented and incoherent... My belief is much simpler: It is wrong to kill, so when any viable alternative exists, I will not kill." Interesting; that's my belief, too. I'm looking as hard as I can for viable alternatives. I genuinely believe that locking someone in a room without human contact for the last three, four, five decades of their life is not a viable solution. I have a hard time believing that that can be a productive life. Maybe I'm just being cynical, but I really don't see how it could be worth much. It's easy to say "I will not kill." Delineating the correct circumstances is very difficult, and must be done very, very carefully, I full admit. I feel like I'd be succombing to a kind of romanticism to believe that fifty years in a hole is any kind of life at all, much less fifty years in a hole with demons that you've created for yourself. By the way, I'm just rehearsing my own reading of Plato: it is better to suffer injustice than to do it; sometimes life comes to a point where it ought to end; et cetera. It's something I've been thinking about for a long time. If you've got actual objections, aside from bluster about how I need to "think more," please let me know. Smedleyman: "I'd pretty much give my life if necessary in opposition to that sentiment. If people don't know what's good for them, they need to be informed of all the facts so they can make a decision. Typically this'd be the press. Not so much anymore. But ignorance of the law or issues cannot justify usurpation of a citizen's right to choose what best serves their needs. Indeed, it's this very excuse that is the foundation of tyrrany - forces actively work to keep people ignorant of what's in their best interests and erode communication, education, and other avenues of information so they can exploit people." Neither equality nor freedom is the highest good. Justice, and the greatest happiness for the greatest number, is. We have freedom in order that these things might be increased. Sometimes, however, people don't know what to do with that freedom, and have to be helped. I suspect you agree. This is the principle behind any society which institutes involuntary punishment. The alternative-- doing something about crime only when criminals choose to be punished-- is anarchy, and unfortunately doesn't seem like a working alternative to me.

By: PEAK OIL

PEAK OIL — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:16:02 -0800

Again, your assumption, which I believe is false, is that there is nothing worse than death, not even life entirely cut off from society. You have mis-stated my belief. I do not believe death is a worse fate than life without parole. I do not believe I have the right to choose who lives or who dies. I do, however, believe that for the safety of the general population, dangerous criminals should rendered safe (via incarceration.) As such, I support life without parole, not the death penalty. The alternative-- doing something about crime only when criminals choose to be punished-- is anarchy, and unfortunately doesn't seem like a working alternative to me. I never proposed that criminals should choose whether or not they get punished. I stated "I don't generally view murder as an act of mercy, but if it were to be one, the person to be killed would have to request the killing." The fact that you are using that quote to claim that I was advocating anarchy indicates that one of two things is true: 1) you are intentionally mischaracterizing my statements, in which case discussion with you is pointless, as you have no interest in the discussion. 2) you are unintentionally mischaracterizing my statements, in which case discussion with you is pointless, as I have no idea how to communicate with you. Either way, good day.

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 23:04:36 -0800

"Neither equality nor freedom is the highest good. Justice, and the greatest happiness for the greatest number, is. We have freedom in order that these things might be increased. Sometimes, however, people don't know what to do with that freedom, and have to be helped." I disagree. I concede there are elements of your argument we agree on, but I'm no Kantian. Freedom is the highest good that can be safeguarded by justice. Happiness cannot. We have freedom because an individual knows better what his best interests are than any authority. Furthermore - the more removed from a given event whether in time or in space, the less capable one is of governing how that event flows. Everyone who is a Monday morning quarterback or armchair strategist is a better quarterback than Joe Montana or better warfighter than Chesty Puller because they have information that was not available at the time decisions were made. Not because their judgment is superior. In addition - any individuals judgment concerning his own needs has to be taken as the highest authority on the matter - my expertise in buying, say, motorcycles might be vastly superior to my neighbors. But I'm not the one who has to ride it everyday. So the reason it has to be taken as the highest authority is because the individual has the highest degree of responsibility for his own actions. They're the ones that have to live their lives. The government can't live it for them - and so does not have the right to take it away (caveat to that in that it does have a right to limit their freedom in certain circumstances - more on that in a bit). And if the government does help some people who don't know what to do with their freedom - to what degree do we hold those individuals accountable if the government's help is wrong? To what degree do we hold the government? Or rather - to what degree CAN we hold the government accountable if they are wrong? Indeed, the government often believes a war is in the best interest in the people. If I disagree and the government drafts me to fight and I die - how is that freedom? And if I refuse to fight and I am punished how has the government not usurped my responsibility for my own destiny? Granted that is an inversion of the "I was only following orders" bit. Hackneyed as it is, it's still a valid point. Even if the government tells you to do something, tells you that it's right - you are still responsible for your actions. Similarly - criminals have chosen to usurp the rights of another - whether to life, liberty or property. And have thus shown they are not capable of acting responsibly. In theory we put them in penitentiaries - as they were formerly called - to rehabilitate them. To teach them how to act responsibly. In nearly every criminal case I've ever seen the perpetrator always blames someone or something other than themselves for their actions. Punishment is not, and never has been, the goal. The department of corrections aims at exactly what it's name implies - correction. Or rather - should. Philosophy aside - the solid and practical reason for that is that the power of the state has never been as pervasive as it has been now. In the past punishment was needed more to intimidate individuals into behaving. This is often why it was so harsh. Fear is a great motivator. Although indeed, one can argue the merits of behaving for a leader selected by "divine right." Today an individual cannot simply escape into the wilderness. Someone cannot simply change their name and form a new life at the stroke of good fortune (and compassion) as Jean Valjean did. Or at least - not as often or as easily. And escapes from jail are far more rare. Javert today must show mercy in punishment not merely because it's so wonderful and humane to do that, but because it's more effective in correction and because - he can. The state has far more resources - particularly the U.S. - than nearly any society in the past. The more power one possesses the more mercy one must possess - otherwise power is spent only on accruing more power. The end of power - legitimate power - has always been - as you correctly identify - to increase justice and freedom. The method is not, however, in force, but in education and communication. That is not high-flying idealism, but solid practical reasoning: the more resources available the less naked force that has to be used. The more capability we have to capture and detain a criminal, the more we can refine methods to reintegrate that criminal into society. The more power we have to execute the will of the state, the less fear, intimidation, naked force, etc. we have to use. Is that what IS happening? No. For the most part I attribute that to inability to wield power. Once someone gets some real juice they tend to stop listening. Once they get the hammer, problems start looking like nails. Me, I've had men who would kill for me at a word. Sitting in an office making policy would be trite. But some folks go a little batty with that kind of juice. But hell, recognizing Lord Acton so would I eventually. So we have the system we have to spread power out as far as we can - to have it wielded as locally as we can by people on-scene who know what they need. Representatives of the people make the law. A representative - ultimately of the people, but y'know - executes the law. And if the law (that in theory everyone agrees upon) is broken someone will go before a judge in their town - who has maybe heard of him or maybe knows his parents. In front of a jury of people - who are kinda like him from the same area and maybe know where he's coming from and why he did what he did and so forth and see themselves in him and wish to bring him back into the fold eventually. The system is self-reciprocating instead of some guy 10,000 miles away across an ocean saying "execute him" because he knows what's better for people. Perhaps you mean something else, but I'm going on the language you're using. No one knows better for another. Period. It's either an agreed upon contract or it's unjust. And it's not like anyone's keeping people from leaving the country.