The crap stain who shot up a Pittsburgh synagogue over the weekend killed 11 people. One of those individuals was a 97-year old woman. I oppose the death penalty, but man, if I ever wanted to make an exception to my opposition, it would be for this guy. What a sack of crap.
19 comments:
I would like to oppose the death penalty, but generally do not. You are making the "some crimes are so heinous" exception, and assuming the "no shadow of doubt" exception is also valid here. If I WERE to oppose the death penalty, I would (somehow) include both of those exceptions in the law. The biggest problem is that some crazies PREFER "suicide by cop" to a fair trial and execution. And then we prosecute the cop.
You are making the "some crimes are so heinous" exception, and assuming the "no shadow of doubt" exception is also valid here.
Actually, I'm not. But it's tempting for this guy, because he's such a monster.
This is, IMO, the kind of case for which the death penalty is most appropriate. Cold blood, multiple witnesses, circumstantial evidence, multiple fatalities, not much reasonable doubt that I can see. The only thing hanging out there, unless a fraud of amazing proportions exists, is the question of whether the shooter is mentally ill. I support the death penalty, but there are a lot of cases out there where I confess I'm not convinced of the appropriateness of the penalty or the sufficiency of the evidence. This is not one of them.
(talk to me about increased monitoring of prosecutors and police, you've got me in the amen chorus.....just not with the death penalty at this time)
Another very interesting exception-- mental illness. My belief is that anybody who commits murder is mentally ill, but the truly pathological cases, where the defendant is certifiably "out of his mind," should be treated slightly differently. No death penalty, but we are going to lock up the BODY until the mind returns to it, if ever. Then maybe we execute the mind&body together. Or not.
I oppose capital punishment. In all cases.
Very principled stand, Gino. But like lots of ethical questions, I see a clash between that and the practical. Should someone who wantonly kills a dozen people get free room and board for life? Now if we just had "Coventry"....
But like lots of ethical questions, I see a clash between that and the practical. Should someone who wantonly kills a dozen people get free room and board for life?
That's not the point, though -- I'm not going to speak for Gino, but for me the overarching principle is the idea that the government reserves the right to kill its citizens and the incredible moral hazard involved if we execute an innocent person. And the State of Texas almost certainly did so in the case of Cameron Todd Willingham.
Regarding "free room and board for life", that's a weak argument against ending the death penalty for a few reasons. When criminals are in jail, they are not generally attacking innocent victims (save innocents wrongly sent to jail and guards, etc..). Moreover, it actually costs more to execute a criminal than to give him three hots and a cot, and states without a death penalty also had huge reductions in murder rates simply because they were sentencing murderers for longer times.
I still believe that the solution to cases like that of Cameron Todd Willingham is to go after prosecutors who withhold exonerating evidence more aggressively, and that the death penalty does indeed influence the behavior of criminals for the better--the murder rate plunged when the Supreme Court reinstated it, though of course there were other factors in play--but that noted, life in prison still does keep people off the streets and not hurting innocents. That's a good thing.
Bubba, that logic seems all over the map to me. Execution costs more because we have so many people fighting it. Some fight it for fear of making a "mistake," and we should not allow ourselves to do that. But when we find somebody standing over ten dead bodies with a smoking gun that he owned, and two dozen eye witnesses, the guy should fry. Or be shot on the spot, though I still fear the possibility of a "mistake." The one reason I still like for NOT is that the government should not be allowed to do what an ordinary citizen may not legally or morally do, which is to take a life. Even then, I think "society" has a right to self-defense, even revenge, maybe? They should NOT have to support this animal indefinitely. Where will we build Coventry ?
I am pro-life. Human life is sacred. All of it.
That said...
in a system where 'all men are created equal', we know that some men are more 'equal' than others due to money, prestige,celebrity, politics, or connections.
its simply not justice when money and prestige can buy the best lawyers/outcomes than the other 'equal' citizen cannot.
often times, status (more equal) is a matter of who one is born too (Kennedy's, Bush's, etc.)... and actual character means nothing. I'll support the death penalty when the first of the Brahman class gets it.
everybody sent to death row was born into a bad background. why is that? i dont think its right to kill somebody becuase he had shitty parents, or wasnt born a Bush, or didnt play in the NFL.
LWOP is tough as it is. give them that... and be done with it.
Do you think it is right for somebody to kill an innocent third party because he had bad parents? Do we excuse murder because somebody was mean to them in high school?
"Dear kindly Sergeant Krupke...."
I will agree we have a problem with "fairness" on the rich/privileged end of the criminal set, but I see no reason to let that be an excuse for further injustice on the other end. Ten dead bodies and a smoking gun deserves something more than a life of leisure at taxpayer expense. Work gangs and restitution might make LWOP an acceptable alternative. Might be a better deterrent, too, at least for semi-rational murderers.
LWOP in CA means you spend your life under lights, in a 7'x 9' cell, no privacy when you shit in the toilet two ft from the bed you sleep in. LWOP is hard. Death is a mercy, kinda...
I’d also add that life without parole can be a death penalty, too. Whitey Bulger and Jeffrey Dahmer, among others, found that out.
If someone is going to die in prison, I would prefer that it be state-sanctioned and intentional. One complaint I have about the death penalty is that it takes so long to execute someone, even in an "open and shut case," that it lacks the deterrent effect we would like it to have. I guess I understand your point that life in prison might be worse than death, for some people, and if I were certain of that I would be more likely to support it, regardless. But I still think it penalizes the survivors. Is anybody at all working on the "Coventry" idea?
If someone is going to die in prison, I would prefer that it be state-sanctioned and intentional.
Why precisely is a state-sanctioned death more desirable?
Perhaps also important is that a life sentence is as much a state sanctioned death as the death penalty. It simply gives the state more time to get the appeals right, but simultaneously less motivation to make those appeals mandatory.
Choose your poison, I guess. Just for kicks, I calculated the cost of incarceration vs. the cost of a life snuffed out too young--yes, in crass economic terms--and I'm calculating about a 4:1 ratio of cost of lives snuffed out too young vs. cost of incarceration(I'm comparing with the worst of our murder rate from 1980, about 10.4/100k). The math would be somewhat more complicated for the death penalty, since if you're doing it right at all(if), you're saving more lives per execution, but then again, the cost of those appeals.
I'm no fan of the monetary cost of either life sentences or the death penalty, but the ROI works here. Probably a lot we can do to reduce the # of people who deserve either one, but going from where we are, we're not doing too badly.
Because while it is sometimes unequally applied, at least it is more fair and less "cruel and unusual" than a shank to the base of the skull. That some are murdered in prision (and, I will note, that lifers sometimes murder guards or other prisoners because of "nothing to lose") is not an argument against the death penalty, or, except for that "nothing to lose" argument, in favor.
Because while it is sometimes unequally applied, at least it is more fair and less "cruel and unusual" than a shank to the base of the skull.
If anything is "sometimes unequally applied," by definition it's not fair. And if you're dead any way, why would a lethal injection or a seat in ol' Sparky be preferable to shank to the base of the skull?
By "more fair" I am referring to a "fair trial." The death penalty is supposed to result in death, but in a way that is "painless." I cannot imagine any possible way to do that, considering the mental anguish that must precede an official state execution. Maybe the shank is better. Did you know Devil's Island only closed in 1953?
Post a Comment