Comments on: Death Penalty Supporters

By: grumpybumpas

grumpybumpas — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 08:03:01 +0000

In the state of Texas the death penelty works,no convicted felon exsecuted by the state of Texas has ever gone on to kill again.

By: Kevin Wood

Kevin Wood — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

"It should be obvious that people who commit murder are generally not rational beings, weighing their options and the potential consequences."

That's a classic case of backwards thinking (pun intended). You're completely ignoring the possibility that someone that commits a murderous act was once a rational person.

"Perhaps certain victims and their families, who view the death penalty as necessary to reestablish some sort of karmic balance in the world and “put the whole thing behind them”?"

Fortunately, I'm not a relative to any murder victim, but if I was, the least I would expect from the convicted murderer is remorse for their violenent crimes. William Tookie had over twenty years to renounce his violent history of crimes!

It's also naive of you to think that the death penalty is enough for a family of a murder victim to "put the whole thing behind them", because I would argue that it's only the beginning of their retribution!

By: Al

Al — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

There are many possible justifications for the death penalty that you do not mention in your blog. This is forgivable and understandable given the medium - obviously you have not set out to write an inclusive and expansive piece on the death penalty.

One that is worth mentioning is the surrendering of our natural abilities to live in society. To have a successful civilization, we require from all members a certian level of behavior. In return, people can expect protection but I also think it is reasonable that people can expect retribution for wrongs visited upon them. The entire system of torts is based on this principle. But what can happen once the crime committed against another is so terrible that the person (or their loved ones as is usually the case) cannot possibly be made whole?

Many ask if the state has the right to put people to death, but I suggest that perhaps this is not the proper question. The proper question might be if the state has the right NOT to put people to death. Does the state have the right to ask me to control my natural inclination towards retribution while offering nothing in return? Does it have the right to tell me not to corral a lynch mob, which I am physically able of doing, and offer only a jail sentence to ease my pain? Leaving aside the fact that prison, while far from desireable, becomes just another lifestyle and is eventually adjusted to perfectly fine (there are penal codes in place to ensure this happens)... even if prison were truly wretched would it be enough?

People often speak of the danger of capital punishment to our civilized spirit. And that there is truth in this cannot be denied... a society that does not respect the dignity of human life will not long rmain a functioning society. But I would suggest that another danger exists. I would suggest that a society that does not address the legitimate cries for retribution from those that have been hurt in a fashion that is truly beyond the pale will also not long remain a functioning society.

By: Adam Rosi-Kessel

Adam Rosi-Kessel — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Note that I did not attempt to provide “justifications for the death penalty” — I was trying to understand how people who advocate for the death penalty reach their conclusions. Neither of these comments seems to address the first point, which is the unavoidable failure of the legal system to “get it right” some of the time.

By: NV

NV — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Adam, you seem to assume in 1) that the accused/convicted hasn't admitted guilt or that there was doubt surrounding the conviction. Where there is no doubt, i.e. the act is on video, the person turned themselves in or whatever, what then?

Is the death penalty so bad then?

To Al: the reverse could be argued - that the death penalty aims to ENSURE the dignity of human life, by removing those that do not respect it.

By: Adam Rosi-Kessel

Adam Rosi-Kessel — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

NV: This is precisely my point. I don't know if you've spent time in the criminal justice system, but my understanding, having represented criminal defendants, attended criminal trials, and following some of the academic research, is that it's extraordinarily difficult to be sure you got it right, even in cases where there is a confession or the very rare case where "the act is on video." There is quite a lot of literature indicating that false confessions are a widespread systemic problem; among other reasons, the accused often thinks it's the best way to get out of his situation. See, e.g. False Confessions at the Innocence Project. Even in the case where you have noncircumstantial evidence -- say, a video recording -- there are always relevant facts that may or may not be on the record in considering innocence or guilt. For example, defendant is videotaped, apparently killing someone is cold blood with a knife. Taken in isolation, it seems like an "open and shut" case. We don't know that immediately before the videotape, the victim threatened to kill and rape defendant's children. Now, it may be under these circumstances that the murder was not actually excusable (there is a whole complex body of law on what sort of force is permissible in self-defense), but as a practical matter we probably wouldn't want to execute someone based on those facts.

This argument tends to devolve to some edge case where there is no doubt whatsoever that the defendant committed the crime, has no excuse or mitigating circumstance, etc.. The problem is that the system is not generally applied to edge cases, and the standard is not "no doubt." If the death penalty could be fashioned in such a way that it were only applied in these cases of extreme certainty, it would hardly ever be applied. I suppose the difference between that version of the death penalty and no deah penalty is almost negligible, other than a substantial waste of prosecutorial resources in attempting to prove "no doubt" in certain cases.

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

I would probably add the third group that you consider, the victim or "Personal Retribution" group. Although, I think group 1 and 2 are conceptually bounded by each other. I would also probably just lump the "Personal Retribution" group in with No.1.

Either way, none of the positions: ignorance, personal political gain, and revenge seem particularly well-suited for policy formation.

By: Adam Rosi-Kessel

Adam Rosi-Kessel — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

By the way, Kevin: “You’re completely ignoring the possibility that someone that commits a murderous act was once a rational person.” I am? I don’t understand your argument. What is the significance of a murderer having once been rational?

By: Al

Al — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

First... the easy part:

To NV: We are in agreement, and in fact that is the point of view I tend to subscribe to. I was not suggesting that having the death penalty required abandoning respect for the dignity of human life (though some do suggest this). I only meant to suggest that regardless of whether a society decides to implement capital punishment or not, it must do either in a way that maintains respect for the dignity of human life.

To Adam:

A fair question, and one that I was not intentionally avoiding. It's hard for me to keep focus without keeping the text in front of me ;-) Which of course, I do not.

I don't claim to speak for anyone but myself, but it seems as if "no doubt" is NOT a requirement of a morally justified death penalty. It seems to me, in fact, that the probability of successfully determining a perpetrator of a particular crime has little if anything to do with the moral justification of the penalty to be applied.

Going back to my original post, can we not agree that in an uncivilized world where lynch mobs were the prevalent means of obtaining "justice" there is a much higher probablity of getting "the wrong man" and punishing him improperly? This is the condition we seek to replace with the rule of law, not a situation where life imprisonment is a "sane default" (though death penalty opponents would have one believe this). In this light, if nothing else, the introduction of a process, and in many cases a lengthy and reflective process, to determine if one has the actual criminal at hand, is a vast improvement over what would be the natural state of affairs. Add to this that he is considered innocent of all crimes when he walks in, is able to have real and actual evidence thrown away because of procedural nonsense and bullshit, and even once found guilty and sentenced is also given the opportunity to mitigate his sentence with previous good acts or lack of bad ones... I'd say it adds up to a fair deal that we can all accept for the benefits of a just society.

That said, it still makes me queasy. The idea of extinguishing any human life disgusts me, and I certainly wouldn't be the man for the job. Worse still, the idea that an innocent man might indeed be executed, and that there is more or less proof that this has happened... yes it makes my skin crawl. But I do not see that the alternative of denying justice to those who have forfieted their ability or obtain it for themselves in the name of a civilized world is morally a better choice at all. And here in America (I don't know where you are) we routinely give 5-15 year sentences for taking another man's life. Taking another man's life THIS is where there is something seriously wrong.

Take 8/10 of the laws on the books (esp. the drug laws) and throw them all away and focus on the REAL crimes against humanity. Put the money saved towards refining and improving the trial and appeal process to help lower the odds that an innocent man will be unjustly punished. Then you'll see a real improvement across the board.

By: Al

Al — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000