Death penalty saves lives

higherlead · June 13, 2007, 1:43am

“You talked about shooting 32 students at a university. That specifically refers to ONE known incident where the murderer clearly planned on committing suicide the entire time. So where’s the connection to the death penalty?”

First I didn’t bring yp the VT shootings. I was addressing the question of do mass murderers usually commit suicide.

Second the VT shootings were really two separate incidents several hours apart. It also seems that when these kinds of sociopaths blow it is often with an initial unplanned murder followed by a rampage. It is like the phantasize but don’t believe they can really do it. Then once the first one is killed then all the restraint is gone.

In a sense I thik that is what went on with the Beltway Snipers as well. After you kill the first one it is in for a dime in for a dollar. The VT kid was a slam bam thank you m’am serial killer. The beltway Snipers phantasy was just a little different.

higherlead · June 13, 2007, 2:00am

“that imposition of the death penalty deters others from committing murders – that is a pretty powerful argument that’s completely distinct from yours. Unfortunately, it seems like BS at the level of proof.”

I agree. The sample is too small to prove anything. I actually believe that mosy murders are either crazy (temporarily or otherwise) or carelessly stupid and amoral (they really didn’t set out to kill anyone). Some of both groups probably ought to shot for the general safety of humanity, but the real problem with system is as I said the likelihood of being caught and if caught seriously punished is frighteningly small. The deterent effect of our legal system is nill.

I’d actually like to see us reinstitute flogging for a lot of minor crimes. If Paris Hilton thinks she saw the light after a night in jail wait until she is given a kiss by the cat’o’9tails. That will focus her four working brain cells.

UCLAri · June 13, 2007, 2:04am

higherlead,

There’s a good reason we got rid of that kind of punishment.

I’d rather live in a freer, but more dangerous, society than one where the government can torture. Prison should be about rehabilitation, not petty retribution.

Of course, we could actually remove the impetus to commit most crimes, but that’s far more complicated.

Icarus · June 13, 2007, 2:09am

Lets try to look at this from a philosophical and logical standpoint.

Only looking at deterrence and other forward-looking justifications of the death penalty (such as incapacitation from further crimes, etc.) discounts an entire other side of the argument. Backward-looking justifications like retribution and just desert, as well as looking at past wrongdoing paints a more complete picture. Looking at just forward-looking justifications cause many of the problems that have come up in this thread, such as the possibility of punishing the innocent and having no way to punish people who commited very bad crimes.

Based on the forward-looking view alone, we could argue to just keep criminals doped up 24/7, etc.

Personally, I like Van Den Haag’s view of capital punishment. He argues that capital punishment is the only way to actually respect the humanity of those who commit crimes like murder/rape/etc. They, as rational beings, must have known that taking another life needlessly is wrong. Therefore, we, as rational beings as well, have a duty to take their life to respect that. It sounds odd, I know, but if you read his argument it makes a lot of sense.

Also, on the execution of innocents - their deaths, while unfortunate, do not make the executions of all those who truely deserved it unjust.

lealdragon · June 13, 2007, 11:54am

I agree.

Can you elaborate?

zoosermom · June 13, 2007, 12:07pm

"Prison should be about rehabilitation, not petty retribution. "

And if rehabilitation is not possible, why shouldn’t prison be about keeping the rest of the population safe.

TheDad · June 13, 2007, 1:17pm

I’m fairly certain that rehabilitation is not an achievable option in many cases. But even the commitment of resources to try is a political non-starter to the extent that I’d look for the return to power of the Habsburgs before counting on it.

Where does the child go off track to become the adult criminal? Imo, before age seven in most cases, as attitudes and values are set–or not–in the home. Parenting, no matter how crappy or functionally non-existent–is fiercely defended as an individual prerogative about which the community has no stake, yet the community as a whole pays the price down the road.

I am not advocating a PRC-style of social block wardens or anything of the sort, nor a broad imposition of narrow 1950’s-style values. But we could certainly use a cultural mindset where taking care of a child’s development was a true priority instead of something to be given lip service to, with adults aware of opportunities to support, nurture, model, and counsel children in whatever venue they encounter them…schools, Scouts, athletic clubs, street corners, etc.

One of the first steps is a willingness to actually listen to children and treating them as individuals; usually, adults start out by wanting to tell children and treating them as semi-animate chattel.

kluge · June 13, 2007, 1:45pm

Just a reality check regarding murderers getting paroled - here in California, we have a sentence of “life without parole” - referred to as LWOP. No one has ever been paroled from a LWOP sentence. We also have life with parole - and in the last 25 years you can count the number of life sentence parolees on one hand. There’s a generally high level of misinformation about actual current sentencing reality in America.

The funny thing is, I tend to agree with Razorsharp (except the “Murder is always emotional. So go pound sand.” part.) I don’t opposed the death penalty of principle, but I do have a problem with executing the innocent. If a truly effective higher standard of proof could somehow be implemented - i.e., not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but to actual moral certainty - I’d go for it. The problem is in the implementation of it. There are times when there actually is no doubt as to the identity of the murderer, and the nature of the crime. In those circumstances, with heinous offenses, I’m all for the death penalty.

The problem is, you inevitably get “bracket creep”. An ambitious DA who wants to “make a name”, is egged on by vengeful victim advocates and press (now bloggers), and unrestrained by any sense of a downside in being “tough on crime” will always push the envelope, until you get defendants in marginal cases sentenced to death. And then you find out one of them was really not guilty. And you’re back at square 1.

UCLAri · June 13, 2007, 2:54pm

At least according to most of the criminology I’ve read, the rational reason for turning to crime like theft or burglary is oftentimes a lack of economic opportunity. Get rid of poverty, and a lot of crime goes away.

I realize that it may be a spurious correlation, but one of the biggest upswings in criminal behavior in Japan followed the economic bubble’s burst.

I don’t disagree, and did not rule that out. But “eye-for-and-eye”-style retribution has little effect in reducing crime, it seems. Caning people is not going to make our society safer-- only less free.

zoosermom · June 13, 2007, 7:01pm

“don’t disagree, and did not rule that out. But “eye-for-and-eye”-style retribution has little effect in reducing crime, it seems. Caning people is not going to make our society safer-- only less free.”

I’m not a fan of corporal or capital punishment. But I do think some people can’t be rehabilitated in a way as to not be dangerous to others.

higherlead · June 13, 2007, 10:54pm

" Of course, we could actually remove the impetus to commit most crimes, but that’s far more complicated."

And what would that impetus be exactly? A persons disinclination to work for what they want? Their desire for more wordly goods or respect then their efforts and talents warrant? Or possible their total lack of self-restraint?

If there is a heaven and a hell they can get justice there and if there is not why should I be concerned about their rehabilitation? Do you have any evidence that rehabiltating criminals will pay me a return in the long run?

higherlead · June 13, 2007, 11:07pm

“Caning people is not going to make our society safer-- only less free.”

I am not less free because criminals are caned. I am less free because liberals make too many laws. It is not the punishment that makes us unfree. It is the people who feel it is incumbent upon them to regulate not only what we do, but what we think and feel.

higherlead · June 13, 2007, 11:15pm

“At least according to most of the criminology I’ve read, the rational reason for turning to crime like theft or burglary is oftentimes a lack of economic opportunity. Get rid of poverty, and a lot of crime goes away.”

That reason would only be rational if you calculated that you could steal enough to justify the risk of capture, conviction, and jail time. For that calculation to work out either the crimial justice system would have to be hopelessly ineffectual or you skill set near totally unmarketable.

If it is a problem with the justice system we should fix it and if it is the later why should I bother rehabiltating you. Doing so would be especially unjust to the folks as talentless as you who nevertheless did not turn to crime.

If you want more of something (like crime) reward crimials. If you want less then punish it. I vote for less crime.

lealdragon · June 13, 2007, 11:17pm

Many people become violent criminals after being abused themselves. Yes, I know: not all people who were abused become criminals and not all criminals were abused…but there IS a strong correlation when the chain of violence is not broken but passed on from generation to generation.

Why rehabilitate? Well if you are a Christian, then because Jesus taught love and compassion and forgiveness.

However, the innocent should not be put in harm’s way for the sake of the criminal, imo.

Therefore, I am against turning violent offenders back out in the streets, where they can strike again. They have lost their right to freedom by taking another’s life.

I know this is not very practical, as in cost-effective, right now, but seriously, think about this idea:

No death penalty.

But, ZERO tolerance for violence.

ALL murderers get put in prison FOR LIFE, no paroles, no exceptions.

Non-violent offenders get some other sort of punishment, like massive fines or community service or something related to the offense.

But prisons would be for the violent, and there would be a 1-way door only (except for if a convict were later proven innocent of course).

ALL prisoners would be given the OPTION to get spiritual counseling of their choice. That way, if they have a spiritual rebirth, it would be real, since there would be NO HOPE of getting out of prison just because they became a Christians or Buddhist or whatever. So any remorse and rehabilitation would be for the spirit only and therefore genuine. This is optional and never forced upon the prisoner.

How often do people commit murders, willing to take their chances? How often is a deal made for a light sentence, only to have the criminal out in the public again and kill again? The public should not have to take that risk. It is not worth the risk that the murderer will kill again. And many do. Most murderers are not rehabilitated in prison. In fact some of them get out of prison angrier than b4. Punishment is not rehabilitation.

With automatic lifetime sentencing for violent offenders, at first there would be an overflow in the prisons, but it wouldn’t take long b4 people figured out that those who went in don’t come out, and that would be a powerful deterrent, maybe even more powerful than the death penalty, since they don’t always get the death penalty. And, it would solve the problem of killing innocent people.

higherlead · June 13, 2007, 11:34pm

It is a sorry fact but many people and most criminals have no empathy with other people. They flat out do not feel their pain. I suspect that in many cases it is because of something that went wrong very early on i their parenting. Whatever the cause they do not have consciences. They do usually have a sense of self-preservation. For those people the prospect of punishment either here or in the hereafter is a deterent.

Now I highly doubt that here in the 21st century we will ever get a consensus from the “educated” classes that there is a God who rewards the god and punishes the evil so a fear of the Lord is never going to be part of a rehabilitative program for the amoral. So that only leaves the fear of retributive punishment. If you are going to lock someone up for decades then even if you rehabilitate him by teaching him there are negative conseqences to anti-social behavior you will not live long enough to reap any of the rewards. On the other hand if you can pack the same amount of retributive punishment into a dramatically shorter period of time it can be a win win situation.

I say it is better to give someone a good flogging than to incarcerate them for 1-3 and a damn site cheaper. Is it cruel and unusual? I don’t know. many a culture considers a long prison sentence much crueler than corporal punishment.

21st century western man at heart really isn’t sure he doesn’t deserve to pillaged and robbed while his wife and daughters are violated. Having lost all confidence in his own values he has lost the will to impose those values as well.

Princedog · June 13, 2007, 11:52pm

But obviously none were deterred by the death penalty, even though they committed crimes that would obviously receive death in the state they were committed/partially committed in. Correct? It’s no big secret that Va is fine with execution. And guns, FWIW.

These are not good examples if you’re trying to argue that using the death penalty stops crimes like this. Besides the fact that sniper incident was obviously orchestrated (initial unplanned murder?) and the shooting of Emily Hilscher and Ryan Clark was likely planned too per the investigation, considering he was across campus from his dorm and seemed to intend it as a distraction. It’s not like he just happened to have a machine gun lying around.

Neither are classic serial killers, one was attempting to lead up to kill his ex wife and the opther was on a suicidal rampage. Crime experts differentiate between these types of killers because they have distinct characteristics. From what I’ve read, it seems generally accepted that treatment is most successful on the suicidal rampage types. Serial killers (who derive pleasure from killing and generally try to have as much contact as possible with the victim while carrying out the murder) are a strange breed that probably can’t be rehabilitated with our current resources and knowledge.

It costs a lot to execute someone. We have years, decades really, of appeals. It is right now placed at more expensive than life in prison. We are paying for basically years in prison plus high costs in trying the person eight million times. A higher burden of proof would only increase this cost. And you know Va’s mental health system has come under a lot of criticism in the investigation; things are finally being fixed. A day late and a dollar short. Meanwhile how much has the state of Va spent on sentencing people to death? A lot more than some other states with more advanced mental health systems that might have prevented the suicidal rampage we just experienced. The death penalty to me is really the end of the line of incompetence. I’m not really even that opposed to it, I’m just not a hardcore advocate here, I really have no philosophical reason to be opposed, it’s probably more humane in some cases, besides the economics of it. I just find it so completely ridiculous that we’re going to sit here and pretend like being so focused on the death penalty is preventing anything. It really isn’t. You don’t need studies - this is just common sense.

Killing someone (premeditated) takes a reasoning process that is really not normal. I personally do not sit around considering killing people. These people are not weighing their options and doing cost benefit analyses. They aren’t going to think, oh death penalty, better not. By the time you get to the point of premeditated murder, you’re a pretty messed up person. Meanwhile we’re missing the prevention train in a lot of ways - the areas with the highest crime in the greater Washington area (southern DC and some parts of Md) are the areas with education systems that also have the most problems. These are not coincidences. They are inextricably linked, and linked with many other factors, that create self perpetuating cycles. You may say that the District doesn’t use the death penalty much (if it’s even legal anymore, not sure) but that misses a fairly crucial point: parts of DC, which operate under the same laws, are really pretty safe. There’s obviously more at play here. Of course there is also a distinction between the dynamics of street crime and serial murderers, who come from different walks of life, but we seem to be venturing in all violent offenses. Eliminating this takes more reform than the death penalty, which essentially means we already failed.

TheDad · June 14, 2007, 12:12am

What an interesting…view. Complete nonsense in my experience. But blame the liberals.

kluge · June 14, 2007, 12:45am

Yeah - TheDad, the rigorous logic and complete disconnect from the real world that is the hallmark of right wing philosophy. I was a libertarian until I spent some time with my eyes open in the real world; some people have a higher resistance to recognition of the way people actually behave than others, and never get over it.

higherlead · June 14, 2007, 1:08am

“These are not good examples if you’re trying to argue that using the death penalty stops crimes like this.”

So does that mean your arguement is if the criminal knew he faced rehabilitation in jail he would be less likely to commit the crime?

As a deterent the prospect of death versus the prospect of long term imprisonment probably have pretty much the same effect of first murders. However the death penalty is 100% effective in preventing recidivism. Imprisonment is not. In fact it is not 100% effective even when the sentence is life in prison. Prisoners escape and prisoners kill, rape, amd maim in prison.

UCLAri · June 14, 2007, 1:19am

People are also, more often than we’d like to admit, wrongfully convicted of crimes. A state that wrongfully executes its citizens is, by definition of rule of law, less free than one that doesn’t.

What you’re missing, I think, is the mindset of a statistician. While I do think that individual cases of wrongdoing are unfortunate, I’m trained to think about the aggregate. Policies written to punish outliers can also be used to punish the non-outliers.

This is the biggest flaw in your argument. You fail to recognize that you too could one day be on the receiving end of that stick.

I mean, speeding kills more people every year than we think. Should we cane speeders? How about caning people who park in handicapped spaces?

Where do we draw the line? How do we decide when to spare the rod?

Should “hate crimes” be treated differently? How about violence against the opposite sex? Should we cane white collar criminals?

One of the reasons our society threw most of the flogging/caning/corporal punishment regime out is because it’s damned hard to regulate and know when to use it.

Death penalty saves lives

CONNECT WITH US