Federal executions are on again. Your feelings?

[Sputnik]

Twice this week the government has executed condemned federal inmates. One without a valid Death Warrant, the other with unresolved appellate issues. Do you think execution is justice or stupidity on behalf of the government? Apparently trump thinks this makes our cities safer.

I've lost so much respect for our government in the last 3 years that I'm not surprised they started this madness again. I wish they would not do this in the name of the American people.

[3acres]

They're just doing this because Donnie likes to kill people and he's not getting any one on one satisfaction from the pandemic.

[silenus]

They're not executing the right people.


Roll, tumbrels, roll!

[Jaglavak]

Purkey was convicted of kidnapping, raping and killing a 16-year-old girl before dismembering, burning and then dumping the teen’s body in a septic pond. He was also convicted in a state court in Kansas after using a claw hammer to kill an 80-year-old woman who suffered from polio.

The feds can do whatever they want to that shitbag.

[BrickaBracka]

I caution myself against forming an opinion of a person based on even what a court convicts them of. Simply because it's so easy for mistakes to be made.

I'm an advocate of life in prison solely to account for the possibility that the "justice system" makes a mistake.

Also because for those truly depraved individuals - life alone in a featureless box is worse than death.

[Monstera deliciosa]

Not happy. Not because I don't believe that death is a just punishment for extremely heinous crimes.*

I just don't believe that the government (or any bureaucracy) is competent to make life or death decisions. I've been on a jury, and I don't think that the first 12 people that the prosecution and defense can agree on are competent to make life or death decisions either.

*I wouldn't object to the death of the guy Jag describes, for example.

[JackieLikesVariety]

Not happy. Not because I don't believe that death is a just punishment for extremely heinous crimes.*

I just don't believe that the government (or any bureaucracy) is competent to make life or death decisions. I've been on a jury, and I don't think that the first 12 people that the prosecution and defense can agree on are competent to make life or death decisions either.

*I wouldn't object to the death of the guy Jag describes, for example.


yes, this is what I think, and the word "competent" is well chosen.

while the guy Jag describes does not deserve to live, we do not have a justice system we can trust to only kill people who deserve it.

make it life with no chance of getting out or whatever you need to do, but a hard NO to capital punishment at any level.

[Derleth]

Not happy. Not because I don't believe that death is a just punishment for extremely heinous crimes.*

I just don't believe that the government (or any bureaucracy) is competent to make life or death decisions. I've been on a jury, and I don't think that the first 12 people that the prosecution and defense can agree on are competent to make life or death decisions either.

*I wouldn't object to the death of the guy Jag describes, for example.I agree with you: I am not morally opposed to the state killing people, as having a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a defined region is the definition of being a state as per Weber, but there's no justice system competent enough to reliably hand down the death penalty only to the guilty. Servicemembers killing in war and police killing those using violence to commit crimes know the instant the specific person is a legitimate target, or the training and discipline needs to be improved, but courts can only reconstruct past events and attempt to decide states of mind in addition to actions. That's been shown to be inaccurate and biased in various ways. Using the outcome of that process to kill people is impractical as a way to enforce social norms.

[Pencil]

I'm against the Dp for a lot of reasons. I could argue them all but in the end it comes down to one position I read or heard a few years ago, that I think sums it up pretty well.

A just and civilized society treats its criminals better than they treated their victims, lest society debases itself to the level of the criminals.


Personally, had I been close to one of the victims in Jag's post, I'd hunt down and put the fucker in a wood chipper - slowly. Because revenge is satisfying. But not by proxy. And society must not enact revenge, only justice.

[BrickaBracka]

make it life with no chance of getting out or whatever you need to do, but a hard NO to capital punishment at any level.

Even this is concerning because of the chances of prosecutorial errors.

I know the appeals system is clogged up with people hoping for technicalities and loopholes but if there's no way to get out, and you truly didn't do the crime...well then life in a box with no chance of escape could be construed as worse than death for some people. And by a hypothetical outside observer who could know the facts unbiased, could be described as torture.

All I'm saying is there should never be a system which completely eliminates the capability of a person to engage with the courts after their conviction.

I'd still rather a bad man be released than an innocent man be jailed. Because in the case of an innocent man being jailed...the bad man is STILL OUT THERE ANYWAY.

[thorny locust]

while the guy Jag describes does not deserve to live, we do not have a justice system we can trust to only kill people who deserve it.

This.

Plus which, it's horrible symbolism. 'You mustn't kill people! Killing people is bad! And to prove it we're going to kill you!'

Groups of people too small or otherwise without the resources to maintain prisons may sometimes have no choice, because there is a small percentage of people who just can't be let loose. But no modern country is in that position.


All I'm saying is there should never be a system which completely eliminates the capability of a person to engage with the courts after their conviction.

A fair point. It should always be possible to re-open a case if additional relevant information can be brought -- including in that information both information about actual evidence that wasn't available at the time of trial, and also information showing bias in previous proceedings.

But I don't think it's necessary to eliminate sentences of life without parole, as long as even those cases can be re-opened if there's new evidence.

in the case of an innocent man being jailed...the bad man is STILL OUT THERE ANYWAY.

Which is a major point; and one that those less concerned about the rights of suspects, or even the rights of the convicted, often seem to miss.

[Ludovic]

Groups of people too small or otherwise without the resources to maintain prisons may sometimes have no choice, because there is a small percentage of people who just can't be let loose. But no modern country is in that position.That's my take on it as well. In a modern society, if we can afford to keep people locked up for life we can afford to keep a few extra ones locked up instead of killing them (even if it were streamlined to save money). I'm pretty sure that the number of people falsely executed, while kept deliberately obscure by the states who have a vested interest in not wanting to own up to any mistakes, is way higher than the number of people killed by death row inmates and death row escapees.

And studies suggest that there is no deterrence effect to having the death penalty, or possibly even a negative deterrence effect, although I'm skeptical of going that far, because executions are not public enough these days to introduce desensitization to the bloodthirsty masses.

[Sputnik]

Aside from the fact that these two individuals were total scum, I'm pretty upset with our "new" government believing it's not accountable to anyone. The first execution was not legally done, as the death warrant had expired. A new one was required. Even though, the DOJ knew it expired, they knew there would be no accountability so wtf, just execute the guy. This is a scary statement on how far a government can bend rules when there's no accountability.

[Derleth]

'You mustn't kill people! Killing people is bad! And to prove it we're going to kill you!'I disagree.

Try these on for size:

"You must not kill me! Killing me is bad! To prevent it, I'm going to kill you!"

"You must not use your military to attack me! Using your military against me is bad! To stop your military, I'm going to use my military!"

"You must not shoot others in a bank robbery! Shooting others to rob them is wrong! Also, shooting police officers is wrong! To stop you, we're going to shoot you!"

There's a pragmatic case against the death penalty. I'm not sure there's a coherent moral case against it if you still accept self-defense and military action as valid, not to mention an armed police force.

[Pencil]

There's a pragmatic case against the death penalty. I'm not sure there's a coherent moral case against it if you still accept self-defense and military action as valid, not to mention an armed police force.

I stated the moral and philosophical reason upthread.
You may argue against that and think that it is indeed the moral obligation for society to enact revenge as a proxy for an individual. Because the Dp is just - and only - that: revenge.

[Jaglavak]

Executing a crazed murderer is not only the appropriate punishment, but also a recognition of the fact that he could be released from the cage by clue-free future caretakers and kill again. After a certain point, the rights of the next victim far outweigh any consideration about the murderer.

However I do agree that the government is riddled with assholes who would cheerfully abuse such power if they could. So execution should be reserved for the most egregious cases.

[BrickaBracka]

It's simply too big a risk to ignore the incompetencies of our current government. Death penalty is appropriate in an ideal world where we don't have mistakes.

Do we have that world? No. Then to mitigate the imperfection we should not go past life without parole. IMHO

[thorny locust]

'You mustn't kill people! Killing people is bad! And to prove it we're going to kill you!'I disagree.

Try these on for size:

"You must not kill me! Killing me is bad! To prevent it, I'm going to kill you!"

"You must not use your military to attack me! Using your military against me is bad! To stop your military, I'm going to use my military!"

"You must not shoot others in a bank robbery! Shooting others to rob them is wrong! Also, shooting police officers is wrong! To stop you, we're going to shoot you!"

There's a pragmatic case against the death penalty. I'm not sure there's a coherent moral case against it if you still accept self-defense and military action as valid, not to mention an armed police force.

Not the same situation, because in the case of the death penalty, we have a choice. The murderer who we'd be trying to execute has already been stopped, if they're sufficiently under control that we could execute them.

If the only way to prevent somebody from killing me is for me to kill them, then yes, I'm entitled to do so. But if I could prevent them from killing me just by shutting a door between us, then whatever some states' laws say I hold that it would be wrong for me to kill them.

If the only way to prevent another entity's military from attacking my country/group with deadly force is to use deadly force against them, then we're entitled to do so. If we have other reasonable methods of preventing them, then I hold that we're not entitled to do so. (If the results of any negotiations are sufficiently terrible, then we'd be entitled to fight back anyway. But that's not going to apply to a prisoner on trial.)

If the only way to prevent the robbers from shooting people is to shoot them, then the police/bank guards/whoever are entitled to shoot them. If the robbers are already subdued and handcuffed, I don't think anybody here is going to claim the police are still entitled to shoot them.

Note that I said above that a society that's unable to provide prisons is entitled to kill people who are sufficiently dangerous to it -- because they have no better choice. But we do.

[stormie]

I wish they would not do this in the name of the American people.Yes, I feel strongly about that.

The problem with executions is that you can't free someone who was wrongly convicted. 'Oops' doesn't quite cut it. Juries are often swayed toward a guilty verdict based on the horror of the crime, rather than the certainty that this particular person committed the crime. A superreliable journal reported that 4% of people convicted of capital crimes are innocent (https://www.pnas.org/content/111/20/7230), a number that goes up for Black people.

There are a few criminals I would not much care if they were executed. I'm not a very good person that way. It's a barbaric practice that benefits only our seeing-red revenge impulses, which should not be benefited.

[Dragonlady]

When DNA became a usable thing, SO MANY men were released from death row that it should be a natural conclusion that juries and trial make mistakes.

[stormie]

Do you think some of it has to do with the adversarial methods used in most justice systems? It seems to become two teams trying to manipulate a judge / or jury rather than a desire to find out what actually happened.
ie
if it does not fit, it's because wet leather shrinks, asshat.

[Jaglavak]

As usual, that's because it is an efficient machine for separating the marks from their life savings.

[Musicat]

The 6th Commandment: "Thou shalt not kill."

Apparently there are numerous exceptions.

[C2H5OH]

The 6th Commandment: "Thou shalt not kill."

Apparently there are numerous exceptions.

Of course there are, because that's a poor translation of the original Hebrew. It is more correctly rendered as " Thou shalt not murder." Capital punishment wasn't murder even to the writers of the Bible.

[Musicat]

The 6th Commandment: "Thou shalt not kill."

Apparently there are numerous exceptions.

Of course there are, because that's a poor translation of the original Hebrew. It is more correctly rendered as " Thou shalt not murder." Capital punishment wasn't murder even to the writers of the Bible.Considering the number of times "God" ordered his minions to murder without mercy, obviously not. Even "God" has loopholes. Just ask Garfinkel and Oates. (https://youtu.be/7pzs0aGu1fU)

[C2H5OH]

Of course there are, because that's a poor translation of the original Hebrew. It is more correctly rendered as " Thou shalt not murder." Capital punishment wasn't murder even to the writers of the Bible.Considering the number of times "God" ordered his minions to murder without mercy, obviously not. Even "God" has loopholes. Just ask Garfinkel and Oates. (https://youtu.be/7pzs0aGu1fU)

Geez, get with the program. If GOD tells you to do it, it isn't murder. Didn't you get the memo?

[Glazer]

It is usually more expensive to house an inmate on death row, fight the legal battles overcoming the appeals, and eventually execute him than it would be just to impose a life sentence without parole. Capital punishment is both wrong and an unnecessary burden on tax payers. Of course, our entire justice system is corrupt, broken, and too expensive.

[Sputnik]

We've certainly developed into a wonderful country. Sneaking inmates off in the middle of the night to execute them without a warrant to do so. Kidnapping of citizens right off the street by secret police in unmarked SUVs. I blame AG Barr for the black hole of accountability the DOJ has become. I'll be celebrating loudly when Biden names Barr's replacement and things begin to become transparent again.

[Anacanapuna]

I have been opposed to capital punishment all my adult life and don't see that changing any time soon.

[Red Skeezix]

Tldr; The death penalty is necessary, not as a punishment, but as a last resort treatment; and probably applied way too frequently in the US.


The death penalty is ineffective at preserving social norms, and we'd have to be blind to the historical evidence that it would convince anyone who would do murder to make a different choice; as deterrents only work on people who harbor the belief that they might not get away with it. However, the death penalty needs to exist; if only to cull those who's acts are so heinous that society/judicial system must accept its own failures, and expunge them. Bottom line is for serial/repeat/compulsive murderers; a dead person can't kill again. At some level as a civilaztion we need to either kill that person, or bear the responsibility for violent and depraved acts that these individuals commit. In mind the question is not: did Ted Bundy deserve to die, but did we need to kill him to prevent further loss of life? I

[Ludovic]

Aside from the fact that these two individuals were total scum, I'm pretty upset with our "new" government believing it's not accountable to anyone. The first execution was not legally done, as the death warrant had expired. A new one was required.Imagine if Obama or Clinton had done this. More grist for the mill for Pizzagate or the Clinton Body Count. Congresscreatures and netizens would be excoriating them for this for decades.

[Derleth]

The death penalty is ineffective at preserving social norms, and we'd have to be blind to the historical evidence that it would convince anyone who would do murder to make a different choice; as deterrents only work on people who harbor the belief that they might not get away with it. However, the death penalty needs to exist; if only to cull those who's acts are so heinous that society/judicial system must accept its own failures, and expunge them. Bottom line is for serial/repeat/compulsive murderers; a dead person can't kill again. At some level as a civilaztion we need to either kill that person, or bear the responsibility for violent and depraved acts that these individuals commit. In mind the question is not: did Ted Bundy deserve to die, but did we need to kill him to prevent further loss of life? IThis sounds philosophical but none of it makes any goddamned sense. The part I bolded is especially nonsensical: Civilization doesn't bear the responsibility for the actions of serial killers or other murderers, the murderers themselves do. To think otherwise verges on collective punishment, which is utterly despicable and is never justified in any scenario whatsoever.

[Jaglavak]

At some level as a civilaztion we need to either kill that person, or bear the responsibility for violent and depraved acts that these individuals commit.
Civilization doesn't bear the responsibility for the actions of serial killers or other murderers, the murderers themselves do. To think otherwise verges on collective punishment, which is utterly despicable and is never justified in any scenario whatsoever.

Translation: Once you've caught one, you either hang it dead or bear the responsibility if it gets out and kills again. Which is exactly right.

[Red Skeezix]

The death penalty is ineffective at preserving social norms, and we'd have to be blind to the historical evidence that it would convince anyone who would do murder to make a different choice; as deterrents only work on people who harbor the belief that they might not get away with it. However, the death penalty needs to exist; if only to cull those who's acts are so heinous that society/judicial system must accept its own failures, and expunge them. Bottom line is for serial/repeat/compulsive murderers; a dead person can't kill again. At some level as a civilaztion we need to either kill that person, or bear the responsibility for violent and depraved acts that these individuals commit. In mind the question is not: did Ted Bundy deserve to die, but did we need to kill him to prevent further loss of life? IThis sounds philosophical but none of it makes any goddamned sense. The part I bolded is especially nonsensical: Civilization doesn't bear the responsibility for the actions of serial killers or other murderers, the murderers themselves do. To think otherwise verges on collective punishment, which is utterly despicable and is never justified in any scenario whatsoever.

If your argument is true then there would be no such thing as negligence. Laws require citizens to to predict likely outcomes within reason, and make reasonable efforts to avoid exposing t their fellow citizens to them. I am not allowed to own a swimming pool without appropriate fences, because it's reasonable to expect a toddler to escape from their parents periodically, and they might wander into my yard and drown in my pool. To not have a fence would be negligent on my part.

Why should the victims of these monsters not be entitled to the same protections? wouldn't it be negligent of society at large to ignore the history and circumstances surrounding these crimes and cull when it is likely that they will kill again?

I think it's great that it's so expensive and time consuming and people get more than one chance, and honestly I think there should be better legislative guidance on when state sanction killing should be required. Plus I'd be all for an automatic, and independent review of any capital case. It shouldn't be easy or trivial to kill, we as a society should kill only when it's absolutely necessary. But sometimes it's necessary.

[Derleth]

Civilization doesn't bear the responsibility for the actions of serial killers or other murderers, the murderers themselves do. To think otherwise verges on collective punishment, which is utterly despicable and is never justified in any scenario whatsoever.

Translation: Once you've caught one, you either hang it dead or bear the responsibility if it gets out and kills again. Which is exactly right.Or you rehabilitate the person, or you find out you arrested and convicted the wrong person, or you're a normal, real-world country which doesn't have a serious problem with prison escapes.

This sounds philosophical but none of it makes any goddamned sense. The part I bolded is especially nonsensical: Civilization doesn't bear the responsibility for the actions of serial killers or other murderers, the murderers themselves do. To think otherwise verges on collective punishment, which is utterly despicable and is never justified in any scenario whatsoever.

If your argument is true then there would be no such thing as negligence. Laws require citizens to to predict likely outcomes within reason, and make reasonable efforts to avoid exposing t their fellow citizens to them. I am not allowed to own a swimming pool without appropriate fences, because it's reasonable to expect a toddler to escape from their parents periodically, and they might wander into my yard and drown in my pool. To not have a fence would be negligent on my part.True, which is why I'm opposed to the death penalty: There's a very foreseeable chance that you execute the wrong person.

Why should the victims of these monsters not be entitled to the same protections? wouldn't it be negligent of society at large to ignore the history and circumstances surrounding these crimes and cull when it is likely that they will kill again?If they're killing in prison, that's a problem with the prisons we need to solve regardless.

If they're escaping from prison, that's a problem with the prisons we need to solve regardless.

I think it's great that it's so expensive and time consuming and people get more than one chance, and honestly I think there should be better legislative guidance on when state sanction killing should be required. Plus I'd be all for an automatic, and independent review of any capital case. It shouldn't be easy or trivial to kill, we as a society should kill only when it's absolutely necessary. But sometimes it's necessary.Experience has shown that those kinds of things aren't enough, and that the death penalty is more expensive besides. (https://ballotpedia.org/Fact_check/Is_the_death_penalty_more_expensive_than_life_in_p rison)

[thorny locust]

the question is not: did Ted Bundy deserve to die, but did we need to kill him to prevent further loss of life?

And the answer to that is clearly "no". Because we're capable of locking him up.

The fact that we didn't do a very good job of that to start with doesn't mean that we're not capable of it. If we weren't capable of it, we wouldn't have been able to hold him long enough to execute him.

[Jaglavak]

They were having parole hearings for Charles Manson every four years up until his death. Every four years the victims families would have to make the trek to be in court and argue against. When you see people advocating for a thing like Manson, you know that in reality the only way to make sure is to kill them. There is always the relentless pressure to declare rehabilitation has succeeded and let them out.

[JackieLikesVariety]

yes, but the HOW to keep them locked up forever with no chance of parole is a different question. there is no reason families should have to go through that.

[Jaglavak]

This is the system we have. Any plan featuring a different system needs to include at least a notion of how to get from here to there. The truth is, you simply can't reach across decades of time and dictate what future people will do with any certainty. Even taking a chance on letting a mad dog go is a breach of our duty to future generations IMHO.

[thorny locust]

Even taking a chance on letting a mad dog go is a breach of our duty to future generations IMHO.

You prefer killing some of the innocent?

Because some of them certainly were executed, while Manson was indeed spending the rest of his life in prison.

And he wasn't a thing. He was an evil human; but he was a human. It doesn't make humanity better to pretend otherwise.

[Dragonlady]

I wonder what would happen if the people who prosecuted were held liable for an innocent persons execution? Everyone, from the original prosecuting attorneys, to those who fought against an appeal. PERSONAL liability - no having the city/county/state take your punishment.
Would they be any more careful?

[Jaglavak]

Not a bad idea.


You prefer killing some of the innocent?

Innocents are going to die either way. I prefer the path of least collateral damage.

[ASL]

I wonder what would happen if the people who prosecuted were held liable for an innocent persons execution? Everyone, from the original prosecuting attorneys, to those who fought against an appeal. PERSONAL liability - no having the city/county/state take your punishment.
Would they be any more careful?

Do you believe an innocent person has been executed since 1976, and that we can prove that they were innocent (not just nebulously “not guilty”) today?

I am always skeptical of efforts to solve systemic issues (and the application of the death penalty in America certainly is one of those) with calls to keep on doing things like normal, only find a way to punish the lowest level actors within society possible for any mistakes. Then it’s no longer “society’s” fault or “the state’s” fault that “bad thing” happened, it’s just a few “bad apples” that need to be punished (whether or not they actually are punished is of course, far from certain, particularly when you start hashing out the details of just how to prove what is alleged) and so nothing ever changes. We just put all our sins into the societal scape goat, and chase them off a cliff if we can. Or *shrug* maybe they manage to elude the precipice. Either way, it’s not *our* fault something terrible was done in our name according to our laws, it’s the fault of our functionaries within the system, right?

Bad idea. Not that we shouldn’t hold functionaries accountable for misconduct or negligence, but then the sort of mistakes that may lead to misapplication of the death penalty (and I use that specific wording for a reason—it is specifically not synonymous with “executing the innocent” because the question of guilt or innocence is not the sole factor at issue when it comes to capital punishment, nor should it be) are not necessarily due to misconduct or negligence, provable or otherwise.

For instance, is the DA who always seeks the death penalty for black defendants, but never white defendants, going to be “punished” under your system of liability? Or will the fact that these black defendants who were executed were of certain guilt—not at all innocent—make it so this DA gets to keep on doing his or her job, even if what we can prove is that even worse murderers (those with more victims or who acted with greater depravity) were spared the death penalty—and all of those spared just happened to be white?

The death penalty is not about guilt or innocence. It hasn’t been de jure for decades at least, really never was (even when it was mandatory for certain offenses), and, FWIW, never should be. The factors apart from mere guilt or innocence (or “not guilt” if you prefer), what those factors are and the extent to which they can or should be applied, is where the true debate lies.

FWIW, I think the idealized “execute the most dangerous and worst offenders who truly need to be killed to keep us safe” concept of the death penalty is a fine idea, but not one that can be implemented in practice. So I guess I’d be okay with eliminating the death penalty.

[thorny locust]

Innocents are going to die either way. I prefer the path of least collateral damage.

So do I; but we're in disagreement as to which that is. I think the damage done by having the society as a whole say 'killing a human is fine even when there are other alternatives' is greater than I believe you think it is. I may also think that the damage done by having the society kill even a small percentage of innocents in the process is greater than you think it is.

Plus which: the "collateral damage" of the cases in which a person doing life without parole escapes is preventable. If we put the time and attention that's now spent on death penalty cases into making sure that those we'd otherwise have given the death penalty don't either get loose or kill somebody (themselves possibly innocent) within the prison, we can get that risk down to miniscule. Short a mind-reading machine, the risk of directly executing innocents can't be gotten down much further than it is; and the risk of the example being set can't, by its nature, be reduced at all.

(Bundy, I note, didn't escape after he was sentenced, but before. There was nothing about the nature of the sentence that could have affected his escapes, because the sentence didn't even exist at the time; though I suppose it's possible that the possibility of a death sentence increased his desire to do so and may therefore have increased the chances of its happening.)

[Dragonlady]

ASL, application of the death penalty is another question, not the one I was answering.
Thus my solution will not apply to your problem. I was considering only the execution of persons for crimes they did not commit. I think if prosecutors were held personally liable for errors, we would see less of them. I've seen many cases where the person was proven not guilty and released, only to have the original law enforcement and/or DA insist that they ARE SO GUILTY and nothing will ever change their minds.

[JackieLikesVariety]

thorny locust is so much more elequent than I am but my bottom line is we don't have a justice system anywhere near competent* enough to be allowed to take someone's life.


*I want a better word right here

thorough, trustworthy, careful... IDK

[ASL]

ASL, application of the death penalty is another question, not the one I was answering.
Thus my solution will not apply to your problem. I was considering only the execution of persons for crimes they did not commit. I think if prosecutors were held personally liable for errors, we would see less of them. I've seen many cases where the person was proven not guilty and released, only to have the original law enforcement and/or DA insist that they ARE SO GUILTY and nothing will ever change their minds.

But we’re talking about the death penalty, which is a thing that exists in the US (at the federal level that means everywhere). It is a problem if application and cannot be divorced from the reality of how it is actually applied, keeping in mind that the thought of executing an innocent person certainly does sound terrible, there is so much more to it than mere guilt or innocence.

[Dragonlady]

Not in the question that was being discussed. You are adding additional "what ifs" to the question.
We were discussing innocent persons being executed, not how anyone got to death row.
Feel free to discuss your concerns here, but that's not something I care to venture into personally.

[ASL]

Not in the question that was being discussed. You are adding additional "what ifs" to the question.
Your question was the "what if?" It was posited in response to a question about feelings on the resumption of federal executions. To answer your "what if?" directly, I suppose I should say my answer is... no. I don't think they would (be more careful). There may already be consequences, even criminal consequences, for gross misconduct. Sovereign immunity, as extended to individual actors, is not absolute. Indeed, it is described as qualified immunity, the operative word being qualified.

To the broader question (the one presented by the OP), I have not posed a what if, I have simply explained my... feelings on the danger such "solutions" as yours (my concerns layered on top of others' concerns about the innocent being executed) pose. It seeks to solve what I view as a systemic problem with enhancing individual consequences. It seems to be predicated on the idea that, not only are there are bad actors out there (I'm sure there are), but that the problem is that we just don't have the means to "punish" them enough to stop them from being bad. I think that is 1) only partially true in terms of the extent to which likelihood of punishment is diminished and 2) the sort of people who would be dissuaded by punishment--the people who know they are doing wrong and just don't care so long as they can keep out of prison--will almost certainly represent a vanishingly small portion of the population. The people were are actually dealing with believe they are doing everything right, that they are good people doing a good job, zealously representing "we the people" and so threat of punishment for doing "wrong" will not dissuade them from doing wrong--at least no more than it will dissuade anyone else who believes they are doing "right" (that is, it may dissuade anyone and everyone from even attempting to do the job, whether they would be a good actor or a bad one) because they don't recognize or believe that they are doing wrong: they think they are doing good.

We were discussing innocent persons being executed, not how anyone got to death row.
You may be, but this thread is broader than that. At the risk of alienating some of my fellow travelers, I daresay I think it is a mistake to be drawn into a "what if?" discussion relating to the risk of innocent people being executed. Because 1) as I have stated, it's kind of moot since the death penalty comes after guilt or innocence (okay, "not guilt") has been determined in a court of law. There is a presumption of guilt when the death penalty is applied, and 2) the problem is not really unique to the death penalty. I mean, if that's your argument for why the death penalty is bad--"What if an innocent person is executed?"--with the presumption that the death penalty is uniquely irrevocable... I disagree. All punishment is irrevocable. Someone spends five years in prison? That's irrevocable. You can't give them their five years back, even if they are later exonerated and even if they were serving a life term. Sure, they don't have to spend the rest of that term in prison, but what term they did serve cannot be undone. And indeed, some would argue (I mean, I won't, because I disagree, but some would) that it's actually worse to have to spend decades in prison for a crime one did not commit than to have to be put to death swiftly soon after conviction (not that we've been able to do that for a very long time in the US).

I think it's a much stronger position to hold that justice entails more than simple guilt or innocence, and that where the death penalty fails most consistently is in terms of its biased, often poorly considered, application. When we get down to debating on the grounds of guilt or innocence, we cede too much ground to the death penalty advocates.

Feel free to discuss your concerns here, but that's not something I care to venture into personally.
I appreciate your being so magnanimous about allowing me to post on topic in this thread. I understand if you choose not to respond further to me.

[Red Skeezix]

the question is not: did Ted Bundy deserve to die, but did we need to kill him to prevent further loss of life?

And the answer to that is clearly "no". Because we're capable of locking him up.

The fact that we didn't do a very good job of that to start with doesn't mean that we're not capable of it. If we weren't capable of it, we wouldn't have been able to hold him long enough to execute him.

We proved twice that we were not capable of keeping him locked up, he escaped twice and both times he murdered additional victims while on the lam.

[thorny locust]

We proved twice that we were not capable of keeping him locked up, he escaped twice and both times he murdered additional victims while on the lam.

Yet again: both times were before he was convicted.

1) Once he'd been convicted, we kept him locked up just fine. The level of security required to do that obviously exists. The problem isn't that we're not capable of it. The problem is that we didn't at first use the level of security that we are indeed capable of.

2) Giving him the death penalty, even if it had been done immediately after conviction, wouldn't have stopped the escapes, because it wouldn't have happened until after the escapes did. And the threat of the death penalty obviously didn't stop him from escaping.

[BrickaBracka]

We proved twice that we were not capable of keeping him locked up, he escaped twice and both times he murdered additional victims while on the lam.

Yet again: both times were before he was convicted.

1) Once he'd been convicted, we kept him locked up just fine. The level of security required to do that obviously exists. The problem isn't that we're not capable of it. The problem is that we didn't at first use the level of security that we are indeed capable of.

2) Giving him the death penalty, even if it had been done immediately after conviction, wouldn't have stopped the escapes, because it wouldn't have happened until after the escapes did. And the threat of the death penalty obviously didn't stop him from escaping.

but muh vengeance! :violence:

[Red Skeezix]

We proved twice that we were not capable of keeping him locked up, he escaped twice and both times he murdered additional victims while on the lam.

Yet again: both times were before he was convicted.

1) Once he'd been convicted, we kept him locked up just fine. The level of security required to do that obviously exists. The problem isn't that we're not capable of it. The problem is that we didn't at first use the level of security that we are indeed capable of.

2) Giving him the death penalty, even if it had been done immediately after conviction, wouldn't have stopped the escapes, because it wouldn't have happened until after the escapes did. And the threat of the death penalty obviously didn't stop him from escaping.

Conviction is irrelevant here. When motivated to do so, and given the opportunity, he escaped custody and killed. Your assertion that he would not escape again had he lived 20 or 30 more years instead of 10, is not able to be accurately assessed; since the state took the ultimate step to prevent escape.
Claiming that he would never escape again, or lure another victim into prison to be killed; I think is a hard claim to back up. Especially considering the fact that this is a corrections system that couldn't keep him from fathering a child while in prison- seems like they were keeping a real close eye on him.

[JackieLikesVariety]

Conviction is irrelevant here.

before and after people are held in different places - why in the world wouldn't that be completely relevant?

[Red Skeezix]

Conviction is irrelevant here.

before and after people are held in different places - why in the world wouldn't that be completely relevant?

I'm sorry, I got the timeline incorrect in my head. Both times he had escaped were after his first set of convictions, when he'd been sentenced to 15 years for aggravated kidnapping. So it looks like being convicted didn't prevent him from escaping.

[Derleth]

So it looks like being convicted didn't prevent him from escaping.This isn't entirely apposite to whether the death penalty should exist. If it's possible for someone, especially someone like Bundy who wasn't that bright, to escape multiple times, that problem needs to be fixed regardless. Extra-special super-escape-proof cells can still exist, to be sure, but they're for escape-prone prisoners; nothing says cells and protocols of that type can only be used for people on death row.

[BrickaBracka]

you absolutely CANNOT effect a policy change or even form an opinion on something that requires such specific circumstances like whateverthefuck bullshit case you're arguing here.

you MUST use averages over time. and the average accurate conviction rate for those on death row? not good enough.

put that effort instead to improving accuracy of conviction and in maintaining a secure prison system that doesn't release people unintentionally...or let them escape.

the death penalty is in place because people are too weak to confront the demons of the world and deal with the truly disturbed. it's easy to kill them, satisfies bloodlust when we feel wronged, and makes for a nice clean "solution".

reality is often messier than imagination - and the death penalty is only effective in some people's imagination. it doesn't deter crime from happening in the first place and guess what...it doesn't help anyone heal after the fact.

not a whole lot of rehabilitation can happen when the only goal is to wait out an appeals clock so you can kill a bastard. plus it's so damned expensive. and you have to keep a professional murderer on staff who is comfortable killing people with the advantage of the state's monopoly on legal violence.

if they're truly incorrigible - let them rot in a cell. if they're corrigible, well then corrig them. [i know that's not a word, but you get the point]

[Red Skeezix]

That is true, escape itself doesn't necessitate killing him. The demonstration that if he was able to achieve liberty that he would continue to do murder, and that he would act on opportunities to liberate himself. The most secure place to put him, was in the ground.

I continue to maintain that society has a responsibility to cull the most dangerous predators once they've been exposed as such. I also maintain that of the 2000 or so people sitting on death row, I would be willing to bet that only a very small number of them represent the kind of threat that warrants that culling.

And several folks here have expressed a distaste for state sponsored killing, but I imagine that there are plenty of historical examples where state sponsored killing would be deemed necessary and or justified in their minds.

[Jaglavak]

...society has a responsibility to cull the most dangerous predators once they've been exposed as such.

Absolutely. If the state has a monopoly on violence that comes with a duty of protection. It should only be used on the clearest and most egregious cases, and strictly for pragmatic reasons.


the death penalty is in place because people are too weak to confront the demons of the world and deal with the truly disturbed.

Exactly backwards. People are too weak to face the thought of killing a mad dog. I think the bottom line is, most folks are good people and really just can't wrap their head around that kind of hatred and evil. Instead they generalize from their own experience. And so inaccurately believe that rehabilitation can work on a hard core sociopath.

[Derleth]

That is true, escape itself doesn't necessitate killing him. The demonstration that if he was able to achieve liberty that he would continue to do murder, and that he would act on opportunities to liberate himself. The most secure place to put him, was in the ground.Which does nothing to prevent anyone else from escaping.

You keep coming back to prison escapes. This isn't sufficient to demonstrate the need to execute people, because prisons need to be as escape-proof as reasonably practical no matter what punishments or rehabilitation therapies are carried out within them. You might as well say that we need to execute prisoners because they might otherwise die in fires, or be gored to death and eaten by feral hogs.

I continue to maintain that society has a responsibility to cull the most dangerous predators once they've been exposed as such.You know something? I agree with you that some people are so damaged, whether it's genetically, physically, by their early life, or, probably most likely, by a mix of all three, that they're predators, and likely can't be rehabilitated by any therapies or punishments we currently know of. It still doesn't logically follow that we need to execute them, because, again, keeping them in prison keeps them out of society, and if it doesn't, we need to spend execution money on fixing prisons.

[BrickaBracka]

i do not believe rehabilitation can work on a hardcore sociopath.

i simply do not trust the government to make those kinds of determinations accurately when the end result of their incompetence is irreversible.

all of this discussion completely sidesteps the abhorrent fact that the government convicts and kills people wrongly on a routine basis.

are we willing to accept the [already proven to happen] death of innocents at the hands of the government's incompetence as the price we pay for the chance that the government might occasionally kill an actual bad dude and therefore not permit him to potentially kill others? you're trading actual innocent lives for potential innocent lives.

nobody's stopping you from vigilante-justicing a bad dude into the ground if you feel so strongly about it.

whatsoever might stay your own hand is exactly the kind of reticence the government needs to apply to meting out final punishment with a track record as abysmal as theirs.

if you can achieve the same result (explusion from society) by locking them up properly...why NOT do that? if they're guilty, they're gone. if they're innocent, there exists a chance it can be proven.

“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.”

[Jaglavak]

i simply do not trust the government to make those kinds of determinations accurately when the end result of their incompetence is irreversible.

That's understandable. I believe that in some cases there is no doubt and the bad guy is so dangerous that he has to be executed for the protection of society.


all of this discussion completely sidesteps the abhorrent fact that the government convicts and kills people wrongly on a routine basis.

Routine? That's a bit of a stretch.


are we willing to accept the [already proven to happen] death of innocents at the hands of the government's incompetence as the price we pay for the chance that the government might occasionally kill an actual bad dude and therefore not permit him to potentially kill others?

Yes, and I say that as someone who could end up standing in front of that machine myself. There are always unintended consequences. The best we can do is minimize them.

And besides why the tender concern for the killers and not a word for the people who went to hell on earth at their hands? Not to mention future victims if they escape. What's up with that? These things are already proven to happen too.


if you can achieve the same result (explusion from society) by locking them up properly...why NOT do that? if they're guilty, they're gone. if they're innocent, there exists a chance it can be proven.


See post #37. There is no mad dog so twisted and brutal that some fucking asshole won't advocate for their release. Under the system we have now basically there is a mini-trial every few years which requires a mini reconviction. No matter how clearly guilty, no matter how brutal twisted and wrong, there will always be some asshole pushing to declare victory and turn them loose. And financial pressure from the state to get rid of an expensive inmate. I'm not bloodthirsty, but there are some cases that are so crystal clear that the possibility of a repeat performance has to be eliminated.

Final note; yes I do know how fucked up and wildly unfair our present system of courts and prisons has become, unless you happen to have pale skin and buckets of money. People doing half a lifetime for non violent drug crimes. The 'nearest black guy' convictions. The whole system needs a good steam cleaning. But there are a few truly dangerous people who will hurt people if they can. Those are the ones I'm talking about.

[Red Skeezix]

i do not believe rehabilitation can work on a hardcore sociopath.

i simply do not trust the government to make those kinds of determinations accurately when the end result of their incompetence is irreversible.

all of this discussion completely sidesteps the abhorrent fact that the government convicts and kills people wrongly on a routine basis.


I would argue that death penalty cases are not routine - something that happens 1% (of 400,000 murders (77-97) with roughly 280,000 convictions resulted ~ 4000 death sentences being handed down). In addition, the current estimates indicate that most likely 4% of death row convictions are incorrect - which would mean approximately 1.3 persons per year for the past 40 years has died because they were wrongly convicted.
'

are we willing to accept the [already proven to happen] death of innocents at the hands of the government's incompetence as the price we pay for the chance that the government might occasionally kill an actual bad dude and therefore not permit him to potentially kill others? you're trading actual innocent lives for potential innocent lives.

96% of the time the government is killing actual bad dudes.



nobody's stopping you from vigilante-justicing a bad dude into the ground if you feel so strongly about it.


I am in no way qualified to provide representation of both the state and the accused, review arguments, understand the all nuances of the law, provide opportunity for appeal, gather evidence, give the accused proper due process, or many of the other things that we delegate to the judiciary arm of our government. We have decided this as a society that no individual person should be given that complete authority, or responsibility.



whatsoever might stay your own hand is exactly the kind of reticence the government needs to apply to meting out final punishment with a track record as abysmal as theirs.

I agree.


if you can achieve the same result (explusion from society) by locking them up properly...why NOT do that? if they're guilty, they're gone. if they're innocent, there exists a chance it can be proven.

“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.”


If you want to expel them from society and guarantee they will not murder again; then you would need to keep them completely isolated from all other people (including doctors, lawyers, guards, other inmates) - until they die. I could stomach that as a compromise - I think death could be kinder, if less reversible.

[thorny locust]

several folks here have expressed a distaste for state sponsored killing, but I imagine that there are plenty of historical examples where state sponsored killing would be deemed necessary and or justified in their minds.

It's always nice to imagine that everybody really agrees with you, no matter how firmly they say that they don't.

I don't imagine that it's true, though.

In any case, we're not talking about "historical examples", which might well include situations in which secure prisons genuinely are impossible. We're talking about what we ourselves should be doing right now.


I think the bottom line is, most folks are good people and really just can't wrap their head around that kind of hatred and evil. Instead they generalize from their own experience. And so inaccurately believe that rehabilitation can work on a hard core sociopath.

I don't think anybody in this thread is arguing that everyone can be rehabilitated. Arguing for a life without parole sentence is the reverse of that; doing so assumes that there are some people who should never be let loose.

The argument that we might be wrong about which people can be rehabilitated -- or even which ones are guilty -- is not an argument that everyone can be rehabilitated.

And besides why the tender concern for the killers and not a word for the people who went to hell on earth at their hands? Not to mention future victims if they escape. What's up with that?

What's up with that is that it's not the subject of the current discussion. We're taking it for granted that killing and torturing people is terribly wrong. What we're discussing is whether it's proper to respond to that behavior by doing the same thing that we're deploring.

And I wouldn't call it "tender concern" for the killers to say they should be shut up in prison; nor would I call it "tender concern for the killers" to point out that not all the people executed are actually killers.

Under the system we have now basically there is a mini-trial every few years which requires a mini reconviction. No matter how clearly guilty, no matter how brutal twisted and wrong, there will always be some asshole pushing to declare victory and turn them loose. And financial pressure from the state to get rid of an expensive inmate. .

So change that. A sentence of life without parole should be a sentence of life without parole; not reopenable without strong evidence that the wrong person has been convicted.

If you want to expel them from society and guarantee they will not murder again; then you would need to keep them completely isolated from all other people (including doctors, lawyers, guards, other inmates) - until they die. I could stomach that as a compromise - I think death could be kinder, if less reversible.

Total isolation for most humans is torture, which I believe you understand. And it's not necessary -- we do manage to keep people confined while allowing some exposure to selected others. People serving such sentences shouldn't be in with the general prison population, no; but they should be able to see doctors, lawyers, and guards -- all of whom should have freely chosen such work. With the exception of the doctors when medical treatment requires contact, they can see them through bars; and continuous outside supervision can be provided, to make sure they don't seduce anyone into improperly helping them.

[JackieLikesVariety]

thank you, thorny. I'm just going to put this thread on ignore now.

[Guinastasia]

I always thought that by law, the death penalty could only be applied by the states. I guess I was wrong?

I'm mostly against it because of the chance of executing an innocent person. That price is simply too high.

(And for those who say, "well, shit happens", I always ask them, "would you be willing to have it happen to you?")