Federal executions are on again. Your feelings?

[thorny locust]

Originally Posted by 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.

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by thorny locust

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!

[Red Skeezix]

Originally Posted by thorny locust

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]

Originally Posted by JackieLikesVariety

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]

Originally Posted by Red Skeezix

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]

Originally Posted by Red Skeezix

...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.

Originally Posted by BrickaBracka

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by BrickaBracka

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.

Originally Posted by BrickaBracka

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.

Originally Posted by BrickaBracka

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.

Originally Posted by BrickaBracka

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.
'

Originally Posted by BrickaBracka

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.

Originally Posted by BrickaBracka

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.

Originally Posted by BrickaBracka

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.

Originally Posted by BrickaBracka

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]

Originally Posted by Red Skeezix

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.

Originally Posted by Jaglavak

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.

Originally Posted by Jaglavak

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.

Originally Posted by Jaglavak

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.

Originally Posted by Red Skeezix

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?")