Nicely expressed. And the article itself is also touching. What a difficult situation for the family of a murder victim.

I go back and forth in my views of whether the family's feelings should be taken into account in how to punish a murderer. While I have nothing but sympathy for those affected by a crime, I wonder whether an explicit consideration of their feelings contributes to equal justice.

Posted by RSA on May 25, 2006 11:35 AM Link to comment

I disagree that the DP derives from revenge. Generally, that's an attempt at enveloping DP proponents as though they're foaming at the mouth and screaming "vengence" like a riotous crowd looking for someone to lynch.

Not quite.

As a DP proponent, albeit one that has consistently stated that the DP should go towards those caught via DNA or video/audio tape so that there's no doubt instead of "reasonable doubt" (as we all know, eyewitness accounts aren't always valid), I support it in the cases of an egregious or heinous (or, as the D.A. in My Cousin Vinny said, "hi-een-us") crimes. I sincerely think that some crimes deserve the punishment of death.

Serial rapists, violent kidnappers, manslaughter and the like are what I consider to be eligible for "life in prison without the option of parole", which is what most anti-DP folks support for guilty perps.

Kill a dozen people? Life w/o parole.
Kill two dozen people? Life w/o parole.
Tim McVeigh-esque killing a few hundred people? Life w/o parole.

I respectfully disagree. Tim McVeigh (and Eric Rudolph) deserved death. Someone who kidnaps, rapes and kills a kid deserved death. People who commit crimes of passion, manslaughter, kidnapping and the sort are viable for the long prison terms, IMO.

Of course, that's just my opinion. It's just that it appears that most of the nation agrees with me on this. I recently read where a woman in Germany was found guilty of killing 8 of her own kids....and she could be sentenced for UP TO 15 years. Fifteen years. That's the same country that let the fellow who stabbed Steffi Graf walk away without jail time. So, when folks decry America's judicial system by saying that other "advanced/industrial" nations are more "civilized", I say: "I don't want that kind of 'civilized'".

My two cents, which is two pennys more than it's worth.

Posted by RW on May 25, 2006 01:55 PM Link to comment

I disagree that the DP derives from revenge. Generally, that's an attempt at enveloping DP proponents as though they're foaming at the mouth and screaming "vengence" like a riotous crowd looking for someone to lynch.

What do you think it is then? What does it accomplish, if not revenge?

Posted by smijer on May 25, 2006 02:32 PM Link to comment

There is no doubt about it, when a person commits a violent crime that is worthy of the death penalty not only does the victim and the victim's family suffer, but the perpetrators family suffers as well. (Even without the death penalty) It was my thinking that the death penalty is not intended to punish the families or not necessarily the criminal, but to deter others from committing the same atrocity and to give 100% certainy that the criminal will not kill again. Both families are his victims.

Posted by Wascal on May 25, 2006 02:42 PM Link to comment

It was my thinking that the death penalty is not intended to punish the families or not necessarily the criminal, but to deter others from committing the same atrocity and to give 100% certainy that the criminal will not kill again.

I think it would be possible to design prisons that would be effectively 100% certain (of course, there's no certainty in life, but we do have astronomically high probability); shouldn't that be an acceptable alternative? If one argues that the government can't achieve sufficient certainty, then how can one argue that guilt has been proven to certainty in the first place?

Posted by RSA on May 25, 2006 03:05 PM Link to comment

There was a time when I was an absolute believer in the death penalty. How can you be born and raised in the mountains of North Georgia and not be pro-death penalty?

Over the years I have just come to believe that killing somebody for killing really does not solve anything. I completely understand the emotion attached. Believe me, if somebody killed my wife or one of my daughters I would not only want them dead but I would want to be the one to kill them.

But that does not make it right or rational.

Posted by Buck on May 25, 2006 03:45 PM Link to comment

What do you think it is then? What does it accomplish, if not revenge?
Same as any other judicial sentence: punishment.

And in this case, the punishment that fits the crime. Some (most) folks feel that there are some crimes that merit the ultimate punishment.

If one argues that the government can't achieve sufficient certainty, then how can one argue that guilt has been proven to certainty in the first place?

There is no doubt that Tim McVeigh was guilty. There is no doubt that Eric Rudolph was guilty. None. No doubt. Zip. Zero.

The only question is whether they deserved the same punishment that Ken Lay is facing (the rest of their lives in prison) or a worse fate since they both did things demonstrably worse. I'm of the opinion that killing a bunch of folks is worse than bilking thousands of their life's savings so were I the judge I'd put Lay behind bars for life and fry the murderers.

That's just me.

Posted by RW on May 25, 2006 06:31 PM Link to comment

Same as any other judicial sentence: punishment

It sounds to me that you are saying that the goal of any penalty is just to penalize. As though there is no further goal behind it... we just do it for no particular reason. It's not revenge or retribution - it's not to bring restitution - it's not to cause reformation - it's not to prevent crime or to deter it... It's just what we do. We penalize. And that seems suspiciously arbitrary. If we are really going to be that arbitrary, then why get hung up on innocence or guilt? Why not just penalize everyone? -- Or if, there is are ethical reasons for penalizing - to produce a just result - then how does the death penalty contribute to the goals of justice?

Posted by smijer on May 25, 2006 07:00 PM Link to comment

If we are really going to be that arbitrary, then why get hung up on innocence or guilt?

A. We're not arbitrary. In most cases, there are guidelines for sentencing. That's why we often see that people can be senteced for "up to ____ years" and the like. B. Innocence and guilt are the tril phase. Completely separate from the sentencing phase. You're muddying the water - once someone is found guilty, THEN the penalties are considered.

And, sorry, but the "penalize everyone" part goes over my head. Don't comprehend. Are you going metaphysical on me? :)

Or if, there is are ethical reasons for penalizing - to produce a just result - then how does the death penalty contribute to the goals of justice?

Some folks, most folks actually, feel that the DP contribute's to the goals of justice, meaning that in some cases death is the final justice to be meted to the perps.

I have a hard time comprehending how Ken Lay faces the same punishment that could've been divvied out to Tim McVeigh. Someone looking to bilk their employees now sees that they face the rest of their lives in prison. Someone considering domestic terrorism that kills a bunch of people now sees that they face a quick execution.

Posted by RW on May 25, 2006 10:33 PM Link to comment

The arbitrariness is in the answer that punishment serves the goal of punishing - that we have arbitrarily chosen that it is "good" or "just" to punish people - which isn't what I think we really do, but it's all I can get out of your statement - that the goal of the death penalty is to punish. If the goal of the death penalty - or any penalty at all - is merely to punish, not to achieve some result that has a particular social value - then it seems rather arbitrary. My point - and it was, I grant you it was loosely a "reductio ad absurdum" argument - then why do we only punish the guilty? If punishment is good for its own sake, then why don't we branch out a little instead of narrowly focusing on guilty people?

But, I don't think we punish for the sake of punishment. I think we punish in order to achieve a result. Or, rather, I think that is an ethical way for us to behave, and we should behave that way.

That's why I ask what result we should look for from capital punishment ... specifically, though I could, and sometimes do, ask the same about other forms of punishment.

You say people "feel" that the death penalty "brings justice". I know that many people in our culture do feel that way. But the question I ask is *why* they feel that way. What is their ethical definition of "justice" and how does the death penalty meet it. And, it's a tricky thing to ask... because sometimes people misunderstand what we mean when we ask for a definition of justice. They look at a necessary, but not sufficient criterion of justice - that the punishment be in proportion to the crime... that it not be "unfair". What I ask is what justice is, and the answer I get amounts to "justice is not... a, b, or c". This is followed with the death penalty is not a, b, or c, so it is just, right? Well, because we know what justice is not, and we know what the death penalty is not, but we don't know what justice is *is* and how the death penalty contributes to it.

At least for me, when I began to look at it in the positive perspective: what justice is, and how the death penalty contributes to it, I could find no matter that fell under any reasonable understanding of justice that the death penalty, in fact, contributes toward. It's my intuition that if more people looked at it from that perspective, then they would reach a similar conclusion as I do.

I have a hard time comprehending how Ken Lay faces the same punishment that could've been divvied out to Tim McVeigh. Someone looking to bilk their employees now sees that they face the rest of their lives in prison. Someone considering domestic terrorism that kills a bunch of people now sees that they face a quick execution.

I understand this point, and it is a reasonable one. However, it seems a dangerous road to travel. If we happened to live in a society where it was common practice to cut off the hand of a petty thief, then a similar argument would have us doing some incredibly horrid things to Ken Lay. What I do with my own kids - with the people who report to me at work, as well in the rare case that it's needed - is to take the best considered action in each case with little or no regard to what the other kid, or the other employee did and how it was dealt with. Most often, if one is very careful in looking for a "just" result, the "severity" of the "punishment" will *automatically* reflect the grievousness of the wrong-doing. Of course, that's in a case with a single judge & jury (me), and a couple of individuals (kids, or employees). In a complex society where we are dealing with everything from bombings and cannibals to speeding and cannabis - we cannot debate all the issues at once and cannot arrive at a good system for each type of infraction all in a lump. But if we let ourselves be guided by the remainder of our imperfect system rather than by the goal of justice, reasonably defined, then we stand to lose sight of the most important goals of justice, and set punishments that are too severe or too lax in areas of major importance simply because we made mistakes in some less important areas.

I know that "most people" in America today, feel the death penalty is just for some cases... but that doesn't mean very much when "most people" in America today don't agree on *what justice is*, and in fact, haven't really had much public discussion about it. That's why I try to keep that question front and center in any death penalty debate.

Posted by smijer on May 25, 2006 11:43 PM Link to comment

McVeigh was executed quickly because he dropped all of his appeals voluntarily. Had he wanted to be he could still be alive and showing up in court from time to time.

Terrorists or freedom fighters are not generally deterred by the prospect of death.

But I guess capital punishment could be a strong deterrent against fraud but my God can you imagine the number of people that would have to be executed.

If the government really is concerned about creative accounting, perhaps the feds might want to look in the mirror. There is no more fraudulent activity on the face of the earth than the accounting methods of the U.S. Government. Thus, we have the irony of the U.S. attorney who represents the biggest accounting fraud in history accusing others of engaging in fraud.

Posted by Buck on May 26, 2006 09:01 AM Link to comment

I have a hard time comprehending how Ken Lay faces the same punishment that could've been divvied out to Tim McVeigh.

I think it's reasonable for white collar criminals to face the same kinds of penalties as those who commit crimes of violence, in general. From what I've read, some people who lost their life savings due to the Enron case have had the comfortable retirements they'd expected snatched out from under them. If someone destroys the quality of life for hundreds of people, forcing some of them into poverty, how does that stack up against killing one person? It's not clear on a hypothetical "pain and suffering" scale that one is worse than the other.

Posted by RSA on May 26, 2006 11:21 AM Link to comment

Bear with me, a lot to cover.

then why do we only punish the guilty?

I think you *are* going metaphysical on me. I thought we were discussing the DP, which comes after the trial phase and only when the perp is found guilty, but you seem to be delving into the minutia of why mankind has set aside the idea of "punishment" as something to be warranted (a simple guess would be the time honored system of postive/negative reinforcement, whereas someone who breaks the law is subject to negative reinforcement). When found "guilty" there is a sentence, but that's devolving the conversation. The question at hand is the sentence and I do sincerely respect those who are against the DP, I honestly do. While Imay seem to be a bit gung-ho when it comes to openly wanting to off some folks (especially kid killers....hell's too good for those bastards) I do struggle with the notion of the DP because my interpretation of the bible that I follow leads me to believe that Jesus probably wouldn't be keen on the killing of any human. But, that's my interpretation of the bible, thus my beliefs, NOT something that the law of the land should be based upon (otherwise there'd be hell to pay for divorce, eh?)

I think we punish in order to achieve a result.

Sure. There are several prongs but among the most important are (1) to punish for wrongdoing and (2) to act as a deterrant for others to follow.

But the question I ask is *why* they feel that way. What is their ethical definition of "justice" and how does the death penalty meet it.

I can't speak for anyone but myself and I think (I almost hate the word "feel" as it almost completely removes logical thought) that some crimes warrant the ultimate penalty. I think that Tim McVeigh deserves much worse than a serial rapist, who deserves life in prison. And if someone doesn't think that the threat of death can act as a deterrant to a sane person - which excludes islamists - then no one would ever be mugged. Of course it acts as a deterrant, it's just that the chances of actually facing the DP after killing someone are becoming more and more remote, thus the odds are more in favor of the perp (see: Simpson, OJ).

If we happened to live in a society where it was common practice to cut off the hand of a petty thief...

We don't, so the point is moot. We live in a society where the actual practice is that "it is better that a hundred guilty men go free than one wrongful conviction take place", which is a far cry from cutting off hands of theives. Heck, we now live in a society where you can get more jail time for cruelty to animals than for cruelty to a fellow human being. Not that I'm against lowering the hammer on anyone who hurts a dog, mind you. :) Sorry, I don't think that the problem with our society is that we punish the guilty too severly. Of course, in some cases it's obscene (what we do to marijuana users and the like with the drug war) but watching what happens with so many who get off with a slap on the wrist is too much to ignore. Heck, just look at the number of teachers having affairs with their 15 year old students! The one hottie chick had the charges dropped! Why? Because, as the prosecution stated, the chances that a jury in today's society would actually feel that a teenage boy would be emotionally/mentally scarred by screwing a bona-fide blonde hottie, enough to the point to find her guilty of a feloney, was too low to risk going to trial. Heck, Duke Cunningham and William Jefferson both deserve at least 10 years in the pokey - let's see how long they get.

McVeigh was executed quickly because he dropped all of his appeals voluntarily. Had he wanted to be he could still be alive and showing up in court from time to time.

Score one for the trial lawyer system, where every person - after 15 years on death row - is suddenly found to have been represented by an incompetent lawyer who feell asleep during the initial trial and all this is brought up the week before they're to go to the electric chair. Actually, that underscores the point above, where we bend over backwards....sometimes too far...in insuring that the innocent are not executed. Ted Bundy was as guilty as McVeigh and he played the system for a while.

Terrorists or freedom fighters are not generally deterred by the prospect of death.

Okay, then kill them before they commit acts of terror. Freedom fighters generally are not found guilty of murder in American courts, so they have no place in the discussion (I know what you were meaning & I wasn't correcting).

If someone destroys the quality of life for hundreds of people, forcing some of them into poverty, how does that stack up against killing one person? It's not clear on a hypothetical "pain and suffering" scale that one is worse than the other.

I honestly don't know how to respond to that. Someone who was screwed over by Ken Lay has a chance. Someone killed by McVeigh had their chances at anything ended the moment the bomb went off. If you see a 'shade of gray' between those two then I have no words to reply that will suffice.

Now, if Movable Type screws up this comment I'm gonna be a pissed off padre, but here goes.....:)

Posted by RW on May 26, 2006 10:44 PM Link to comment

Someone who was screwed over by Ken Lay has a chance. Someone killed by McVeigh had their chances at anything ended the moment the bomb went off. If you see a 'shade of gray' between those two then I have no words to reply that will suffice.

I would have expected that belief in an afterlife (not that I have such) would make it easier to understand my point of view. Let me put it another way: I don't believe that death is the worst thing that can happen to a person. Not everyone may agree, but this view isn't out of the mainstream; for example, it comes up when people discuss the death penalty versus life imprisonment (concerning criminals' rather than victims' lives, of course).

Posted by RSA on May 30, 2006 11:16 AM Link to comment