If there’s a subject on which I’ve taken more than my fair share of crap from fellow conservatives, it’s on the Death Penalty.
I support it for every possible reason, with one exception – the inevitability of executing the innocent.
There is no rational doubt that Cameron Todd Willingham was innocent of the arson murder for which he was executed in Texas in 2004; the “settled science” that convicted him of the murder of his sons turned out to be baked monkey doodle.
And even though the evidence against him read like an episode of Reno 911…
The sole survivor of an attack in which four people were murdered identified the perpetrators as three white men. The police ignored suspects who fit the description and arrested a young black man instead. He is now awaiting execution.
…it appears likely to happen again.
The whole piece is worth a listen- especially the part near 16:03 where the host and his guest (the NYTimes’ Nick Kristof) express amazement that this could happen in blue, liberal, Democrat California, on the watch of Jerry Brown and former state Attorney General Kamala Harris.
Governments spawn bureaucracies.
Bureaucracies once founded are self perpetuating and imperialistic (given to acquiring and holding bureaucratic colonies and dependencies).
A bureaucracy devoted to killing citizens is a thing to be feared on its own, and a ripe target for political exploitation (see: Obama administration).
I oppose the death penalty precisely because the government should NEVER become comfortable with killing its own citizens.
I’ve always held a view about the DP that mirrors Mitch’s except that I thought it might be possible to create rules that prevent fiascos like that Cameron Todd Willingham (et al). I’ll admit, however, that Mac’s comment, especially the final sentence has me doubting my position.
I’ve wrestled with my feelings on the death penalty for the same reasons Mitch mentions. Then along comes a scumbag like this guy and I begin to think in some cases it’s appropriate justice: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/17/illegal-immigrant-charged-in-killings-two-cops-wishes-had-killed-more-mother.html
While I certainly sympathize with that position and from a policy stand-point, it is a wise position given the all too frequent corruption and incompetence of the justice system, but I see no difference between killing an innocent and allowing an innocent to be killed by a murderer who escaped justice.
In Minnesota, life in prison never means life in prison and I remember one particular case where a very nasty woman sat on the chest of 14 yr old runaway while pumping lead into her face. A few years later, she was released from the knitting club at Shakopee and within weeks, gutted another young girl who had the misfortune of randomly encountering Ms. Nasty on the street.
So it seems to me that life in prison should mean life in prison and yes, we should have capital punishment but the standard of proof must be higher.
Let’s put it this way, when you have the murder on film, do you really need to sweat about having the wrong guy?
I agree, life should mean LIFE, instead of the Minnesota/Norway simulacrum.
Take Anders Behring Breivik :
“On 24 August 2012, Oslo District Court delivered its verdict, finding Breivik sane and guilty of murdering 77 people. He was sentenced to 21 years in prison, in a form of preventive detention that required a minimum of 10 years incarceration and the possibility of one or more extensions for as long as he is deemed a danger to society. This is the maximum penalty in Norway.”
In 15 short years (or possibly sooner) when he is 54 yrs old he will be free once again. He should die like C.Manson a mewling puking senile POS in a prison infirmary.
I’m with Greg, pretty much. Add one thing, though; Deuteronomy 19:15-21. If a false witness arises (or corrupt prosecutor) and tries to send someone to Old Sparky, they get the trip when they’re found out.
Use the death penalty sparingly, yes. Use it with overwhelming evidence, yes. But in light of some people who are truly a waste of oxygen, use it. And finally, if you have evidence of corrupt witnesses or prosecutors, treat them in a way that makes Mike Nifong glad he got caught when he did.
Greg,
I see no difference between killing an innocent and allowing an innocent to be killed by a murderer who escaped justice.
It’s a false dilemma, though; someone being tried for capital murder is be definition in custody. Barring some gross malfeasance [1] on the state’s part, they’re not going to be killing anyone.
([1] – I am aware of one man who escaped from death row – actually from transportatio between facilities. He was on the lam for six weeks before being recaptured. And, believe it or not, he was exonerated of the crime for which he had been convicted “beyond a reasonable doubt” and sentenced to death 22 years before…
If I had to choose just one example of a totalitarian government, it would be one that takes your life *after* taking your freedom.
Bump off a menace to society in the act, or during apprehension; yeah baby.
Take that same menace, subdue him, render him defenseless, tie him down, gag him and kill him? That’s state sanctioned murder, and worse; it’s ritualized slaughter in the finest tradition of every serial killer in modern history.
I’m with you, Mitch.
Knowing how often cops lie (it’s second nature), how crooked many of them are and how blind ambition can motivate a prosecutor to ignore exculpatory evidence, or even manufacture false evidence, only a fool would endorse state sanctioned murder.
You wouldn’t trust the government to run your health care system because you know they’d fuck it up, but you’re perfectly willing to let them handle matters of arbitrary life and death.
Makes 0 sense.
No, it’s not their nature, it’s their training. Far too folks realize that cops are trained to extract information and confessions, even from the innocent, by lying to and manipulating them.
I wouldn’t support the death penalty just given how badly eyewitnesses perform, how wrong forensic “science” has historically been, and how error prone humans in general are, but to allow death to be part of a procedure in which the participants attempting to impose that irreversible outcome are encouraged to lie and cheat is unconscionable.
That said, I certainly wouldn’t object to sending a bunch of them to live freely and nearly unsupported in undeveloped areas central Alaska with the provision that if they were found outside their designated district they would be subject to the ultimate penalty. Lord of the Flies in an area where it’s hard labor just to survive and the mosquitoes dwarf horse flies would be fitting penalty for a subset of those convicted to “life”. (An MS-13 gang member trying to live as a pioneer in the middle of the Alaskan wilderness is a rather fitting penalty.)
I cited a case where precisely that happened. A woman was convicted of murder, got out and did it again.
There was no malfeasance involved. Only politics.
I will cite another from the website A short list of murderers released to murder again
Note: Daniel Joe Hittle was on parole. Technically, he was still in custody.
While it is valid to argue that these are cases where murderers were released who should not have been released – there is only one sure-fire method to ensure that they are never released.
I will concede that all too often innocent people have been sentenced to death on shaky grounds – but that is an argument for tightening up the standard, not abolishing the practice.
Nerd, I see where you’re coming from and you’re right in that cops are trained by experts (other cops) how to lie.
But it is my opinion that it takes a certain character to want to be a cop, and from my experience an inate dishonesty is one of many dysfunctions many bring to the work.
In any event, and again in my opinion, a cop is the very last person you want your life dependant on.
I will concede that all too often innocent people have been sentenced to death on shaky grounds – but that is an argument for tightening up the standard, not abolishing the practice.
I dunno, Greg, there are some pretty strong arguments given here. Especially since you can’t un-kill someone who is later proven to be innocent. And as far as I’m concerned one innocent death knocks over that whole edifice regarding the morality of the DP.
Mitch, we probably will never agree on this because I am too stubborn and set in my ways but perhaps we can agree on the following:
A Modest Proposal
In many civil and some criminal cases, the court assigns both compensatory and punitive damages. Compensatory damages are designed to make the injured party whole. Punitive damages are designed to punish the offender with a hard financial slap across the head.
Might I suggest that the state should direct ALL punitive damages to cover the legal expenses of those who cannot afford a proper defense. Yes, we have defense attorneys assigned by the state and yes we have such a fund but it is wholly inadequate.
At least in my mind, since prison is death, there is little difference between putting an innocent person to death and locking them in a cage for decades.
No innocent person should be punished, be it punishment by prison, or punishment by process.
I oppose the death penalty precisely because the government should NEVER become comfortable with killing its own citizens.
No government is comfortable with killing its own citizens. That is why they usually revoke their deplorables’ citizenship before they kill them, or even declare them to be non-human lebensunwertes lieben.
In fact there is a death penalty even in states that do not allow it. It is not uncommon for aggrieved parties (spouses or relatives of the victim) to put a “hit” on an inmate who escaped the death sentence. This happens more often than you think, in part because prison officials and DA’s make investigating the murder of a prisoner a low priority.