Yeah, it is morbid. I didn't even know they had that on the site. I was looking something up for work and just stumbled onto it.
As for my feelings on the death penalty...that's more complicated. I've always believed in it in theory--If someone were to do to anyone I love some of the things I've seen done, I'd want them dead. I'll go further than that and say that I'd even want them to suffer--to suffer horribly. The problem in practice with that, though, is one person is always connected to another. So, in a lot of ways, capital punishment just extends the pain and the suffering to more innocent people. Plus, the system is flawed in a lot of ways...and I do believe that sometimes innocent people are put to death. It's a horrible process all the way around, but in the end, I cannot be a hypocrite and I do believe that there are some people who deserve to be executed...and I accept my karma for the part I play in that.
I respect your position. I don't agree, but understand (I think) and respect it. Below I've written why I don't agree and why I think that the death penalty should never be considered. I imagine you've heard it all before, but I'm interested in the discussion. if you're not, just to let you know, I won't be offended or angry if you delete my comment.
(well meant) tirade follows...
I think that killing someone is killing someone. doesn't matter who does it or for what reason. If someone did something horrible to any of my friends or family, I would certainly have murderous feelings in my heart, but that doesn't make it right to commit another murder. that's just revenge, which, as you've said, just causes more pain and suffering. maybe you think it's not only revenge, well what other reason is there to kill a criminal? will the surviving victims of a crime like this really benefit from another death? maybe those who are most blood thirsty, but is blood lust a good reason to kill? it's the worst.
aside from that...
I think people aren't deterred from committing capital crimes by capital punishment. I can't say if that's true, but I heard it said somewhere. I bet there's a study about it. I'd like to read it if I can find it.
And, practically speaking, I heard that it costs more to kill a criminal than to keep him/her locked up for life because of all the court costs. I don't think that will ever change, considering the controversial nature of the issue and the way our system of law works.
blah blah blah. do I really want to send this? hm. sorry about mucking up your journal.
It's not revenge, nor deterrence. It's peace of mind.
Have you ever been involved in a physical assault of some sort, and had an insecure feeling every time you go out in public for months? Or even a car wreck -- you know how it takes weeks to get over a nervous feeling every time you drive? Recovery happens with time, but you have to keep reminding yourself that the chance of having it happen again are small.
Imagine having a stable, comfortable world; then having someone commit a brutal act on one member of this world. It's that same haunted feeling, only much worse; it's very uncomfortable and nervous. Telling yourself that it can't happen again when you know that person is still around and going to be free eventually.... it's hard.
Just a slightly difference perspective. I was firmly opposed to the death penalty until I saw it from this direction.
Having heard stories from my brother in law (a prosecutor in a rural OH) that detail quite nicely the depths of cruelty that one human can perpetrate on an another, I absolutely think that there are some people who deserve to die, and it's the state's duty to carry that out.
However, like most simple and elegant ideas that spring from the mind of humanity, it's the implementation that causes the problems...
1) clearly there are criminal acts that warrant the death penalty. How can we be certain that all such acts can be dealt with in the same manner? Jurys are human and loaded with prejudice and fear (for their own families, making mistakes). This noise can in some cases cause some to escape the gallows while others do not.
2) While there are certainly crimes that warrant the death penalty, is the accused guilty of the crime? Rarely are crimes committed where there is utter certainty in the identity of the perpetrator. Due to the 'absoluteness' of the death penalty, I think we should have the same level of certainty that those condemned are in fact guilty of what they are accused.
I would have a very hard time on a jury. unless the evidence is absolutely irrefutable (it was physically impossible for this person not to have committed a crime) then there's a chance the person could be falsely convicted. I think "beyond a reasonable doubt" is just not realistic for most people, or maybe I just find too many doubts reasonable.
then again, even though I like to think of myself even headed and eager to embrace diversity, I know I have my prejudices; and I honestly can't say whether I'd be able to set them aside and not be effected by them when the time came. I was called for jury duty once and I couldn't tell the judge honestly that I could be impartial.
There are some prospective jurors who have a real problem differentiating between the concepts of "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "beyond all possible doubt." That's very common.
how is the distinction important? I don't even know which is applicable in court. I suppose "all reasonable..." would be the one, but I'm not sure.
beyond a reasonable doubt... that would mean we are given only one doubt to decide over. that would make jury duty easier, but it wouldn't have much to do with justice.
beyond all reasonable doubt... would mean I can come up with my own doubts and determine whether doubts raised by others are reasonable. sounds better.
do I have that right?
My problem wouldn't have much to do with this. I think I might have too easy a time finding doubts that are in my opinion reasonable. Then again, if I don't like the person being tried, I cannot say how hard I would try to find doubts. It's terrible... I know. The case I might have been a juror for was this fella who had allegedly raped a little girl. The thought of it made me extremely angry and the look on the guy's face... I had decided he was guilty already. I wonder how many of the other prospective jurors felt the same way.
I don't get this argument. Where does the "peace of mind" come from? Why would killing someone bring "peace of mind"?
One possible answer that you mentioned is that the person will never be able to commit the same or any similar crime again. Well what are the chances, really, of that person doing it over again if they're spending a life sentence in prison? next to nill. what if my neighbor is a drunk and he runs down my brother one night? this guy, in my opinion is much more likely to kill again than someone who might kill my brother intentionally, because he's like a monkey with a gun, while the one who displays intent is at least under some control. This drunk though would at worst probably get 7 years for man slaughter, then be out on the street aiming for me. we don't kill him though, because his crime was born of negligence, stupidity, and irresponsibility.
It seems to me that removing the threat cannot really be the source of the peace of mind.
The only alternative source for peace of mind that I can think of is believing that justice has been served. (it's remarkable how similar serving justice is to exacting revenge). who is to say what punishment serves justice? legislators, unfortunately. middle aged or old, rich, white, Christian men. I do not trust this group to determine what is "the right thing" in almost any circumstance. they certainly are in authority though. In every aspect of our society, it is they who make the rules.
do some people deserve to die? that is a good question. probably they do, but who are we to say? I don't believe I or anyone else should have the authority to make that decision. I am of the opinion that any sane human will eventually regret any crime they commit and that's what punishment should really be about. regret will cause more pain than the fear of death will. If people are treated humanely, then regret comes faster. maybe they do deserve to die, but we should at least let them understand why that's true before we kill them.
Wednesday, Nov. 18, 1998 Death row two-timer McDuff executed Killer who was paroled 17 years after first death term commuted dies for '92 slaying By MICHAEL GRACZYK Associated Press
HUNTSVILLE -- Kenneth Allen McDuff, whose nearly three-decade history of ghastly murders earned him the tag of predator and monster, was put to death Tuesday evening for the abduction, rape and strangling of a pregnant mother of two. "I'm ready to be released; release me," McDuff, 52, said before dying. McDuff, whose first death sentence was commuted in the 1970s when the death penalty was ruled unconstitutional, is believed to be the only condemned inmate in the nation ever paroled and then returned to death row for another murder. He was pronounced dead at 6:26 p.m., five minutes after the lethal dose began flowing. McDuff became the 17th Texas inmate put to death this year. He received lethal injection for the 1992 death of Melissa Ann Northrup. "I think my daughter will be at rest," said Brenda Solomon, the victim's mother, in contemplating McDuff's death. While McDuff asked for a final meal of two T-bone steaks, his attorneys were at the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a delay so additional tests could be conducted on hair samples that authorities said linked him to Northrup's slaying. Justices refused Tuesday night to stop the sentence from being carried out. Northrup, 22, was abducted March 1, 1992, from a Waco convenience store where she worked. Her body surfaced weeks later and dozens of miles away in a Dallas County gravel pit. Her hands were tied behind her and she had been strangled with a rope. McDuff also had a second death sentence for the 1991 abduction and slaying of 28-year-old Austin accountant Colleen Reed, and authorities say he may have killed as many as a dozen other people, primarily in Central Texas between Austin and Waco. McDuff, first imprisoned in 1965 for burglary, went to death row in 1968 for fatally shooting in the face two teen-age boys in Fort Worth and raping and strangling with a broomstick their 16-year-old female companion. But while he was awaiting execution, the Supreme Court in 1972 struck down the death penalty as unconstitutional and McDuff's sentence was commuted to life. He won parole about 17 years later when parole board members, facing severe crowding in Texas prisons, released him along with thousands of inmates so they could free space for newly convicted felons. Northrup and Reed were killed a short time later. The subject of a nationwide manhunt, McDuff was arrested without incident in 1992 in Kansas City, where under an assumed name he was working as a trash collector.
That is a horrible tragedy; and a failure of our justice system. Why in hell this man would be paroled is beyond me. Why his sentence would be commuted to life with the possibility of parole from the death penalty is also a mystery. Doesn't that defy logic?
I am not saying that tragedies don't happen. What kind of fool would I be? I do believe that this sort of tragedy is so unbelievably rare that it should not be considered in the decision of whether to maintain the death penalty.
People who intentionally take another's life (without consent from the other) don't deserve a second chance. some people will never realize that what they've done is wrong, but most do. None of them should be given a second chance. Anyone who commits a crime deemed serious enough to be killed over should never be given a second chance. they should die in prison.
In Washington there are laws on the books that enable the state to hold sex-offenders indefinitely, and they were just tested and found constitutional in court in the last several months. (I don't know very well what I'm talking about now, but at least the basic idea of what I just said is true.) This is a blow to civil liberty advocates, but I think it is justified. If the people in our prisons can't be trusted outside of prison, then they shouldn't be let free.
I suppose the over-crowding in the prisons was a result of drug peddlers and third strikers? Do you have a third strike law in Texas? These laws, in my humble opinion, are among the worst ever passed.
Most states have had habitual offender laws on the books for years, although not nearly as sensationalized as California. Here in Texas, if you commit certain felonies and have two prior felony convictions (not meaning probations, etc.--meaning that you have actually GONE to prison twice) then your punishment range is from 25-99 years. I think the problem with California's law (if I remember correctly) was that it calls for mandatory life, no? I also think that's unfair. There are some situations that just don't merit that. As for what causes the overcrowding, I don't know. What I can tell you though is that I usually see a drug defendant 8-12 times, 5-6 rehabs later before prison even becomes an option I'd consider. (I'm talking felony offenses, not little misdemeanor shit.) Very few make it to that point...they usually die (o.d. or drug-related violence) before they get there. Before 1994 the drug laws in Texas were, to say the least, draconian. It is different now, and there are plenty of other options available other than prison. That's not saying that if a person gets to a certain point in the system that they won't eventually go to prison--they will. But it happens far less frequently than before.
First off...your comments never "muck up" my journal! If I just wanted to hear my own opinions, I wouldn't have any friends. I respect your thoughts on this as well, and I think that your position is certainly the more noble one. We can only go by our own experiences. I do think that there is more to executing someone than simple revenge, though. The whole issue is composed of shades of grey, really...impossible to put it in terms of black & white. So, I think there's a lot more to it than "revenge" and "bloodlust." And I too have heard the argument that the death penalty is not a deterrent. Frankly, in my opinion, I think that's bullshit. I think there are plenty of crooks out there who think twice before committing a capital crime because they know if they get caught, they'll get the needle. I'm suspicious that the study consisted of going and asking inmates already on death row whether the thought of the death penalty deterred them. Obviously, it didn't. But I can tell you that I know personally of several people who pulled out of a crime because they didn't want to get the death penalty. So it does happen.
I have also seen that it does "help" the families of the victims. And it's not such a simple thing as "bloodlust" or "revenge." My point of view on this is from what I've observed only, but it does give some people a sense of closure, safety, knowledge that no one else will have to be murdered by this person, relief...One woman explained it by saying that every day that the man who raped/tortured/murdered her child is alive is a day that her child goes through the ordeal again. Is that right? I don't know...but I'm not going to presume to tell a victim of a crime what I think "right" is for them.
Regarding the cost efficiency argument, I don't think that should even play into it. Justice should be done without regard to economics. Perhaps the cost of keeping someone in prison is less, but the cost of someone getting out and killing an innocent person again (and it does happen) is the much higher price.
I do think that there are changes that need to be made in the system, for everyone's benefit. But the bottom line for me is that there are certain things that a person can do that should cause them to lose their right to be in this world. I suspect that a lot of people who do not believe in capital punishment are those who have the luxury of insulation from the horrors of what some people can do to others.
I did work on this from the other side at one time. I worked at one time doing death penalty case appeals. I thought that maybe seeing the issue from a different perspective would change my views on capital punishment. I could write a whole book on this, but I can tell you that it only made me more sure that there are some cases where the death penalty is the only just course of action.
Like I said before, it's a complicated issue...and we don't have to agree. I think your opinion is certainly the kinder and more humane one. Unfortunately, the world I see close up (more closely than I would ever want sometimes) is not as gentle.
"bloodlust" was the wrong word to use. I was stupidly going for dramatic effect. sorry about that. Revenge I think still applies though. "eye for eye" is the most obvious applicable principal.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the study was conducted in exactly the way you suggested. It seems fairly obvious that those on death row weren't deterred by the punishment. Punishments do deter potential criminals; for example, I am deterred from driving too fast by all those $100 tickets and high insurance. I would be surprised though to hear that life imprisonment isn't just as strong a deterrent as the death penalty. Both punishments take the person's life away.
No one can say what is "right" for someone else, but we as a society have to decide and agree on what is lawful, and that is always a compromise among all voters (or should I say politicians) about what is "right". Maybe a better system would be one where the victim(s) decide what the punishment will be. Certainly in that case the death penalty would be applied even more frequently as well as various types of tortures no doubt, as long as they weren't judged to be "cruel and unusual". Possibly that would be more just. Things don't work that way though, so as a society we must decide what is right for every single person. You and I have decided what is "right" for that victim by performing our civic duty.
Some people don't deserve to live. I think that's probably true. I don't know if any of us is qualified to tell the difference though. Murderers make that decision without being granted authority... but having that authority granted doesn't make it right to kill someone. again, the question is "what is right"? if someone doesn't deserve to live... if someone in fact deserves to die, is it our duty to kill? the question, like "what is right", can only be answered by the individual asked. it is my opinion that more good comes out of living people than dead people and more bad comes out of killing people than letting them die. the "good" that can come out of executing someone is in giving victims peace of mind (whether that's good is arguable) and it makes the world a safer place (also arguable). The good that comes out of letting people live is less definable... maybe... criminals can experience regret (arguably implicitly good) and can possibly take action to make others stop and think of the consequences. People left alive can have unforseen impacts and while they're in prison that impact can be controlled. if they can't be kept in prison then we have more serious problems.
as for people (like myself ;) being "insulate[d] from the horrors of what some people can do to others". I don't know if there's any insulating going on. murder and other horrors just aren't a big part of peoples' lives, thankfully, and in a peaceful culture they will never be. Who is in the better position to construct the laws? those with a more "normal" experience or those who are more constantly dealing with and possibly being effected by violence? you could argue that the decisions require experience, or you could argue that those with experience have been too much removed from what is normal and humane.
I can see how working with murderers wouldn't make you want to keep them alive. no doubt, almost without exception, they're despicable people. I don't want to be a judge because I'd want to kill 'em all, but only because I'd be angry with what they've done. they can change and killing them deprives them of that chance. I cannot be dissuaded that changing killers would benefit everyone involved (except the deceased). I cannot agree that killing will ever be the only just course of action.
we will probably never agree about this, and I might argue forever. it has been a pleasure discussing it though. Thank you for the discussion and for being so interesting.
Sorry I didn't write earlier. This topic deserves a little think time.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
As for my feelings on the death penalty...that's more complicated. I've always believed in it in theory--If someone were to do to anyone I love some of the things I've seen done, I'd want them dead. I'll go further than that and say that I'd even want them to suffer--to suffer horribly. The problem in practice with that, though, is one person is always connected to another. So, in a lot of ways, capital punishment just extends the pain and the suffering to more innocent people. Plus, the system is flawed in a lot of ways...and I do believe that sometimes innocent people are put to death. It's a horrible process all the way around, but in the end, I cannot be a hypocrite and I do believe that there are some people who deserve to be executed...and I accept my karma for the part I play in that.
From:
no subject
(well meant) tirade follows...
I think that killing someone is killing someone. doesn't matter who does it or for what reason. If someone did something horrible to any of my friends or family, I would certainly have murderous feelings in my heart, but that doesn't make it right to commit another murder. that's just revenge, which, as you've said, just causes more pain and suffering. maybe you think it's not only revenge, well what other reason is there to kill a criminal? will the surviving victims of a crime like this really benefit from another death? maybe those who are most blood thirsty, but is blood lust a good reason to kill? it's the worst.
aside from that...
I think people aren't deterred from committing capital crimes by capital punishment. I can't say if that's true, but I heard it said somewhere. I bet there's a study about it. I'd like to read it if I can find it.
And, practically speaking, I heard that it costs more to kill a criminal than to keep him/her locked up for life because of all the court costs. I don't think that will ever change, considering the controversial nature of the issue and the way our system of law works.
blah blah blah. do I really want to send this? hm. sorry about mucking up your journal.
From:
no subject
Have you ever been involved in a physical assault of some sort, and had an insecure feeling every time you go out in public for months? Or even a car wreck -- you know how it takes weeks to get over a nervous feeling every time you drive? Recovery happens with time, but you have to keep reminding yourself that the chance of having it happen again are small.
Imagine having a stable, comfortable world; then having someone commit a brutal act on one member of this world. It's that same haunted feeling, only much worse; it's very uncomfortable and nervous. Telling yourself that it can't happen again when you know that person is still around and going to be free eventually.... it's hard.
Just a slightly difference perspective. I was firmly opposed to the death penalty until I saw it from this direction.
From:
no subject
However, like most simple and elegant ideas that spring from the mind of humanity, it's the implementation that causes the problems...
1) clearly there are criminal acts that warrant the death penalty. How can we be certain that all such acts can be dealt with in the same manner? Jurys are human and loaded with prejudice and fear (for their own families, making mistakes). This noise can in some cases cause some to escape the gallows while others do not.
2) While there are certainly crimes that warrant the death penalty, is the accused guilty of the crime? Rarely are crimes committed where there is utter certainty in the identity of the perpetrator. Due to the 'absoluteness' of the death penalty, I think we should have the same level of certainty that those condemned are in fact guilty of what they are accused.
From:
no subject
then again, even though I like to think of myself even headed and eager to embrace diversity, I know I have my prejudices; and I honestly can't say whether I'd be able to set them aside and not be effected by them when the time came. I was called for jury duty once and I couldn't tell the judge honestly that I could be impartial.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
beyond a reasonable doubt... that would mean we are given only one doubt to decide over. that would make jury duty easier, but it wouldn't have much to do with justice.
beyond all reasonable doubt... would mean I can come up with my own doubts and determine whether doubts raised by others are reasonable. sounds better.
do I have that right?
My problem wouldn't have much to do with this. I think I might have too easy a time finding doubts that are in my opinion reasonable. Then again, if I don't like the person being tried, I cannot say how hard I would try to find doubts. It's terrible... I know. The case I might have been a juror for was this fella who had allegedly raped a little girl. The thought of it made me extremely angry and the look on the guy's face... I had decided he was guilty already. I wonder how many of the other prospective jurors felt the same way.
From:
no subject
One possible answer that you mentioned is that the person will never be able to commit the same or any similar crime again. Well what are the chances, really, of that person doing it over again if they're spending a life sentence in prison? next to nill. what if my neighbor is a drunk and he runs down my brother one night? this guy, in my opinion is much more likely to kill again than someone who might kill my brother intentionally, because he's like a monkey with a gun, while the one who displays intent is at least under some control. This drunk though would at worst probably get 7 years for man slaughter, then be out on the street aiming for me. we don't kill him though, because his crime was born of negligence, stupidity, and irresponsibility.
It seems to me that removing the threat cannot really be the source of the peace of mind.
The only alternative source for peace of mind that I can think of is believing that justice has been served. (it's remarkable how similar serving justice is to exacting revenge). who is to say what punishment serves justice? legislators, unfortunately. middle aged or old, rich, white, Christian men. I do not trust this group to determine what is "the right thing" in almost any circumstance. they certainly are in authority though. In every aspect of our society, it is they who make the rules.
do some people deserve to die? that is a good question. probably they do, but who are we to say? I don't believe I or anyone else should have the authority to make that decision. I am of the opinion that any sane human will eventually regret any crime they commit and that's what punishment should really be about. regret will cause more pain than the fear of death will. If people are treated humanely, then regret comes faster. maybe they do deserve to die, but we should at least let them understand why that's true before we kill them.
how do you like that rant?
From:
Food For Thought
Death row two-timer McDuff executed
Killer who was paroled 17 years after first death term commuted dies for '92 slaying
By MICHAEL GRACZYK
Associated Press
HUNTSVILLE -- Kenneth Allen McDuff, whose nearly three-decade history of ghastly murders earned him the tag of predator and monster, was put to death Tuesday evening for the abduction, rape and strangling of a pregnant mother of two.
"I'm ready to be released; release me," McDuff, 52, said before dying.
McDuff, whose first death sentence was commuted in the 1970s when the death penalty was ruled unconstitutional, is believed to be the only condemned inmate in the nation ever paroled and then returned to death row for another murder.
He was pronounced dead at 6:26 p.m., five minutes after the lethal dose began flowing.
McDuff became the 17th Texas inmate put to death this year. He received lethal injection for the 1992 death of Melissa Ann Northrup.
"I think my daughter will be at rest," said Brenda Solomon, the victim's mother, in contemplating McDuff's death.
While McDuff asked for a final meal of two T-bone steaks, his attorneys were at the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a delay so additional tests could be conducted on hair samples that authorities said linked him to Northrup's slaying. Justices refused Tuesday night to stop the sentence from being carried out.
Northrup, 22, was abducted March 1, 1992, from a Waco convenience store where she worked. Her body surfaced weeks later and dozens of miles away in a Dallas County gravel pit. Her hands were tied behind her and she had been strangled with a rope.
McDuff also had a second death sentence for the 1991 abduction and slaying of 28-year-old Austin accountant Colleen Reed, and authorities say he may have killed as many as a dozen other people, primarily in Central Texas between Austin and Waco.
McDuff, first imprisoned in 1965 for burglary, went to death row in 1968 for fatally shooting in the face two teen-age boys in Fort Worth and raping and strangling with a broomstick their 16-year-old female companion.
But while he was awaiting execution, the Supreme Court in 1972 struck down the death penalty as unconstitutional and McDuff's sentence was commuted to life.
He won parole about 17 years later when parole board members, facing severe crowding in Texas prisons, released him along with thousands of inmates so they could free space for newly convicted felons. Northrup and Reed were killed a short time later.
The subject of a nationwide manhunt, McDuff was arrested without incident in 1992 in Kansas City, where under an assumed name he was working as a trash collector.
From:
Re: Food For Thought
I am not saying that tragedies don't happen. What kind of fool would I be? I do believe that this sort of tragedy is so unbelievably rare that it should not be considered in the decision of whether to maintain the death penalty.
People who intentionally take another's life (without consent from the other) don't deserve a second chance. some people will never realize that what they've done is wrong, but most do. None of them should be given a second chance. Anyone who commits a crime deemed serious enough to be killed over should never be given a second chance. they should die in prison.
In Washington there are laws on the books that enable the state to hold sex-offenders indefinitely, and they were just tested and found constitutional in court in the last several months. (I don't know very well what I'm talking about now, but at least the basic idea of what I just said is true.) This is a blow to civil liberty advocates, but I think it is justified. If the people in our prisons can't be trusted outside of prison, then they shouldn't be let free.
I suppose the over-crowding in the prisons was a result of drug peddlers and third strikers? Do you have a third strike law in Texas? These laws, in my humble opinion, are among the worst ever passed.
From:
Re: Food For Thought
From:
no subject
I have also seen that it does "help" the families of the victims. And it's not such a simple thing as "bloodlust" or "revenge." My point of view on this is from what I've observed only, but it does give some people a sense of closure, safety, knowledge that no one else will have to be murdered by this person, relief...One woman explained it by saying that every day that the man who raped/tortured/murdered her child is alive is a day that her child goes through the ordeal again. Is that right? I don't know...but I'm not going to presume to tell a victim of a crime what I think "right" is for them.
Regarding the cost efficiency argument, I don't think that should even play into it. Justice should be done without regard to economics. Perhaps the cost of keeping someone in prison is less, but the cost of someone getting out and killing an innocent person again (and it does happen) is the much higher price.
I do think that there are changes that need to be made in the system, for everyone's benefit. But the bottom line for me is that there are certain things that a person can do that should cause them to lose their right to be in this world. I suspect that a lot of people who do not believe in capital punishment are those who have the luxury of insulation from the horrors of what some people can do to others.
I did work on this from the other side at one time. I worked at one time doing death penalty case appeals. I thought that maybe seeing the issue from a different perspective would change my views on capital punishment. I could write a whole book on this, but I can tell you that it only made me more sure that there are some cases where the death penalty is the only just course of action.
Like I said before, it's a complicated issue...and we don't have to agree. I think your opinion is certainly the kinder and more humane one. Unfortunately, the world I see close up (more closely than I would ever want sometimes) is not as gentle.
From:
no subject
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the study was conducted in exactly the way you suggested. It seems fairly obvious that those on death row weren't deterred by the punishment. Punishments do deter potential criminals; for example, I am deterred from driving too fast by all those $100 tickets and high insurance. I would be surprised though to hear that life imprisonment isn't just as strong a deterrent as the death penalty. Both punishments take the person's life away.
No one can say what is "right" for someone else, but we as a society have to decide and agree on what is lawful, and that is always a compromise among all voters (or should I say politicians) about what is "right". Maybe a better system would be one where the victim(s) decide what the punishment will be. Certainly in that case the death penalty would be applied even more frequently as well as various types of tortures no doubt, as long as they weren't judged to be "cruel and unusual". Possibly that would be more just. Things don't work that way though, so as a society we must decide what is right for every single person. You and I have decided what is "right" for that victim by performing our civic duty.
Some people don't deserve to live. I think that's probably true. I don't know if any of us is qualified to tell the difference though. Murderers make that decision without being granted authority... but having that authority granted doesn't make it right to kill someone. again, the question is "what is right"? if someone doesn't deserve to live... if someone in fact deserves to die, is it our duty to kill? the question, like "what is right", can only be answered by the individual asked. it is my opinion that more good comes out of living people than dead people and more bad comes out of killing people than letting them die. the "good" that can come out of executing someone is in giving victims peace of mind (whether that's good is arguable) and it makes the world a safer place (also arguable). The good that comes out of letting people live is less definable... maybe... criminals can experience regret (arguably implicitly good) and can possibly take action to make others stop and think of the consequences. People left alive can have unforseen impacts and while they're in prison that impact can be controlled. if they can't be kept in prison then we have more serious problems.
as for people (like myself ;) being "insulate[d] from the horrors of what some people can do to others". I don't know if there's any insulating going on. murder and other horrors just aren't a big part of peoples' lives, thankfully, and in a peaceful culture they will never be. Who is in the better position to construct the laws? those with a more "normal" experience or those who are more constantly dealing with and possibly being effected by violence? you could argue that the decisions require experience, or you could argue that those with experience have been too much removed from what is normal and humane.
I can see how working with murderers wouldn't make you want to keep them alive. no doubt, almost without exception, they're despicable people. I don't want to be a judge because I'd want to kill 'em all, but only because I'd be angry with what they've done. they can change and killing them deprives them of that chance. I cannot be dissuaded that changing killers would benefit everyone involved (except the deceased). I cannot agree that killing will ever be the only just course of action.
we will probably never agree about this, and I might argue forever. it has been a pleasure discussing it though. Thank you for the discussion and for being so interesting.
Sorry I didn't write earlier. This topic deserves a little think time.