Blame Gideon
May 30, 2003 | 87 Comments
They still use it to swear in witnesses, but just look what happens when the “Good” Book ends up in the wrong room:
Death Sentence Overturned Because Jury Used Bible
DENVER (Reuters) – A judge overturned a convicted murderer’s death sentence because jurors consulted Biblical passages such as an “eye for an eye” during death-penalty deliberations.
Robert Harlan was convicted and sentenced to death in 1995 for the murder of Rhonda Maloney, a waitress who was driving home from work when Harlan forced her car off the road.
Harlan also shot and paralyzed good Samaritan Jaquie Creazzo who tried to come to the woman’s aid.
Jury members stayed in a hotel during deliberations and court officials made sure newspapers were not delivered to their rooms, but the jurors did find bibles in the rooms.
“The jury supervision performed in this case was extremely negligent and appallingly lax,” Vigil wrote in his ruling. “Jury resort to biblical code has no place in a constitutional death penalty proceeding.”
Vigil has not yet set a date for Harlan’s resentencing.
“We respect[fully] disagree and will appeal,” Adams County assistant district attorney Steve Bernard said. He also said the record was not clear about whether a bible was brought into the jury room.
In a five-day hearing last month, Harlan’s attorneys argued that several jurors consulted biblical scripture during jury deliberations, particularly two Old Testament passages from Leviticus that read, “fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, as he has caused disfigurement of a man, so shall it be done to him.” And, “whoever kills an animal shall restore it, but whoever kills a man shall be put to death.”
Prosecutors had argued that the sequestration order applied to news media coverage and that jurors should be allowed to draw upon their personal moral code including the Bible while rendering a verdict.
Although prohibited now, direct appeals to Biblical authority by both the prosecution and defense apparently used to be quite common in criminal trials. The story above reminded me of the murder trial summations in Truman Capote’s non-fiction “novel” In Cold Blood:
[Defense attorney] Fleming’s [sentencing] speech, described by one journalist as “soft-sell,” amounted to a mild churchly sermon: “Man is not an animal. He has a body, and he has a soul that lives forever. I don’t believe man has the right to destroy that house, a temple, in which the soul dwells….” Harrison Smith, though he too appealed to the jurors’ presumed Christianity, took as his main theme the evils of capital punishment.
* * *
[Prosecutor Green's summation]: “I have no intention of engaging in theological debate. But I anticipated that defense counsel would use the Holy Bible as an argument against the death penalty. You have heard the Bible quoted. But I can read, too.” He slapped open a copy of the Old Testament. “And here are a few things the Good Book has to say on the subject. In Exodus Twenty, Verse Thirteen, we have one of the Ten Commandments: Thou shalt not kill.’ This refers to unlawful killing. Of course it does, because in the next chapter, Verse Twelve, the penalty for disobedience of that Commandment reads: ‘He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.’ Now, Mr. Fleming would have you believe that all this was changed by the coming of Christ. Not so. For Christ says, ‘Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.’ And finally — ” Green fumbled, and seemed to accidentally shut the Bible, whereupon the visiting legal dignitaries grinned and nudged each other, for this was a venerable court-room ploy — the lawyer who while reading from the Scriptures pretends to lose his place, and then remarks, as Green now did, “Never mind. I think I can quote from memory. Genesis Nine, Verse Six: ‘Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.’
The trial recounted in the novel took place in 1960. At that time daily Bible readings were still mandatory in many public school systems.
As I’ve noted
Nevertheless, I agree that the Bible has no place in the jury room. A criminal trial determines the moral culpability of a particular person for a particular crime. Seeking the general, abstract counsel of an imaginary being can only distract jurors from this duty. It shifts the focus away from the issues such as guilt or innocence, mitigation, and whether the punishment fits the crime. Instead, the focus becomes whether the punishment is authorized by a book, or whether the juror has “permission” to impose a sentence already authorized by law.
In the Harlan case, as noted, the defendant murdered a waitress homebound after a day’s work, and paralyzed another person brave and decent enough to intervene, Presumably the jury learned how the victims were picked at random, learned about of the suffering of their families and about other aggravating factors. It’s hard to fathom the mindset of a juror who, after all hearing all that, would think that the Bible might offer any help in the decision-making process. Probably the thought process went something like this: “Well, yes, that’s terrible, but I must go consult my personal moral code
May 30th, 2003 @ 10:54 am
RA: why do you support the death penalty?
May 30th, 2003 @ 11:17 am
Because of crimes like this, in which innocent people are forced to drink Liquid Drano before being shot in the head. Could the killers be rehabilitated and/or permanently imprisoned? Perhaps, but at a great expense, using monies that could be used to support people who don’t go around forcing others to drink liquid Drano.
There are six billion people on the planet and everybody has their own problems. Asking people to refrain from killing each other really isn’t asking a whole lot. And giving those who do kill a quick, painless death isn’t really all that cruel compared to life in prison.
May 30th, 2003 @ 12:11 pm
Here is a reason to favor the Death Penalty that I commented on awhile ago.
The Face of Evil
Some “people” just give up their rights to be considered part of the human community. I therefore think that expunging them from the community is nothing more than pest control.
Give me a giant boot and a can of raid.
May 30th, 2003 @ 12:14 pm
There are a couple of reasons that I think opposition to the death penalty might be wise. The best one is the imperfection of the justice system. New evidence always has the possibility of arising to exonerate a mistakenly accused. A person serving twenty years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit (to be excused when new evidence emerges) is preferable to that same person needlessly losing all of his potential years. The rest of my reasons are based on more complex personal values and ideas on state power, but those are less open to simple debate.
On the other hand, the best argument for the death penalty is deterrence, and it is a difficult argument to oppose. As the death penalty is practiced now, it has little to do with deterrence though, and is actually quite unjust. If the death penalty is to be used for deterrence it can’t be used selectively, but must be applied uniformly to all premeditated murder. Right now it is highly open to bias (if I’m not mistaken it is more often applied when victims are white and perps are black).
May 30th, 2003 @ 1:42 pm
I’m with CORSAIR on this one.
If human garbage is allowed to accumulate, it can only lower the average quality of human existence.
I breathe easier when I hear that some scumbag has sucked the big one.
May 30th, 2003 @ 2:01 pm
Humps June’s comment.
May 30th, 2003 @ 2:02 pm
I sit the fence on capital punishment. I’m generally opposed to how it is implemented in the US system, which by all accounts seems to be racially and economically skewed.
I think that if the state did a better job of providing adequate representation for everyone on a death penalty case, it would work better. Of course the problem is that liars (I mean lawyers, which I’m studying to be) will no doubt take advantage of the system.
Imagine if every death penalty defendent were given a Johnny Cochran, etc. No one would argue that they weren’t given a fair shake (or a favorably unfair one).
May 30th, 2003 @ 2:35 pm
I pass on the humanitarian arguments. If a maniac murdered a child of mine or other member of my family, I’m well aware I’d be briding officials to let me pull the lever. However, without proper checks and irrefutable evidence, no matter the costs required to incarcerate the guilty with long-term sentences, the risk we take of sending innocent people to their deaths is one I’d prefer to avoid.
So for the reasons Jason and Mike outline, I’m not on the fence when it comes to my opposition of the death penalty as presently implemented.
May 30th, 2003 @ 2:35 pm
I pass on the humanitarian arguments. If a maniac murdered a child of mine or other member of my family, I’m well aware I’d be briding officials to let me pull the lever. However, without proper checks and irrefutable evidence, no matter the costs required to incarcerate the guilty with long-term sentences, the risk we take of sending innocent people to their deaths is one I’d prefer to avoid.
So for the reasons Jason and Mike outline, I’m not on the fence when it comes to my opposition of the death penalty as presently implemented.
May 30th, 2003 @ 2:35 pm
I pass on the humanitarian arguments. If a maniac murdered a child of mine or other member of my family, I’m well aware I’d be briding officials to let me pull the lever. However, without proper checks and irrefutable evidence, no matter the costs required to incarcerate the guilty with long-term sentences, the risk we take of sending innocent people to their deaths is one I’d prefer to avoid.
So for the reasons Jason and Mike outline, I’m not on the fence when it comes to my opposition of the death penalty as presently implemented.
May 30th, 2003 @ 2:35 pm
I pass on the humanitarian arguments. If a maniac murdered a child of mine or other member of my family, I’m well aware I’d be briding officials to let me pull the lever. However, without proper checks and irrefutable evidence, no matter the costs required to incarcerate the guilty with long-term sentences, the risk we take of sending innocent people to their deaths is one I’d prefer to avoid.
So for the reasons Jason and Mike outline, I’m not on the fence when it comes to my opposition of the death penalty as presently implemented.
May 30th, 2003 @ 2:35 pm
I pass on the humanitarian arguments. If a maniac murdered a child of mine or other member of my family, I’m well aware I’d be briding officials to let me pull the lever. However, without proper checks and irrefutable evidence, no matter the costs required to incarcerate the guilty with long-term sentences, the risk we take of sending innocent people to their deaths is one I’d prefer to avoid.
So for the reasons Jason and Mike outline, I’m not on the fence when it comes to my opposition of the death penalty as presently implemented.
May 30th, 2003 @ 2:35 pm
I pass on the humanitarian arguments. If a maniac murdered a child of mine or other member of my family, I’m well aware I’d be briding officials to let me pull the lever. However, without proper checks and irrefutable evidence, no matter the costs required to incarcerate the guilty with long-term sentences, the risk we take of sending innocent people to their deaths is one I’d prefer to avoid.
So for the reasons Jason and Mike outline, I’m not on the fence when it comes to my opposition of the death penalty as presently implemented.
May 30th, 2003 @ 2:44 pm
i oppose the death penalty because i don’t believe that our justice system is in fact just, and i’m concerned that innocent people will be put to death due to a fallible system as well as the prejudices and fallibility of human beings.
i also don’t believe that capital punishment deters crime or benefits anyone. the families of victims do not get their lost loved ones back, surviving victims do not get the experience removed or erased from their lives, and the families of the perpetrators are also forced to suffer a devastating loss. i feel that the suffering associated with capital punishment far outweighs any benefits of swift removal or vengence.
i think that life in prison effectively punishes those found guilty and rids the streets of “human garbage” without the risk of executing an innocent person.
i don’t know, as ridiculous as i think it is to consult a book written by some magical, mystical, all knowing dude in the sky to determine appropriate punishment in a legal suit, i find it just as absurd to think that killing someone for killing someone sends the message that killing someone is wrong or that it in any way deters it.
much in the same way i don’t think people need a “god” in order to behave responsibly, ethically, and compassionately, i don’t think that the threat of losing one’s life will encourage responsible, ethical, compassionate behavior. you either do the right thing because you know it’s the right thing to do, or you don’t. i think the punishment has very little bearing on the matter.
xoxo, jared
May 30th, 2003 @ 2:53 pm
If human garbage is allowed to accumulate…
…Give me a giant boot and a can of raid.
I don’t see the idea of “human grabage” as one that’s very defensible.
I look at human-beings with what might appear at first to be two competing assumptions about mankind:
A) Human-beings fall under the same mechanistic laws as everything else, and therefore have no counter-causal freedom. Humans outcomes are what can inevitably be expected from the unique circumstances of their individual genes + individual environment.
B) Human life is something precious and uniquely deserving of dignity.
Considering assumption “A”, it’s hard to fault humans as somehow “losing their right to humanity” through their personal actions. We would all take the same path with the same genes/envioronment- therefore dehumanizing others is built on a faulty premise about what a human actually is. You assume that worthy humans make good choices and unworthy ones make bad choices, but really humans are equally worthy and act as neutral machines that react in set ways to certain instructions. This in no way indicates though that humans should be treated with wonton cruelty or as inanimate objects. Killing people because they disgust us or make us angry isn’t justifiable by any proper ethical system. Each one of us knows we don’t like pain and knows we don’t like death (this knowledge of self is what makes us unique and worthy of special concern), which is why we should act in a way towards others that presupposes this is true for them as well, regardless of what they may or may not have done.
Every human life is then equal. All considerations from there are cost-benefit. If taking one life (murderer), puts the fear of punishment into three other would-be murderers and prevents the taking of three more murders then it is justified (proving deterrence works like this is a bit dubious though, but not completely implausible). But taking the life of a murderer in the name of retribution, (regardless of the consideration of whether it will prevent more murder) is pretty much as equally pointless and inhumane as the orginal crimes themselves.
May 30th, 2003 @ 2:59 pm
regardless of the consideration of whether it will prevent more murder
Which was to say that retribution can’t be a worthy goal regardless of if it’s paired with worthy ones or not. (not to say that murder can never justifiably be applied in a cost/benefit fashion)
May 30th, 2003 @ 4:16 pm
JASON: Congratulations on a civil, well-reasoned argument against CP.
There was a man who killed two boys and then ate their hamburger. No doubts that he did it; even laughed about it. Everybody was white. It took California 12 years to execute him. There were candlelight vigils when they executed him!
Call me cruel, but I screamed YESSSS when he finally died.
May 30th, 2003 @ 4:23 pm
No one so far mentioned that the best argument against the death penalty is that the current Pope John Paul II has come out against it (but even Der Pontiff engages in some fuzzy thinking and double-talk on this issue (no surprise there):
May 30th, 2003 @ 5:05 pm
actually carsten, there is one grieving mother against capital punishment who immediately comes to mind: the mother of matthew shepard.
he was horribly brutalized and tortured and suffered beyond my realm of comprehension, however, his mother spoke out to prevent the execution of his killers because neither she nor matt supported capital punishment.
matthew’s father on the other hand did want to see his killers executed but he conceded to the wishes of matthew’s mother and matthew’s own beliefs.
oh yeah, and fuck the pope. who gives a shit what he says. he’s no AUTHORITY on anything as far as i’m concerned.
xoxo, jared
May 30th, 2003 @ 7:40 pm
Hey Queen, he’s been an expert on senility for quite a while now. That, and how to wear tall pointy hats without having them fall off. So give the pope his due.
May 30th, 2003 @ 7:40 pm
Hey Queen, he’s been an expert on senility for quite a while now. That, and how to wear tall pointy hats without having them fall off. So give the pope his due.
May 30th, 2003 @ 7:40 pm
Hey Queen, he’s been an expert on senility for quite a while now. That, and how to wear tall pointy hats without having them fall off. So give the pope his due.
May 30th, 2003 @ 7:40 pm
Hey Queen, he’s been an expert on senility for quite a while now. That, and how to wear tall pointy hats without having them fall off. So give the pope his due.
May 30th, 2003 @ 7:40 pm
Hey Queen, he’s been an expert on senility for quite a while now. That, and how to wear tall pointy hats without having them fall off. So give the pope his due.
May 30th, 2003 @ 7:40 pm
Hey Queen, he’s been an expert on senility for quite a while now. That, and how to wear tall pointy hats without having them fall off. So give the pope his due.
May 30th, 2003 @ 8:09 pm
Mike: I have taken upon myself the burden of disabusing you of your p.c. cant; I know it’s not your fault, many (most) students get brainwashed by our western, left-liberal academic institutions. The quasi-Maoist indoctrination in p.c. thought occurring in North American universities is truly Orwellian.
Read Professor J. Philippe Rushton
May 30th, 2003 @ 10:00 pm
ct: well… so… what are you saying we should use this information for? to judge individuals based on group statistics? or just not misuse the stats to support the claim that the justice system is racially biased? do i have to draw my own conclusions? i hope not.
May 30th, 2003 @ 10:32 pm
Well, I was answering Mike when he wrote:
May 31st, 2003 @ 4:23 am
I’m annoyed my religion still sticking around, but really:
I can’t believe that you would be so dogmatic about atheism — um, religious about it? — to take the position that the separation and non-establishment doctrines in the constitution forbid americans from believing in a god, or choosing to consult their god-text when making a decision.
Please find me the con-law cases that support this. Would love to see them. Sorry man, individual rights to belief trump blind PC anti-religious religiousity any old day.
To take the position that people aren’t allowed to consult whatever text they want in making a decision — the bible, finnegan’s wake, or darwin’s origins o’ the species, is to subvert and betray the very freedom of thought you ostensibly are for.
sign me,
barfing at your blind, selective hypocrisy.
May 31st, 2003 @ 4:41 am
I have taken upon myself the burden of disabusing you of your p.c. cant; I know it’s not your fault….
Mike is a law student and I doubt he needs your smug primer on demographic crime rates, which isn’t demonstrating what you think it does anyhow. Higher low SES/minority crime rates and economic/racial bias within the justice system are not mutually exclusive propositions. If you have evidence that the system isn’t biased in this way, you would be wiser (and less of a net annoyance) to link to that information instead of to unrelated statistics (and white separatist web-sites).
The news sources I read seem to fluctuate from year to year on whether there is racial bias on death row or not. The latest reports indicate there is a non-trivial amount of such bias.
May 31st, 2003 @ 5:13 am
I
May 31st, 2003 @ 6:33 am
Facts are facts, they are either accurate or they are not. The source is immaterial and a red herring. It
May 31st, 2003 @ 7:04 am
CT, if your game is to purposely piss everyone off equally, then well played. The issue is not one of specific cases (like the “cats” you brought up), but of the institution, which is suspect in its ability to pursue its duties in a manner that protects the innocent. For every scumbag you point to deserving to get stuck with a syringe of potassium chloride, there’s another guiltless victim caught up in the system.
When competency, fairness, and surety of evidence against the convicted reach a high level of certainty, then let’s talk.
And to help better understand this crazy world of online communications, when you insinuate someone is “brainwashed by our western, left-liberal academic institutions” and has a B.A. in quasi-Maoist politically correct thought, assume the replies will not be friendly.
May 31st, 2003 @ 7:04 am
CT, if your game is to purposely piss everyone off equally, then well played. The issue is not one of specific cases (like the “cats” you brought up), but of the institution, which is suspect in its ability to pursue its duties in a manner that protects the innocent. For every scumbag you point to deserving to get stuck with a syringe of potassium chloride, there’s another guiltless victim caught up in the system.
When competency, fairness, and surety of evidence against the convicted reach a high level of certainty, then let’s talk.
And to help better understand this crazy world of online communications, when you insinuate someone is “brainwashed by our western, left-liberal academic institutions” and has a B.A. in quasi-Maoist politically correct thought, assume the replies will not be friendly.
May 31st, 2003 @ 7:04 am
CT, if your game is to purposely piss everyone off equally, then well played. The issue is not one of specific cases (like the “cats” you brought up), but of the institution, which is suspect in its ability to pursue its duties in a manner that protects the innocent. For every scumbag you point to deserving to get stuck with a syringe of potassium chloride, there’s another guiltless victim caught up in the system.
When competency, fairness, and surety of evidence against the convicted reach a high level of certainty, then let’s talk.
And to help better understand this crazy world of online communications, when you insinuate someone is “brainwashed by our western, left-liberal academic institutions” and has a B.A. in quasi-Maoist politically correct thought, assume the replies will not be friendly.
May 31st, 2003 @ 7:04 am
CT, if your game is to purposely piss everyone off equally, then well played. The issue is not one of specific cases (like the “cats” you brought up), but of the institution, which is suspect in its ability to pursue its duties in a manner that protects the innocent. For every scumbag you point to deserving to get stuck with a syringe of potassium chloride, there’s another guiltless victim caught up in the system.
When competency, fairness, and surety of evidence against the convicted reach a high level of certainty, then let’s talk.
And to help better understand this crazy world of online communications, when you insinuate someone is “brainwashed by our western, left-liberal academic institutions” and has a B.A. in quasi-Maoist politically correct thought, assume the replies will not be friendly.
May 31st, 2003 @ 7:04 am
CT, if your game is to purposely piss everyone off equally, then well played. The issue is not one of specific cases (like the “cats” you brought up), but of the institution, which is suspect in its ability to pursue its duties in a manner that protects the innocent. For every scumbag you point to deserving to get stuck with a syringe of potassium chloride, there’s another guiltless victim caught up in the system.
When competency, fairness, and surety of evidence against the convicted reach a high level of certainty, then let’s talk.
And to help better understand this crazy world of online communications, when you insinuate someone is “brainwashed by our western, left-liberal academic institutions” and has a B.A. in quasi-Maoist politically correct thought, assume the replies will not be friendly.
May 31st, 2003 @ 7:04 am
CT, if your game is to purposely piss everyone off equally, then well played. The issue is not one of specific cases (like the “cats” you brought up), but of the institution, which is suspect in its ability to pursue its duties in a manner that protects the innocent. For every scumbag you point to deserving to get stuck with a syringe of potassium chloride, there’s another guiltless victim caught up in the system.
When competency, fairness, and surety of evidence against the convicted reach a high level of certainty, then let’s talk.
And to help better understand this crazy world of online communications, when you insinuate someone is “brainwashed by our western, left-liberal academic institutions” and has a B.A. in quasi-Maoist politically correct thought, assume the replies will not be friendly.
May 31st, 2003 @ 7:13 am
p.c. idiot Malloy: :Mike is a law student and I doubt he needs your smug primer on demographic crime rates, Mike is a law student and I doubt he needs your smug primer on demographic crime rates, which isn’t demonstrating what you think it does anyhow.” Huh? Who’s the arrogant asshole here? Words don’t mean what they normally mean, and inconvenient facts and statistics that don
May 31st, 2003 @ 8:25 am
ct: i first believed you when you said: “I was answering Mike when he wrote:
May 31st, 2003 @ 8:55 am
ZroKewl: I don’t have have an
May 31st, 2003 @ 9:20 am
Let’s set aside the issue of whether our justice system is fair enough to administer capital punishment, and focus on the question of this thread: Should a juror be allowed to consult the Bible during deliberations in a capital case?
TRA supports CP and would sentence Harlan to death. TRA also agrees that there is no God and that the Bible is not His word and that the Bible is irrelevant to helping a juror this case. But TRA also says the case was correctly reversed because “the Bible has no place in the jury room…because it can only distract jurors”.
TRA misses the sharper (and funnier) point that this is ostensibly a nation under God’s law, and the Bible is ostensibly the source of God’s law, and a juror should be allowed to consult God’s law. Yes, our justice system deliberately favors the defendant and routinely excludes perfectly good evidence of guilt. But in a “nation under God” His law must never be excluded, or (by His rules) we lose the Holy Spirit, and reject JC, and fall from Grace and into the arms of Satan and Eternal Damnation and Hell Fire and sulfuric stuff.
If GOD were in the jury pool, HE would be excluded from the jury! When things gets serious in our lives, our laws (thankfully) avoid GOD.
To summarize: In a nation of really really true believers, the law of God would be supreme. In our nation, the law of God is not supreme. Ergo, this is not a nation of really really true believers.
May 31st, 2003 @ 10:38 am
june: thank god for that!!
ct: it just seems that you are pretty passionate in showing that blacks commit a higher proportionate amount of crime than whites. this seems bizarre to me if only to prove that the justice system is not racially biased.
i think one’s stance on the death penalty is dependent upon their view of the purpose of punishment.
May 31st, 2003 @ 11:13 am
Actually, I
May 31st, 2003 @ 11:31 am
Back to the juror issue.
Wordwarp,
To take the position that people aren’t allowed to consult whatever text they want in making a decision — the bible, finnegan’s wake, or darwin’s origins o’ the species, is to subvert and betray the very freedom of thought you ostensibly are for.
The Secular is inherently a religiously neutral institution. For that to be possible there needs to be times – in a society designed to be composed of many religions – where we all call time-out on religious thinking and pick-up our “state thinking” brains. If this is not possible, then we can’t have a multi-religious state, we can only have Theocratic mini-nations.
When a judge is serving under public time, he is obligated to use his “secular-brain”, not his mormon brain, not his muslim brain, and not his scientology brain. He cannot appeal to religious text or tradition, he must use Reason (capital “R”, for effect), which is the designated state-function “religion”.
Similarly, juries are public servants. They are operating under State time and through a Secular state institution. They are just as responsible as the judge to remain religiously neutral in their jurisdiction. They are obligated to perform their duties using their “secular-brain”.
May 31st, 2003 @ 12:42 pm
ct: i have my pet peeves too. among the top are racism & bigotry. (i’m not calling you that – i’m just saying that is why i’m overly sensitive to statements that may be construed as promoting either of those.)
May 31st, 2003 @ 1:37 pm
Fair enough.
We all have our pet-peeves; God, I love diversity!!!
June 2nd, 2003 @ 1:11 pm
OK, now that everyone has made up can we get on with the executing?
June 2nd, 2003 @ 5:03 pm
I am currently against the death penalty because I have yet to see a supporting argument that makes sense to me.
What is the purpose of the death penalty? What is the purpose of any sort of punishment?
It seems to me that the main reason people support the death penalty is for retribution. I do not think this is a good supporting reason. My mom always said “two wrongs don’t make a right” — and I still believe her to this day.
The other reason people seem to support the death penalty is to deter other people from killing. I have seen no evidence that the death penalty does this. The best way to deter crime is education. People can and do learn to do the right things – not for fear of punishment – but because they can empathize with other people in society.
I believe that punishment should serve three purposes.
1) It should teach the punished in order to prevent repeat offenses [40%]
2) It should seek to make right what was wronged (ie: a thief would have to give back the stolen property, or work to pay for the loss). [40%]
3) It should be used to prevent the criminal from commiting other similar crimes until they have been rehabilitated. [15%]
4) It should be used to communicate to others the behavior we find unethical (ie: it should deter other similar crimes). [5%]
(The percentages are a relative “weighting” on what I feel should be the focus of the punishment.)
Maybe I’m too much of an idealist… but I think education is the key to solving many problems — including our crime rate. Preemptive education would be best — don’t wait until someone has broken the law — teach kids how to behave ethically. Teach them how to see the world from other people’s point of view.
June 2nd, 2003 @ 5:05 pm
make that “four purposes”.
June 2nd, 2003 @ 6:18 pm
5) Remove garbage from our midst.
Be sure garbage never does it again.
6) Prevent garbage from reproducing.
7) Make an example of garbage.
9) Let us sleep without the fear of garbage.
10) Pay a steep price for being garbage.
June 2nd, 2003 @ 6:28 pm
June: if I didn’t know you were talking about “criminals”, those same enumerations could be used in a list of “Why We Should Kill _______” (fill in the blank with “Jews”, “Homosexuals”, “Blacks”, or any other group of people who have been and are killed by people who hate them).
June 2nd, 2003 @ 7:00 pm
I don’t follow your analogy from garbage to Jews, etc. And why did you put criminals in quotes?
Just so there is no misunderstanding, let me repeat my earlier comment: “If human garbage is allowed to accumulate, it can only lower the average quality of human existence. I breathe easier when I hear that some scumbag has sucked the big one.”
June 2nd, 2003 @ 7:15 pm
“One man’s garbage is another man’s treasure.” You have dehumanized the convicted criminal by calling them “garbage”. The world is not black and white. People are not either “garbage” (as you put it) or “not garbage”. It’s easier to look at the world that way… but that’s not the way the world is. Again, the only thing I’m hearing here is that you are for the death penalty because it makes you feel better. Because you have great animosity towards the criminals. IMO, this is not a good argument.
June 2nd, 2003 @ 10:56 pm
How about this: I am for the death penalty much in the way that I am for the Orkin Man coming to my house to clean out the various creepy crawly things that go bump in the night and make me feel all queasy and disgusted when I pick up a rock and see them squirming in the light (did that sentence go on long enough?).
There was a case a couple of months ago about a creep who kidnapped two girls from some “Lover’s Lane” dump in SoCal, raped them, talked about killing them soon but got whacked by the cops before he could carry out his threat. Good one for the cops. Had they missed, I would have put this loser in “Old Sparky” and thrown the switch. No remorse. No loss of sleep or appetite. He chose his course in life.
As I said before, when people remove themselves voluntarily from the human community why should I care what happens to them?
June 2nd, 2003 @ 11:57 pm
ZROKEWL: Did you really miss my point? I analogized executing criminals to discarding rotting food: both are done to reduce nausea, preserve good food, and promote a healthy society. I see our execution chambers as the flush toilets of society. I really have no good argument for flush toilets; somehow they just seem better than locking up our crap in government warehouses for 30 or 40 years.
As far as my dehumanizing such “human treasures” as Charles Manson and Jeffrey Dahmer — please pardon my laughter.
June 3rd, 2003 @ 12:11 am
I’m against the death penalty because i think it’s to leniant. A painless death is hardly sufficiant. I think a convicted murderer or rapeist should be tortured and then sent to an alaskan work camp for the rest of ther life. This also gives the posibility of releasing a wrongly imprisoned inmate. Work camp and torture are much better deterents to violent behavior. Some people are not afraid of prison or death, but even the strogest man fears torture.
June 3rd, 2003 @ 12:28 am
Rumblefish: And after those 20 years of torture and brutal conditions in a remote work camp, how do we as a society go about making restitution to the “wrongly imprisoned” when their conviction is overturned?
June 3rd, 2003 @ 12:28 am
Rumblefish: And after those 20 years of torture and brutal conditions in a remote work camp, how do we as a society go about making restitution to the “wrongly imprisoned” when their conviction is overturned?
June 3rd, 2003 @ 12:28 am
Rumblefish: And after those 20 years of torture and brutal conditions in a remote work camp, how do we as a society go about making restitution to the “wrongly imprisoned” when their conviction is overturned?
June 3rd, 2003 @ 12:28 am
Rumblefish: And after those 20 years of torture and brutal conditions in a remote work camp, how do we as a society go about making restitution to the “wrongly imprisoned” when their conviction is overturned?
June 3rd, 2003 @ 12:28 am
Rumblefish: And after those 20 years of torture and brutal conditions in a remote work camp, how do we as a society go about making restitution to the “wrongly imprisoned” when their conviction is overturned?
June 3rd, 2003 @ 12:28 am
Rumblefish: And after those 20 years of torture and brutal conditions in a remote work camp, how do we as a society go about making restitution to the “wrongly imprisoned” when their conviction is overturned?
June 3rd, 2003 @ 12:44 am
Torture would only be applied in the most violent cases. It would be applied like the death penaly after the verdict, but with stricter criteria. Irrefutable evidance like, a face on surrvalence camera, or a finger print on a pair of underware. Notice i didn’t say DNA evidence. It would be used far less then the death penalty.
You can’t give restitution to a dead man.
June 3rd, 2003 @ 9:23 am
I hypothesize that most violent crimes are done by people in one of two states of mind: heated rage (such as a man finding his wife in bed with another man), or a deranged lunatic (such as jeffrey dahmer, charles manson, etc.) Do you think people in these mindsets actually act rationally? They aren’t thinking about life in prison, getting the death penalty, or being tortured.
So, I don’t think the deterrent argument holds water. I can’t believe that the only argument presumably rational thinking people can come up with in support of the death penalty is “because the perp is garbage”, or “a creep”, or “i feel better with that person dead”. Killing someone because they are “trash” or because “it makes you feel better” puts you at the same level as the criminal. Apparantly the thought process is just as rational.
June 3rd, 2003 @ 11:42 am
ZK: I hypothesize that most violent crimes are done by people in one of two states of mind: heated rage … or a deranged lunatic…
June: Could be, but we are not talking about them. Crimes committed in the heat of passion or by an insane person are seldom subject to capital punishment precisely because they are not rational. Even so, society clearly has the right to remove those who cannot control their passions or are criminally insane.
ZK: I don’t think the deterrent argument holds water.
June: Executing criminals has a wonderful deterrent effect on them. After he was offed in prison, Jeffrey Dahmer never ate another person.
ZK: I can’t believe that the only argument presumably rational thinking people can come up with in support of the death penalty is “because the perp is garbage”, or “a creep”, or “i feel better with that person dead”.
June: In our society, being convicted of a capital crime and sentenced to death pretty well puts one at the bottom of the social ladder. And feeling relief is — by definition — not an argument but a feeling, like having a hemorrhoid lanced.
ZK: Killing someone because they are “trash” or because “it makes you feel better” puts you at the same level as the criminal. Apparantly the thought process is just as rational.
June: Society is killing them for what they did to society, not for being trash. Legally executing a criminal is not a crime. Feeling relief when a monster dies is not immoral. And finally, insulting someone to win an argument is called arguing “ad hominem” and is the hallmark of amateur logicians.
June 3rd, 2003 @ 12:43 pm
Is calling someone an amateur logician also an “ad hominem”? Regardless… I think I finally heard an argument that wasn’t based on a feeling of hatred of the convicted:
June – “Society is killing them for what they did to society, not for being trash.”
This is getting somewhere. But now I must ask why the death penalty is the proper punishment for someone that killed someone? Let’s not get back to the “trash” talk… I’d just like some sort of logical explanation.
The only other one that I’ve heard is the “deterrent” claim.
June said this: “ZK: I don’t think the deterrent argument holds water.
June: Executing criminals has a wonderful deterrent effect on them. After he was offed in prison, Jeffrey Dahmer never ate another person.”
That’s not the deterrent argument, though. That’s the “keep that person from commiting the crime again” argument. It’s most like #3 in my list, and can be accomplished by locking someone up for life. Deterrent is most like #4. I bet if there is another person out there that has strong desires to eat other people, the knowledge of Dahmer being killed by the state will not deter them from going ahead and eating someone.
Clearly this is a very emotional issue. I am trying to look at it rationally. I was just hoping that someone on the “pro” side could give me a rational reason for supporting the death penalty.
June 3rd, 2003 @ 1:22 pm
I wanted to respond to RA’s first response:
RA – “There are six billion people on the planet and everybody has their own problems. Asking people to refrain from killing each other really isn’t asking a whole lot. And giving those who do kill a quick, painless death isn’t really all that cruel compared to life in prison.”
Doesn’t this seem a bit contradictory and/or hypocritical to you? It looks like a parent that tells their kids not to curse. And when the kids do, the parents curse at them for doing it. Or, a parent telling the kids not to punch people in the face. And when the kids do, the parent punches the kid in the face. Should punishment be retaliation? I do see the merits in showing the kid how to empathize with others — and I don’t claim to know the best way to do that… but I doubt punching a kid in the face is a good way. And I doubt that executing a criminal teaches them anything either.
Regarding the cruelity: I know for me if I had to pick death or life in prison, I’d pick life in prison. I believe the current execution methods are sometimes cruel, but even if they weren’t, I don’t see the benefit of executing the person as opposed to sentencing them to life in prison. Regardless, however, I’d assume both sides would be for changing the methods that are used (for both executions and for life imprisonment).
June 3rd, 2003 @ 1:35 pm
Some kids aren’t smart enough to understand anything but a punch in the face. The same goes for adults. Certain people can’t be reformed. That’s when you exacute. It’s pointless to house and feed them, when cival law biding citizens need food, housing and health care.
June 3rd, 2003 @ 3:10 pm
ZK: If Jeffrey Dahmer had been executed after he killed the first time, the rest of his victims would not have died.
Why should society suffer additional crimes committed by convicts in prison or after escaping or being paroled?
June 3rd, 2003 @ 3:47 pm
jared “the evil queen” posted earlier regarding matthew sheppard. the following is the final statements made by matthew’s father to the court and to mr. mckinney (the guy who beat matthew, tied him to a fence, and left him to die):
“Mr. McKinney, one final comment before I sit, and this is the reason that I stand before you now. At no time since Matt was found at the fence and taken to the hospital have Judy and I made any statements about our beliefs concerning the death penalty. We felt that that would be an undue influence on any prospective juror. Judy has been quoted by some right-wing groups as being against the death penalty. It has been stated that Matt was against the death penalty. Both of these statements are wrong. We have held family discussions and talked about the death penalty. Matt believed that there were incidents and crimes that justified the death penalty. For example, he and I discussed the horrible death of James Byrd, Jr. in Jasper, Texas. It was his opinion that the death penalty should be sought and that no expense should be spared to bring those responsible for this murder to justice. Little did we know that the same response would come about involving Matt. I, too, believe in the death penalty. I would like nothing better than to see you die, Mr. McKinney. However, this is the time to begin the healing process. To show mercy to someone who refused to show any mercy. To use this as the first step in my own closure about losing Matt. Mr. McKinney, I am not doing this because of your family. I am definitely not doing this because of the crass and unwarranted pressures put on by the religious community. If anything, that hardens my resolve to see you die. Mr. McKinney, I
June 3rd, 2003 @ 3:55 pm
June: Unless I’m mistaken Dahmer’s previous and only conviction, until they sent him away for good (well, the next thousand years!), was on a child molestation charge — a horrible crime in and of itself, but not one for which the courts assign a death sentence. Not to appear flippant, but unless police were supposed to be psychic and immediately aware of his first killing (which occured when he was seventeen), I don’t get the connection in your argument.
And I don’t think any of us believe society should suffer the sort of things you mention. But now you appear to be championing a pre-emptive method of capital punishment for crimes convicts may commit.
June 3rd, 2003 @ 3:55 pm
June: Unless I’m mistaken Dahmer’s previous and only conviction, until they sent him away for good (well, the next thousand years!), was on a child molestation charge — a horrible crime in and of itself, but not one for which the courts assign a death sentence. Not to appear flippant, but unless police were supposed to be psychic and immediately aware of his first killing (which occured when he was seventeen), I don’t get the connection in your argument.
And I don’t think any of us believe society should suffer the sort of things you mention. But now you appear to be championing a pre-emptive method of capital punishment for crimes convicts may commit.
June 3rd, 2003 @ 3:55 pm
June: Unless I’m mistaken Dahmer’s previous and only conviction, until they sent him away for good (well, the next thousand years!), was on a child molestation charge — a horrible crime in and of itself, but not one for which the courts assign a death sentence. Not to appear flippant, but unless police were supposed to be psychic and immediately aware of his first killing (which occured when he was seventeen), I don’t get the connection in your argument.
And I don’t think any of us believe society should suffer the sort of things you mention. But now you appear to be championing a pre-emptive method of capital punishment for crimes convicts may commit.
June 3rd, 2003 @ 3:55 pm
June: Unless I’m mistaken Dahmer’s previous and only conviction, until they sent him away for good (well, the next thousand years!), was on a child molestation charge — a horrible crime in and of itself, but not one for which the courts assign a death sentence. Not to appear flippant, but unless police were supposed to be psychic and immediately aware of his first killing (which occured when he was seventeen), I don’t get the connection in your argument.
And I don’t think any of us believe society should suffer the sort of things you mention. But now you appear to be championing a pre-emptive method of capital punishment for crimes convicts may commit.
June 3rd, 2003 @ 3:55 pm
June: Unless I’m mistaken Dahmer’s previous and only conviction, until they sent him away for good (well, the next thousand years!), was on a child molestation charge — a horrible crime in and of itself, but not one for which the courts assign a death sentence. Not to appear flippant, but unless police were supposed to be psychic and immediately aware of his first killing (which occured when he was seventeen), I don’t get the connection in your argument.
And I don’t think any of us believe society should suffer the sort of things you mention. But now you appear to be championing a pre-emptive method of capital punishment for crimes convicts may commit.
June 3rd, 2003 @ 3:55 pm
June: Unless I’m mistaken Dahmer’s previous and only conviction, until they sent him away for good (well, the next thousand years!), was on a child molestation charge — a horrible crime in and of itself, but not one for which the courts assign a death sentence. Not to appear flippant, but unless police were supposed to be psychic and immediately aware of his first killing (which occured when he was seventeen), I don’t get the connection in your argument.
And I don’t think any of us believe society should suffer the sort of things you mention. But now you appear to be championing a pre-emptive method of capital punishment for crimes convicts may commit.
June 3rd, 2003 @ 4:42 pm
KAFKA: Sorry, I went too fast in my argument, because one of Dahmer’s victims actually escaped while being assaulted, but two cops returned him to Dahmer!
Let’s change examples to clear this up. Take any case of thousands where a convict who ducked the death penalty kills, rapes, or maims again. I don’t think we need to tolerate that. One brutal crime and you’re toast.
Post-capital-conviction crimes are one side effect that those who oppose the death penalty never seem to mention even as they argue about forgiveness and dehumanization and deterrence.
I support executing vicious criminals when there is no doubt of guilt and after suitable appeals. Can we not rid ourselves of human garbage?
June 3rd, 2003 @ 5:50 pm
June: Appreciate the addendum. I was hoping it was brevity of point, rather than the point itself.
I’ll finish up here by again stating, for me it’s not the method, but the system that affects my distaste for capital punishment.
June 3rd, 2003 @ 5:50 pm
June: Appreciate the addendum. I was hoping it was brevity of point, rather than the point itself.
I’ll finish up here by again stating, for me it’s not the method, but the system that affects my distaste for capital punishment.
June 3rd, 2003 @ 5:50 pm
June: Appreciate the addendum. I was hoping it was brevity of point, rather than the point itself.
I’ll finish up here by again stating, for me it’s not the method, but the system that affects my distaste for capital punishment.
June 3rd, 2003 @ 5:50 pm
June: Appreciate the addendum. I was hoping it was brevity of point, rather than the point itself.
I’ll finish up here by again stating, for me it’s not the method, but the system that affects my distaste for capital punishment.
June 3rd, 2003 @ 5:50 pm
June: Appreciate the addendum. I was hoping it was brevity of point, rather than the point itself.
I’ll finish up here by again stating, for me it’s not the method, but the system that affects my distaste for capital punishment.
June 3rd, 2003 @ 5:50 pm
June: Appreciate the addendum. I was hoping it was brevity of point, rather than the point itself.
I’ll finish up here by again stating, for me it’s not the method, but the system that affects my distaste for capital punishment.
June 3rd, 2003 @ 5:51 pm
hey krokewl, what source did you use?
i apologize it i’ve posted inaccurate information and would like to read from your source. i must admit that mine was from conversations and discussions with friends and bloggers whom i took as reliable sources.
thanks!
xoxo, jared
p.s. i am STILL opposed to the death penalty and i STILL think the pope can go fuck himself.
June 3rd, 2003 @ 9:25 pm
jared: i got it here: http://www.matthewsplace.com/dennis2.htm
… and i agree with you… on both parts.
June 4th, 2003 @ 12:48 pm
thanks zk.
xoxo, jared