So last night on Vicious Circle we talked a bit about the Execution in Utah.
One point I touched on is that Hand Wringers seem to somehow think that it is the moral high ground to decide a man will never be safe to be in society, and then lock him in a cage for all of his natural life with other violent and dangerous people, and force the lawful people in society to watch him, feed him, clothe him, and give him medical attention.
Some people feel the need for vindication in crimes. I see this as an empty path. Killing somebody as punishment for a crime isn’t going to bring closure anymore than locking them in a cage, or, in more vulgar displays, torture.
Instead I see execution as a respectful and logical enterprise. If you are so sick, damaged, and deranged that you cannot adhere to society’s laws and make life for your fellow man more dangerous, and a judge and jury of your peers deem you too dangerous to ever freely walk the streets again, its the respectful thing to give them a quick and painless death, rather than to leave them to rot.
And we owe them our respect, they are monsters, and we will NEVER see or hear from them again.
But to say doing THIS to a man:
Is somehow morally superior to killing him while the those who still remember his crimes clearly are still alive, I don’t know what to think of you.
Also for my Libertarian brothers and sisters, who say “We can’t trust the government to kill the right people”. First up, I don’t know if I can rest this 100% at the feet of the government, as the deceased had legal council, and was judged by a jury of his peers, in both his trial and his appeals, but even if I concede that point, we still have the government letting people rot in cages, with no hope of release. (or in the case of Manson, with a promise of no hope of release, but the parole board still hears his case every few years).
Its a hot-button issue, what do you think about it?
“We can’t trust the government to kill the right people”. First up, I don’t know if I can rest this 100% at the feet of the government, as the deceased had legal council, and was judged by a jury of his peers, in both his trial and his appeals
Paraphrasing what I said over at Robb Allen’s place: It’s not so much that our legal system is imperfect…every human endeavor is imperfect, all we can even try to strive for is “good enough”…the problem is that our legal system is patently corrupt.
It is so important to the prosecutors, cops and judges to get a conviction that they will stoop to any level, including illegal ones, to get a conviction. Accidental convictions of the innocent due to mistakes I believe are very rare. Improper convictions as a result of nefarious behavior on the part of prosecutors, cops and judges I believe to be MUCH more prevalent.
And they are virtually NEVER held responsible for their acts. The incentive is strong to bend or break the rules to get a conviction and there is no disincentive. There are no rewards for finding justice, there are only rewards for winning the case. And there are no penalties when they are caught breaking the rules. Judges may give them a stern talking to, but that’s it except possibly in the once in a decade case that has national attention focused on it.
I understand that the rare mistake is made regardless of best intentions and safeguards and that those don’t justify trashing the entire system; but when there ARE no safeguards, and we rely on the very people who benefit from winning at any cost, to “police themselves”, it’s a recipe for disaster.
The deck is stacked. The defendant can have the best legal representation in the world, but when the cops are willing to commit perjury, the prosecution is willing to withhold evidence and lie to the judge and jury, when the judge is willing to issue jury instructions that patently subvert any possibility of justice, when the juries are hand-picked to be as docile and “herd mentality” as possible and are intentionally kept in the dark about their true purpose and powers…
I simply don’t believe it is moral or just to put people to death with convictions under those conditions.
Well I don’t see why Nefarious people striving to win a case they know is unjust can’t share the fate of those they have such disdain for.
Great points, Curt, and a really big can of worms.
I have often said that part of the vetting process for a death penalty sentence should be a third-party organization doing a review of the investigation/prosecution/trial. This third party should have enough power to do a turough job and also have power to grant a re-trial if nefarious behavior on the part of prosecutors, cops or judges is uncovered. They should also have the power to prosecute those responsable if said behavior is uncovered.
s
I would agree entirely, and make sure that all life-without-parole cases be transferred to death penalty.
If you say you won’t let them out ever, make it so, and make it fast. If you’re going to keep them for a long time, there should be criteria for release.
Talmudic tradition says that it’s morally WRONG to keep a person alive and not allow them to live.
If they can’t be in society you should either kill them or let them free.
I don’t care about the vindication, I think it’s morally WRONG to allow a person to live without letting them live.
PICK ONE OR THE OTHER.
Read Stockdale’s bit on Epictitus.
http://www.ttf.org/pdf/TFR_05_Stockdale.pdf
I think Stockdale put in in words better than anybody of recent history, as he was a well educated officer who was locked in a dust bin, so to speak…It would have been much easier for him if they had killed him.