Americans believe in REVENGE . . .and we want it! Justice is fine .. but REVENGE is better . . . .and in some cases more Profitable [Which is most important] Rocket River
Operational inefficiency in government is unconstitutional? this is good news. I'd like this judge to rule on our legislative branch next.
I've never liked the death penalty from a purely philosophical standpoint. I value life (even the most craven and vile human life). Naïve, I know. One of the unfortunate by-products of a childhood largely spent knee-deep in stolen hubcaps and superhero comic books. But in a society where the good of the many often should outweigh the needs of the few, I recognize the need to punish those crimes we determine as a society to be the highest offense, and to punish them severely. The death penalty should never be seen or posited as a deterrent to criminal behavior, in my opinion. Human beings are not so easily dissuaded from a course it sets its (depraved, in the case of murders) mind upon. At best, all the death penalty is (and perhaps consciously can only be interpreted as), is society's proverbial line-in-the-sand in regards to extremely destructive, callous, and "amoral" (since there's a persistence in some circles that some actions justify killing an alleged offender or alleged perpetrator) individual and collective behavior. And that is why, often times, the legal definitions of capital offenses seemingly do not reflect on the mood or tenor of society as a whole. Laws (particularly in our country) are in essence "reactionary". As dmc89 posted earlier, much of what we tend to consider "justice" is as much (if not moreso) an emotional response as it could be a rational one. "Revenge" is not what distinguishes us from other living things in the world, to me. Our ability to assign "purpose" to that feeling of retribution (i.e., a need to assign feelings a context for our rational minds to interpret, manage and, ultimately, control in a three-dimensional, sensate world) is what separates man from everything else that lives. Our laws are not designed to be cautious or reticent. Wouldn't be much of a law if it wasn't at least definitive. The counter balance to that is supposed to be the appeals process, which can often swing the pendulum the other direction, undermining the whole idea of justice and vengeance being two sides of the same coin. And taking an extreme position on either side of this ends up with what you have with California's death penalty. A legislative and moral mess. Personally, my own ideology notwithstanding, we are probably not going to do away with capital punishment in this country. And we probably should not, in all honesty. Some things should be held in the highest regard. Willfully taking another human life for the most base of reasons should not be tolerated. But in the interests of preserving the need to scratch our primordial revenge itches, I would like to think that as civilized people, we would somehow seek to make the distinction between a state-sanctioned execution and a private individual one a bit clearer. At some point we've got to walk upright, y'know? Or it kind of puts to shame the whole "opposable thumbs" rationale behind our dominant species status....
You used the term "fast" - I didn't. The whole point of the judge's ruling was that the California death penalty system's slowness in effect creates a cruel and unusual punishment as applied to an individual. There is a vast gulf between whatever kangaroo court system you envision as "fast justice" and the ponderous process California goes through. In the middle somewhere of that gulf is Texas's system, which has far fewer delays. It shouldn't take years to get a chance to present an appeal, or a writ, nor should it take years for an appellate court to thoroughly consider the legal arguments raised and make a ruling.
That doesn't really counter the point that the Texas system has most likely executed at least one innocent man.
at least 5 of these are from TX http://www.criminaljusticedegreesguide.com/features/10-infamous-cases-of-wrongful-execution.html http://rt.com/usa/texas-wrongful-convictions-executes-500th-294/ "Texas leads the nation in wrongful convictions, exonerations and state killings."
I think all the innocent people who have been freed from death row over the years would strongly disagree with you. I bet they much prefer having the opportunity to at least live the remainder of their lives than to have been killed wrongly. It's not pain - it's unnecessary pain that makes it cruel. If you have a less-painful option, what is the justification for using the more painful one outside of cruelty/revenge?
I'm not against the death penalty, I'm just opposed to the wrong guy getting killed. -- Kinky Friedman
You saying it's more painful doesn't make it so. Many would say that life without the possibility of parole is a tougher punishment. As to further justification, the death penalty is unfortunately the only way to absolutely prevent the convicted murderer from hurting someone else.
The pain I assume JV was referring to in the section I quoted was about method of execution - not execution vs life in prison. But that said, I think the easiest way to answer your question is ask the prisoners themselves, since they are the ones being subjected to the pain. Would those on death row prefer life in prison? Would those with life in prison prefer death? Do they prefer death over life in prison? (side note, if this is the case, it blows up the whole deterrent argument of the death penalty) Only if the government considers itself incompetent and assumes the prisoner will escape. They could hurt other prisoners, but they can do that while spending years on death row too.
Major - escape has happened before. No prison is inescapable. But even if you ignore escape, you are mistaken if you believe the only ones at risk are other prisoners. What about guards, visitors, cleaning staff, cooks, chaplains, librarians, counselors, doctors, nurses, etc? Once the murderer is dead, he poses no more risk.
If you're using the argument that people subject to the death penalty need to die to avoid risk, I'd contend that its a riskier proposition to give the state this power. The state has killed more innocent people with the death penalty than any multitude of inmates subject to the death penalty ever could. Its risker to give the state that power than to keep the most terrible criminals incarcerated for their entire life.
shorter headline, LA Times Opinion: http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me-0719-banks-death-penalty-20140719-column.html
Hyperbolic statements like this one hurt, rather than help, the discussion. The numbers are definitely unknowable, and the timeframe and parties aren't defined (are we discussing the history of capital punishment going back forever or a particular "state"?). If you believe the death penalty is wrong from a moral standpoint I entirely understand, but then the numbers on either side of the debate are meaningless.
Good question. Let me know when you've researched the answer. But it's definitely more than the number killed by those who have already been executed.
Is it more than the number of innocent people who have been murdered? Let me know when you've researched the answer.
