Death Penalty

[Boxlicker101]

Do you realize there are some people who actually believe this foul excuse for a human being should continue to share Earth's dwindling resources with decent people?
http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_13101303?source=rss

 

[fastandsloppy]

I would cry no tears for this man. His death will leave the would no poorer.

That said, I don't like the death penalty. Not because of any dewy eyed philosophical dedication to the sanctity of human life in any and all cases; rather I am distressed by the poor application of something as irreversible as putting someone to death. It bothers me that we are probably putting innocent people to death all the time.

Read up on the scores of cases of prosecutor or police misconduct, evidence tampered with or concealed and witnesses pressure or ignored. I understand the drive to succeed, but too often it ends up in the quest for convictions rather than the search for the truth.

Read up on the many case of wildly incompetent and overloaded public defenders. Should the inability to afford a decent lawyer be major factor on whether or not a suspect gets put to death? Statistically that's exactly the case.

Read up on the many cases of DNA evidence and courtroom misconduct exonerating people sitting on death row. Mistakes are made. As I said I have no problem with killing the guilty. But I do have a problem with the manifest deficiencies of the criminal justice systems in the application of the ultimate punishment.

So I agree with you in this particular case, but not in the general. And to illustrate that I am not making this argument with ill will, let me point out that my lovely wife of these last twenty years have this exactly same argument all the time. She is firmly on your side.

I just don't want this to degenerate into a flame war.

With respect;

FnS

 

[Handley_Page]

And very nicely put, if I may say so.

So, after ensuring that you've really got the right person, how best to see them into the next world. There's a few problems with this, believe it or not. There are two types of "pro death" folk, as far as I can see.

A the believer in a humane method at all costs
B the believer in execution regardless of 'pain & suffering'.

(You'll notice that the method is not discussed. That's another story all together)

Then there's the 'anti' brigade:

C life is sacred, regardless of the crime.
D there's been too many mistakes made and we cannot trust the system.

It's a lot of consideration, folks. . . .

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The whole criminal justice system needs to be destroyed and replaced with a process that does, in fact, dispense blind justice.

We have a local uproar about an old woman I call Mrs. Bingo-wings. She's a local Democrat Party official who attended a town-hall meeting, placed her hand against the side of a man's face, and pushed it away from her. She complained that his speech was upsetting everyone. The act was captured on video by the newspaper.

The action is BATTERY, Felony, touch or strike.

Everyone wants it to go away.

But if the man pushed her face away he'd be charged with battery plus battery on a person over 65, and some other things.

 

[fastandsloppy]

The whole criminal justice system needs to be destroyed and replaced with a process that does, in fact, dispense blind justice.

As my parents used to say to me, who ever told you life was fair?

However, before we destroy the criminal justice system we should consider what exactly would work better.

The idea that there is perfect solution floating around out there in a world of imperfect humanity is probably one of the more dangerous conceits of mankind. It has lead to all sorts of revolutionary terrors, genocidal horrors and truly awful science fiction (perhaps the greatest crime of all).

We need to recognize the limitations of institutions built and run by fallible people and do what we can to guard against the worst outcomes. I believe that involves scaping the death penalty.

As always, submitted with respect;

-FnS.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

As my parents used to say to me, who ever told you life was fair?

However, before we destroy the criminal justice system we should consider what exactly would work better.

The idea that there is perfect solution floating around out there in a world of imperfect humanity is probably one of the more dangerous conceits of mankind. It has lead to all sorts of revolutionary terrors, genocidal horrors and truly awful science fiction (perhaps the greatest crime of all).

We need to recognize the limitations of institutions built and run by fallible people and do what we can to guard against the worst outcomes. I believe that involves scaping the death penalty.

As always, submitted with respect;

-FnS.

What I mean by destroy isL James Q. Wilson asserts that all organizations perpetuate themselves according to who created the organization. Some organizations get better with time, most stay broken or get worse, but their fate is sealed. So he asserts that the worst performing organizations must be destroyed and salt poured over its foundation...and begin anew. Scatter the executives and peasants, send them into exile, but dont allow them to infect the new organization.

 

[fastandsloppy]

What I mean by destroy isL James Q. Wilson asserts that all organizations perpetuate themselves according to who created the organization. Some organizations get better with time, most stay broken or get worse, but their fate is sealed. So he asserts that the worst performing organizations must be destroyed and salt poured over its foundation...and begin anew. Scatter the executives and peasants, send them into exile, but dont allow them to infect the new organization.

I agree that organizations are frequently self perpetuating and often slide into a state where that self perpetuation becomes the main focus for the organization. However, just saying destroy the whole thing and start over isn't a solution. It is always possible to do worse.

For instance; the French Revolution

For instance; Lenin v. Capitalism.

(Please note I am not calling you a communist. I am just pointing out that James Wilson's approach has been tried before with another occasionally unfair and corrupt but necessary institution. It's ninety years later and they are still trying to recover from that experiment.)

Respectfully

-FnS

 

[Pure]

query

box //Do you realize there are some people who actually believe this foul excuse for a human being should continue to share Earth's dwindling resources with decent people?
http://www.contracostatimes.com/news...303?source=rss//

it's interesting what you (a person) come(s) up with for a crime of exceeding heinousness (here, a drug crazed, hammer murder.).

how about the cold blooded 'kill' of the mafia hit man?

handley's synopsis is not quite adequate:

A the believer in a humane method at all costs
B the believer in execution regardless of 'pain & suffering'.

(You'll notice that the method is not discussed. That's another story all together)

Then there's the 'anti' brigade:

C life is sacred, regardless of the crime.
D there's been too many mistakes made and we cannot trust the system.

perhaps the best arguement, aside form inevitable mistakes, is that executing persons coarsens and defiles the executioners [and their bosses, and by extension, the whole ruling stratum of society.]

are you ready, box, to pull the switch on the electric chair, for this fellow, box? how about bringing the wife and (grand)kids along for the show (as was actualy done at public hangings)?

 

[Boxlicker101]

I agree that organizations are frequently self perpetuating and often slide into a state where that self perpetuation becomes the main focus for the organization. However, just saying destroy the whole thing and start over isn't a solution. It is always possible to do worse.

For instance; the French Revolution

For instance; Lenin v. Capitalism.

(Please note I am not calling you a communist. I am just pointing out that James Wilson's approach has been tried before with another occasionally unfair and corrupt but necessary institution. It's ninety years later and they are still trying to recover from that experiment.)

Respectfully

-FnS

When you refer to the French Revolution, I presume you mean the period, usually called "The Reign of Terror" that immediately followed. Excesses were definitely committed, but the "victims" of the Reign were mostly members of royalty and the clergy, who had condoned and benefitted from excesses committed against the people. Or, do you mean the period usually called "The Napoleonic Wars" which were a series of attacks by England and European monarchies against the self-ruling French?

As for Russia before the revolution, that was one of the most despotic nations in the world. Communism, which basically pre-empted the Russian Revolution was bad enough, although not as bad, all-in-all as the monarchy.

What institution do you mean from ninety years ago? Was it Communism, The League of Nations, Prohibition, Women's Suffrage or something else. The four I named all began about ninety years ago.

Pure, if the method of execution were to be electrocution, I would consider it a privilege and an honor to be the one to throw the switch. However, I would rather be the one who tied the rope around the scum's neck and signalled to the mob to hoist him up so he could slowly choke to death.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

box //

perhaps the best arguement, aside form inevitable mistakes, is that executing persons coarsens and defiles the executioners [and their bosses, and by extension, the whole ruling stratum of society.]

I keep seeing this argument made. I never see any evidence to back it up. Perhaps I am less sensitive than "the whole ruling stratum of society" but when the evidence is incontrovertible, putting down a vicious human differs how, exactly, from setting up a gopher trap and dumping the rotten little vermin into trash? When someone choses to debase themselves with actions of this sort, they are choosing to remove themselves from the common run of humanity. Why does executing such a subhuman 'coarsen and defile' the rest of us?

 

[rgraham666]

I shall reiterate my usual objections to capital punishment.

1. You can't fix mistakes.

2. It isn't carried out fairly.

3. More often it's a political tool than a judicial one.

Also, if we want to kill someone quickly a bullet in the back of the head will do very nicely. It is messy but it's quick and sure.

If they ever bring capital punishment back here in Canada I'm going to lobby to use the above method and to have the job of executioner filled by lottery. Every person of voting age could be called upon to pull the trigger. With a jail sentence, about a year I figure, for those who won't do it.

It's a lot easier to kill a person in a newspaper than one kneeling in front of you.

 

[sadangel]

I shall reiterate my usual objections to capital punishment.

1. You can't fix mistakes.

2. It isn't carried out fairly.

3. More often it's a political tool than a judicial one.

Also, if we want to kill someone quickly a bullet in the back of the head will do very nicely. It is messy but it's quick and sure.

If they ever bring capital punishment back here in Canada I'm going to lobby to use the above method and to have the job of executioner filled by lottery. Every person of voting age could be called upon to pull the trigger. With a jail sentence, about a year I figure, for those who won't do it.

It's a lot easier to kill a person in a newspaper than one kneeling in front of you.

It's a lot easier to kill a person in a newspaper than one kneeling in front of you.
Yes it is. I actually think your idea for Canada to have the executioner job filled by lottery makes a point. How many that advocate the death penalty now, would do so if they were the executioner?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Unfortunately, the lottery would inevitably pick some poor soul who was so deathly afraid of firearms that he/she would either miss completely, shoot the perp through the earlobe or hit him/herself in the foot. The nice thing about firing squads (when done properly) is that only one firearm has a bullet in it so no one person has to feel guilty about erasing the slimeball and the members of the squad are all familiar with the process.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I'll take the job...put them up against the pole, hands behind their back and I'll shot them right between the eyes. I figure my soul, if their is such a thing, is so black, according to the liberals out there, that one or more blemishes won't hurt it any.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I shall reiterate my usual objections to capital punishment.

1. You can't fix mistakes.

Correct. Therefore, the thing to do is eliminate mistakes, and this can be done by reforming the rules of evidence. For instances, jailhouse snitches should be barred as untrustworthy. Autopsy photos or crime scene photos should be kept from the jury unless they have a bearing on guilt or innocense. An oral or written description would almost always be good enough.

2. It isn't carried out fairly.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but when people say something like this, they usually mean that there is a disproportionate number of black or Hispanic persons put to death. This is true but, if you look at other statistics, you will see that there is a disproportionate number of crimes committed by such persons.

3. More often it's a political tool than a judicial one.

I don't know what you mean by this but, in California at least, being strongly opposed to capital punishment will almost always keep a person from being elected to statewide office. About 2/3 of the people in the state favor capital punishment. A few years ago, we booted some justices off the state supreme court becase of their anti-death penalty activism. (Rose Bird, et al)

Also, if we want to kill someone quickly a bullet in the back of the head will do very nicely. It is messy but it's quick and sure.

If they ever bring capital punishment back here in Canada I'm going to lobby to use the above method and to have the job of executioner filled by lottery. Every person of voting age could be called upon to pull the trigger. With a jail sentence, about a year I figure, for those who won't do it.

It's a lot easier to kill a person in a newspaper than one kneeling in front of you.

Personally, I would prefer public hanging, but the idea of choosing by lot the person to go through the process would probably be a good one.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I keep seeing this argument made. I never see any evidence to back it up. Perhaps I am less sensitive than "the whole ruling stratum of society" but when the evidence is incontrovertible, putting down a vicious human differs how, exactly, from setting up a gopher trap and dumping the rotten little vermin into trash? When someone choses to debase themselves with actions of this sort, they are choosing to remove themselves from the common run of humanity. Why does executing such a subhuman 'coarsen and defile' the rest of us?

The difference is that gophers are just doing what comes naturally. When we kill gophers, which are actually rather cute, we do so to avoid financial loss. When we snuff somebody such as the subject of ther news article, we do so to keep them from doing it again and for revenge in general.

 

[rgraham666]

Zeb? What happens when you find out later the man was innocent? Shrug manfully and say, "You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs?"

Box? I mean there are, so far as I know, no rich people on Death Row. Plus as you pointed out minorities are heavily over-represented.

Your suggestions are good, but until humans are perfect every system we make will be imperfect. And an imperfect system will convict innocents.

So far as the death penalty being a political tool goes, see my point about rich people waiting execution. That is a political choice. The politics of the U.S. decides who lives and who dies.

 

[Pure]

reply to vm

pure said //perhaps the best arguement, aside form inevitable mistakes, is that executing persons coarsens and defiles the executioners [and their bosses, and by extension, the whole ruling stratum of society.]//


VM replied I keep seeing this argument made. I never see any evidence to back it up.[...]. Why does executing such a subhuman 'coarsen and defile' the rest of us?

Well, here's one bit of evidence from our own sweet boxman:

Box said

I would rather be the one who tied the rope around the scum's neck and signalled to the mob to hoist him up so he could slowly choke to death.

The movie "Monster's Ball" deals with some of the phenomena i mentioned.

The New York Times a while ago carried this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/07/health/psychology/07exec.htm?pagewanted=2&_r=1

When Death Is on the Docket, the Moral Compass Wavers


Published: February 7, 2006
[start of article, verbatim quote]
Common wisdom holds that people have a set standard of morality that never wavers. Yet studies of people who do unpalatable things, whether by choice, or for reasons of duty or economic necessity, find that people's moral codes are more flexible than generally understood. To buffer themselves from their own consciences, people often adjust their moral judgments in a process some psychologists call moral disengagement, or moral distancing.

In recent years, researchers have determined the psychological techniques most often used to disengage, and for the first time they have tested them in people working in perhaps the most morally challenging job short of soldiering, staffing a prison execution team.
The results of this and other studies suggest that a person's moral judgment can shift quickly, in anticipation of an unpalatable act, or slowly and unconsciously.

Moral disengagement "is where all the action is," said Albert Bandura, a professor of psychology at Stanford and an expert on the psychology of moral behavior. "It's in our ability to selectively engage and disengage our moral standards, and it helps explain how people can be barbarically cruel in one moment and compassionate the next."[...]

Working with Mr. Cain, Dr. Bandura and Philip Zimbardo, another Stanford psychologist, Mr. Osofsky administered a moral disengagement scale to the execution team members and the guards not on the execution team.

(Page 2 of 3)
This questionnaire asked workers to rate how much they approved or disapproved of 19 statements, including: "The Bible teaches that murders must be avenged: life for a life, eye for an eye"; "Nowadays the death penalty is done in ways that minimize the suffering"; and "Because of the nature of their crimes, murderers have lost the right to live."

In an analysis of the answers published late last year in the journal Law and Human Behavior, the psychologists reported that members of the execution team were far more likely than guards not on the team to agree that the inmates had lost important human qualities; to cite the danger that "they can escape and kill again;" and to consider the cost to society of caring for violent criminals.

The team members were also more likely than other guards to favor religious support for the sentence: an eye for an eye.

"You have to sanctify lethal means: this is the most powerful technique" of disengagement from a shared human moral code, said Dr. Bandura, who has expressed serious moral reservations about capital punishment. "If you can't convince people of the sanctity of the greater cause, they are not going to carry the job out as effectively."

Execution teams are organized so as to divide the grisly tasks, enhancing what researchers call a diffusion of responsibility. A medical technician provides the lethal drugs; a team of guards straps the inmate down, with each guard securing only one part of the body; another guard administers the drugs. "No one person can say he is entirely responsible for the death," Mr. Osofsky said.

Firing squads draw on this same idea. Everyone in the squad fires but no one can be sure whose shot was deadly.

The level of disengagement, as measured by the scale, was about as high in prison workers who participated in one execution as in those who had been party to more than 15, the study found. This suggests that, while the job may get easier over time, "moral disengagement is an enabler, rather than merely the result of performing repeated executions," the authors conclude.

The pattern was strikingly different in members of the execution support staff, particularly the counselors working with the families of inmates and victims.

These staff members were highly morally engaged when they first joined the execution staff, deeply sympathetic to everyone involved, including the condemned. "I'm in a helping profession, but there isn't a damn thing I can do for these guys," one of them said to Mr. Osofsky. "I hate it, but I do it. I am required to do it."

That ambivalence seemed to affect the counselors' moral judgment over time, the study found. After they had been involved in 10 executions, the counselors' scores on the disengagement scale almost matched the executioners'.

The finding stands as a caution to the millions of people who work in the service of organizations whose motives they mistrust, psychologists say: shifts in moral judgment are often unconscious, and can poison the best instincts and intentions.

"This really gets at the idea of people working in corporate structures that are involved in selling, say, weapons or tobacco, and saying, 'Well, I just keep the books,' " when they disapprove of the business, said Susan Ravenscroft, a professor of accounting at Iowa State University in Ames who has studied business ethics.

Moral distancing can also be seen in the language of war, politics and corporate scandal. Pilots euphemistically "service a target" rather than bomb it; enemies are dehumanized as "gooks," "hajis" or infidels. Politicians and chief executives facing indictments deflect questions about ethical lapses by acknowledging that "mistakes were made," or that they were "out of the loop."

These remarks reflect internal methods of self-protection, as well as public evasions, research suggests. [end excerpt]

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I must be too morally distant by nature. I don't see this as 'coarse and defiled'.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

It's a lot easier to kill a person in a newspaper than one kneeling in front of you.
Yes it is. I actually think your idea for Canada to have the executioner job filled by lottery makes a point. How many that advocate the death penalty now, would do so if they were the executioner?

Killing isnt difficult at all. You sight the target and squeeze the trigger.

My son was a military assassin 20 years ago. When terrorists shot at tourists passing thru the Panama Canal or ambushed cars in the Middle East, he appeared and took care of the problem. He'd wait and eat snakes and lizards and monkeys until some geek with a gun came along.

 

[sadangel]

For the average person, it is easier to say you would kill then to do it. For the average person, it is easy to kill in the newspaper then to do it in real life.

I won't kill an animal...I'm not going to kill a person, unless my life, or that of my loved one is in danger. I'll go insane after words, but I will do it for those reasons.

 

[Handley_Page]

You are quite right, Pure.

My synopsis was not complete in that I did not deal with the thorny issue of "method". Since, however, it has been raised, lets sort a few things out:

Firing Squad. At least six blokes of good aim and repute (militarily a dozen).
Only ONE is loaded with a blank. Before leaving this part, consider the method. The old method of tying the condemned to a pole or against a wall has not been used for many years. The 'best' one seen so far is that the condemned person sits in a chair with 'his' back to the squad. A target is aligned on a "curtain" so that the 'bull' is roughly in line with the heart and everyone has fun shooting at the target.

A single bullet in the head.
Russia favours this method apparently. but the executioner uses a 'soft' round (Black Talon ?) which has enough energy to mash the brain but no exit would. It was at one time euphemistically called a "brain Haemorrhage." The executioner is in a lower position and shoots upwards from a trap door into the back of the head (the condemned is writing his/her Will.

The Chines use one bullet by I'm not sure of the method.

Now consider the Rope.
The 'English' method is quick, simple and (presumably) painless. It takes about 1200 ftlb to break the neck so the weight of the prisoner is divided into 1200 and the drop is given in feet (roughly; adjustments may be made for the build).
The slip-knot is placed under the left ear and slips forward under the jaw, causing the neck to break. (see "Executioner: Pierepoint" for better details.

Strangulation, as used in Iraq/Iran. Nylon rope round neck, hauled up by crane. Not nice. You cannot describe this as a hanging.

"Group Hanging".
This is an old Naval tradition. The whole crew hauled the condemned up the yardarm. Then it was a joint responsibility.

Beheading
A bit messy, but popular in some parts of the Arab world. Executioner is often a family tradition.

Guillotine
Also messy and difficult to set up. Nobody know haw to do it these days.

Poison.
I'm sure medical science can do better than Hemlock, but. . . . ..

Gass.
Tricky and special kit needed.

There's an interesting variation on this. Suck the air out like a plane going higher.. They just go to sleep.

If I get time and sufficient interest, I mention a few more.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Zeb? What happens when you find out later the man was innocent? Shrug manfully and say, "You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs?"

Box? I mean there are, so far as I know, no rich people on Death Row. Plus as you pointed out minorities are heavily over-represented.

Your suggestions are good, but until humans are perfect every system we make will be imperfect. And an imperfect system will convict innocents.

So far as the death penalty being a political tool goes, see my point about rich people waiting execution. That is a political choice. The politics of the U.S. decides who lives and who dies.

Justice is blind...

And until a better system comes along we have to live with the one we have.

So, yes I shrug my shoulders...I wasn't the one that convicted him nor did I have anything to do with the sentence. I just carried it out which was my job. A job that would bring some sorrow but would also bring quite a bit of satisfaction.

So don't blame the executioner, blame the system that may have some flaws but tries to be fair or at least was originally drafted to be fair.

So much of the document that controls or doesn't control the justice system has been perverted or disregarded by both parties that it is a shell of it's former self.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Zeb? What happens when you find out later the man was innocent? Shrug manfully and say, "You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs?"

Box? I mean there are, so far as I know, no rich people on Death Row. Plus as you pointed out minorities are heavily over-represented.

Your suggestions are good, but until humans are perfect every system we make will be imperfect. And an imperfect system will convict innocents.

So far as the death penalty being a political tool goes, see my point about rich people waiting execution. That is a political choice. The politics of the U.S. decides who lives and who dies.

Okay, now you know about a wealthy man on Death Row:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,512776,00.html

ETA: If you want to know about the percerntages by race and gender, here it is:
http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=86

This particular group is opposed to the death penalty, so I don't know how accurate their figures are. Black people are heavily overrepresented, but that's the only minority that is. I think if you look, they are represented by about the same proportions in prisons also. In fact, if you look on the police blotters of the nation, you would find similar proportions.

 

[Boxlicker101]

pure said //perhaps the best arguement, aside form inevitable mistakes, is that executing persons coarsens and defiles the executioners [and their bosses, and by extension, the whole ruling stratum of society.]//


VM replied I keep seeing this argument made. I never see any evidence to back it up.[...]. Why does executing such a subhuman 'coarsen and defile' the rest of us?

Well, here's one bit of evidence from our own sweet boxman:

Box said

I would rather be the one who tied the rope around the scum's neck and signalled to the mob to hoist him up so he could slowly choke to death.

The movie "Monster's Ball" deals with some of the phenomena i mentioned.

Yeah, but I've always been pretty coarse. Besides that, I was referring to the one specific person, and that was more for his crime of raping the ten year old than the murder. If it had been only the latter, I wouldn't have even started the thread.

What kind of movie is "Monster's Ball?" It doesn't sound like the kind of movie I would take seriously when it came to making social comment.