The Shotgun Blog
« Grant Brown: "Diaper duty revisited" | Main | Record oil profits, regular profit margins »
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Hurrah, the Death Penalty is Back!
Georgia today had the honour of being the first state to execute a criminal following the Supreme Court's lifting of a temporary death penalty moratorium. I realize that some here have religious or ideological objections to capital punishment but, I suspect it goes without saying that I am not among those individuals.
Indeed, I am for the death penalty not only on practical grounds ("no dead criminal re-offends") but on philosophical grounds as well. The refusal to use the death penalty to punish criminals - a tool used by pretty much all known human societies since the beginning of time - is a sure sign of civilizational decadence and decline. The death penalty isn't merely about the offender and the victim - it is the recognition that there exist absolute and unforgivable offenses which are not merely against human law, but against natural law as well.
No one will miss this sub-human trash:
Lynd, 53, was sentenced to die for kidnapping and shooting his live-in girlfriend, Ginger Moore, three times in the face and head two decades ago. After he buried Moore's body in a shallow grave near a south Georgia farm, authorities said Lynd fled to Ohio, where he shot and killed another woman who had stopped along the side of the road to help him.
When we kill a criminal such as this, we reaffirm our own belief in humanity and civilization. Killing someone like this is a way of expressing our own self-confidence - it is a way of saying, "yes, we are certain enough of ourselves and our collective morality that we are going to write you out of the human race." It is the judgement of civilization that such people should die.
The real pity is that we can't use the death penalty for more offenses. Look, for example, to the case of Josef Fritzl in Austria. It is regrettable that Europe has abolished the death penalty - and that the death penalty has been more-or-less abolished for crimes other than murder in the United States because, quite frankly, I can think of few creatures who deserved to die more than this... thing... does. Killing him would be a collective reaffirmation of our own humanity.
Now, of course, there are many - and I'm sure many here - who aren't comfortable with such power being in the hands of the state. I thoroughly disagree here. Given that the death penalty would - even if I was allowed to extend it to rapists, child molesters, and some other criminals - be fairly narrowly applied. It is a power which will only touch upon the vilest things which walk the Earth. The use of the death penalty - as authorized by the will of a jury of one's peers - is one of the narrow powers that the state ought to have.
After all, the state - at least in a libertarian state - is a repository for those functions - contracts, law enforcement, national defense, international relations - which cannot (or should not) be exercised on an individual level. If you assume that, in the state of nature, mobs would simply kill rapists, child molesters, murderers, and the like then it is fair to say that the obligation of the state to carry out this function is implicit in the social contract.
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on May 6, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e5522af7198834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hurrah, the Death Penalty is Back!:
Comments
Why not execute that guy in Austria who kept his own daughter in a cell and had 7 kids with her - and even had relations with one of them!
I know I'd sleep well after that execution.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-05-06 8:01:27 PM
Adam, your post betrays a surprising amount of confidence in the criminal justice system. I am afraid I cannot share your confidence. Given the number of individuals wrongfully convicted of murder, the chances of an innocent person being executed are far too high for comfort. Now, life in solitary confinement without any chance of parole, this is something I could support.
Posted by: Jonathan W | 2008-05-06 8:45:52 PM
The United States has among the the highest rate of murder in the world. Death Penalty does not deter.
The Death penalty costs more than life incarceration.
The Death Penalty has resulted in at least 120 innocent people killed by the state.
Under what circumstances would you allow the government to kill you?
Posted by: Murray | 2008-05-06 8:59:26 PM
I mostly agree with Adam's points on the death penalty. There is nothing I would like better than seeing the likes of Paul Bernardo, & Clifford Olson "fry", until I saw news footage of our boy Paul sitting in his jail cell no bigger than a broom closet for 23 hours a day. That has to be worse than death. "Enjoy" Paul. glenn
Posted by: glenn | 2008-05-06 9:22:30 PM
Better a 1000 guilty people go free than one innocent be convicted. Especially to death row. Never forget the police and prosecution want one thing, and one thing only, and that is a conviction. The truth is a lesser priority in the end no matter what they say.
Adam, if your son was on death row, wrongfully convicted, would you still support it?
Posted by: TM | 2008-05-06 9:25:14 PM
The idea that we shouldn't have the death penalty because of the minute possibility of error (has it ever been proven that an innocent person was actually executed?) is absurd. Every activity carries with it the possibility of innocent collateral damage. Arguing that we shouldn't have the death penalty because there is a tiny possibility that an innocent person could be killed is like arguing that the police shouldn't shoot at people shooting at them because of the possibility of collateral damage. Minimize the possibility, to be sure, but we can never make it impossible.
It certianly is not better to let a thousand guilty people go free than it is to kill one innocent one. After all, in letting a thousand people go free, we're certianly doomed many times that single individual to being victimized by crime.
"If my son was on death row" - it's not very likely. It's policy development by emoting. If we judged every policy by how we'd feel if our own family was to be victimized by it, we wouldn't ever do anything.
More to the point, my Son - or your son - wouldn't be very likely to land on death row unless they were actually guilty. People without previous criminal records tend to land on death row only when they've committed truly terrible crimes and there is absolutely no doubt as to their guilt (see Peterson, Scott). Most of the disputed cases where guilt is more marginal involve career criminals and cases where, understandably, the prosecution was more zealous in view of the history of the accused. I can say, absolutely, that the thought of a career criminal being put to death for some crime that they didn't happen to commit doesn't trouble me very much.
An equally absurd position is the one expressed by some people here:
a) We shouldn't have the death penalty because of the possibility of the innocent being victimized.
and
b) We shouldn't have the death penalty because life in prison is a worse punishment.
I don't agree with either but, logically, wouldn't the obvious end of your position be that the innocent would now be potentially subjected to a punishment that you, yourselves, describe as being "worse than death"?
Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-05-06 9:39:33 PM
Adam: You find my points absurd? That's o,k. I guess, but don't you remember what Paul Bernardo did to those schoolgirls?, or what Clifford Olson did to those kids? I still believe their fate should be worse than being put to sleep by a needle.
Posted by: glenn | 2008-05-06 10:13:14 PM
If there is proof without a doubt that someone is guilty of murder, then let's get rid of this human garbage.
Posted by: peterj | 2008-05-06 10:17:28 PM
Give me a break, Glenn. I don't think that you, or anyone else for that matter, genuinely believes that life in prison is a "worse fate." It's just a talking point to make you sound tough, like liberals when they talk about Afghanistan these days.
Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-05-07 12:18:31 AM
A majority of the world has abandoned the use of capital punishment. The U.S. and Japan are the only industrialized nations to continue this barbaric practice. 5 countries account for 88% of executions - China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the U.S. No civilized nation kills its own citizens.
Posted by: Dr. Michael B. Blankenship | 2008-05-07 12:22:43 AM
Adam asks "has it ever been proven that an innocent person was actually executed?"
Of course -- millions of innocent individuals have been executed by their governments just in the 20th century. Perhaps that's not what you meant by your question, but it is relevant to the issue and should maybe give you pause.
You should take a look at the Innocence Project, they use DNA evidence to exonerate individuals wrongfully convicted of crimes. Since they have limited resources, are trying to right wrongs and because the availability of DNA evidence is pretty poor after execution, they don't focus on posthumous exonerations, but their efforts have led to 200 innocent men let free including 16 who were on death row.
Here's a list courtesy of Wikipedia of exonerated death row inmates, some of whom were only proved innocent after their deaths:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates
It is a small virtue of the system in the U.S. that the long time spent on death row allows for appeals and investigations to prevent wrongful executions, but if life imprisonment were the maximum sentence instead of irreversible executions, it would always be the case that a man, once proven innocent, could be freed and justice be better served.
Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 2008-05-07 12:24:09 AM
Didn't someone once say "Thou shalt not kill"?
It was in a book somewhere.
CONservatives don't read it much anymore.
Posted by: joe bleau | 2008-05-07 2:10:03 AM
peterj is absolutely right, it has to be "without a doubt" before the death penalty can be carried out.
joe bleau, the Bible you attempt to quote states "You shall not murder", a different word than "kill". Scripture is clearly pro-death penalty, with the crux of the entire Bible (the death of Jesus) resting on a valid position of a government executing its criminals. You could argue around it if you really want to ignore certain parts of the Bible, but it cannot be denied that the Old Testament (Torah for Jews, Tawrat for Muslims) clearly makes acceptable the use of corporal punishment in sentencing.
It is only in our 'civilized' and 'modern' world-view that we think state-sanctioned criminal execution is immoral...even while we have rejected any absolute morality...figure that one out...
FWIW, I am of the mind that the guillotine is the most humane method of execution. Efficient, cheap, instantaneous, does not leave the subject in pain, and cannot go wrong. If you can get over it's stigma, I figure it makes more sense than the electric chair. But that's just my opinion.
Posted by: Eldon Murray | 2008-05-07 6:08:06 AM
The history books have it that the state sets the moral tone of the people.
If the state can justify killing, then so can the people.
Why not life imprisonment with the offer of an easy suicide any time the individual has had enough of prison?
Posted by: Chris Buors | 2008-05-07 6:42:24 AM
"The idea that we shouldn't have the death penalty because of the minute possibility of error (has it ever been proven that an innocent person was actually executed?) is absurd"
As Kalim pointed out, Adam, the possibility of error is not that minute. This website:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=45&did=292
Provides some intersting stats. I found this passage particularly chilling:
"For the original 48 cases, it took an average of approximately six and a half years between conviction and eventual release. With the 21 additional cases included in this report, the average time spent on death row before release is now about seven years. This length of time is important because both state and federal legislation in recent years will shorten the length of time death row inmates have before their execution. Currently, the average time between sentencing and execution is eight years. If that time is cut in half, then the typical innocent defendant on death row will be executed before it is discovered that a fatal mistake has been made. "
Adam - your position seems to be that you don't care if innocent people are put to death by the state, as long as it doesn't happen too often, or as long as they're "bad" people. This is truly a deranged view of justice.
Posted by: Angela | 2008-05-07 7:15:27 AM
Jonathan, whether you offer the convicted a quick death on the gallows or a slow death in solitary confinement, the end result is the same--you're taking someone's life. If you re-read your argument, you'll realize you have just pronounced it acceptable to jail an innocent for life. The truth is neither is acceptable. Any argument against the death penalty on such grounds is also an argument against life without parole, or indeed any judicial power of punishment at all, also on the same grounds.
Also, the concept of justice is not defined as something you or any other citizen can live with. Justice is defined as reward for virtue, punishment for wrong, as personified by the blind lady with scales in one hand and a sword in the other. Justice recks of nothing but the truth. There is nothing just about sending the wrong man to jail. If you're confident enough to send a man up the river for life, you're confident enough to stretch his neck on the gallows--or you're confident enough to do NOTHING.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-07 8:23:36 AM
Murray wrote: “The United States has among the the highest rate of murder in the world. Death Penalty does not deter.”
The murder rate was highest in the 1970s, the years without the death penalty. Since its reinstatement the murder rate has fallen to not only the lowest in 25 years, but also lower than the average rate for the entire 20th century. What, therefore, do you base this statement on?
Murray wrote: “The Death penalty costs more than life incarceration.”
Only because people like you oppose it.
Murray wrote: “The Death Penalty has resulted in at least 120 innocent people killed by the state.”
As far as I am aware, NO man has ever been proven innocent subsequent to execution in the United States.
Murray wrote: “Under what circumstances would you allow the government to kill you?”
If I were a murderer, a rapist, a terrorist, a robber, or stupid enough to engage the police in combat. However, you betray your liberal-narcissistic tendencies by even asking this question, because what is just and what is not is dictated by the truth, not what people think, or would allow to be done to them if they had the power to prevent it. People are selfish and will often shirk responsibility wherever possible, but that doesn’t mean they’re not responsible.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-07 8:32:15 AM
TM wrote: “Better a 1000 guilty people go free than one innocent be convicted. Especially to death row.”
That is an emotional argument and therefore false on its face. And what about this: Suppose of those 1,000 freed felons, ten kill again? You’ve just traded ten lives for one. The real-life exchange rate would likely be even higher, as recidivism rates for murder are about 15 percent.
TM wrote: “Never forget the police and prosecution want one thing, and one thing only, and that is a conviction. The truth is a lesser priority in the end no matter what they say.”
This is your opinion, and an unsupported opinion at that. Police wouldn’t have spent years amassing hundreds of thousands of exhibits in the Robert Pickton case if they wanted to be anything less then certain they had the right man. Abuses as you describe do happen, but they’re rare. You’ve been watching TV again, haven’t you?
TM wrote: “Adam, if your son was on death row, wrongfully convicted, would you still support it?”
“What if” is a game for scholars…and activists with so few facts on their side they have to resort to emotional pleas.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-07 8:37:11 AM
Dr. Michael B. Blankenship, hereinafter referred to as “he-of-the-long-and-pompous-name” wrote: “A majority of the world has abandoned the use of capital punishment.”
Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy, doctor. Nice try.
He-of-the-long-and-pompous-name wrote: “The U.S. and Japan are the only industrialized nations to continue this barbaric practice.”
China isn’t industrialized? Then where is all that smog coming from? And isn’t Iran developing nuclear power? Honestly, capital punishment has been outlawed in the West for less than a generation and already you’re using it as a hard litmus test between civilized/barbarian? Suffering a bit of generational hubris, are we, doctor?
He-of-the-long-and-pompous-name wrote: “5 countries account for 88% of executions - China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the U.S.”
And tell me, what is the crime rate in Saudi Arabia?
He-of-the-long-and-pompous-name wrote: “No civilized nation kills its own citizens.”
Ah, yes: Civilized no longer means “An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions.” Rather, it means, “Thinks like me.” Now I know you are suffering from hubris for certain.
But then, there was never any doubt, was there? From the moment you identified yourself as “Doctor” I knew we were in for some overweening academic bloviating. It would appear that a university degree is no guarantor of intelligence or common sense. I think the underachieving baby boom generation has pretty much shattered that myth.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-07 8:46:58 AM
Actually, Joe Blow, the correct translation of the original Hebrew text is "You shall not MURDER." Elsewhere in the very same chapter of that revered document you can find numerous instances in which the use of capital punishment was authorized. Pity that, even in Exodus, there is no death penalty for being a fool.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-07 8:50:49 AM
Shane wrote:
"Any argument against the death penalty on such grounds is also an argument against life without parole, or indeed any judicial power of punishment at all, also on the same grounds."
Not true. In every case, except with the death penalty, a person can subsequently be set free should they be exonerated.
"The murder rate was highest in the 1970s, the years without the death penalty. Since its reinstatement the murder rate has fallen to not only the lowest in 25 years, but also lower than the average rate for the entire 20th century."
There are a number of theories as to why the murder rate fell. You can't take this type of correlation, in the presence of so many other factors, and assume causation. Even if the death penalty acts as a deterrent (and this is a big "if") that doesn't necessarily justify it. Subjecting convicted criminals to torture may act as a deterrent too, but that doesn't mean the state should do it.
"As far as I am aware, NO man has ever been proven innocent subsequent to execution in the United States."
That's not particularly surprising, since it would be kind of pointless to make efforts to prove the innocence of someone who's already dead. There was significant evidence in many cases, however (ex. Jesse Tafero, Wayne Felker, Cameron Willingham) that people have been executed who were not guilty.
Posted by: Angela | 2008-05-07 8:53:14 AM
Of course, Chris; the state provides specific circumstances under which the individual can legally kill another human, usually in defence of life against unprovoked attack. The state can't whack anyone it likes for any reason it likes, either. But you must not speak of the state as though it were a separate entity, discrete from the people. In this country the state IS the people, OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people. And it is the will of the majority of the American people that executions should continue.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-07 8:53:22 AM
First of all, Angela, in many cases these "exonerated" individuals were not proven innocent--it is impossible to prove a negative--but rather had key pieces of the evidence against them ruled inadmissible for one reason or another. That's not proof of innocence. It merely casts enough doubt on their guilt to warrant their release. Look at any case closely enough and you'll find holes, especially if you have the luxury of eight years to do it. I'm not saying everyone of these men was guilty; many probably weren't. But it's not as cut and dried as you make out.
Also, let's face the facts: There will always be miscarriages of justice, just as there will always be crime, always be poverty, always be war. These realities stem from the fact that Man is a flawed creature who nevertheless tries to bring order to a chaotic world. To dismiss any institution as barbaric or unspeakable because it is not perfect is to throw eggs at your own shadow. I find an imperfect justice system preferable to none at all, and so should you, and you more than I. For I am likely better able to protect myself than you are.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-07 9:11:23 AM
Shane wrote:
"And tell me, what is the crime rate in Saudi Arabia?"
In the early 2000s, the murder rate in Saudi Arabia was about 0.92 per 100,000, which is pretty low. It was lower in Luxembourg, Austria, and Greece, none of which have the death penalty. It was also significantly higher in the U.S. (7.6) vs. Canada (1.67).
In Saudi Arabia they cut people's hands off for stealing. In 1996 they cut someone's head off for practicing withcraft. Do you really think we should be taking any cues from their "legal" system, whatever their crime rate happens to be?
Posted by: Angela | 2008-05-07 9:16:52 AM
Shane,
In the three cases I mentioned, the individuals' convictions were (or should have been) overturned based on: someone else confessing to the crime, DNA evidence and autopsy information that was witheld by the prosecution, and the discovery that evidence had been tampered with at an arson site which made it appear as though an accelerant had been used. They weren't cases of evidence being ruled inadmissable.
I also find an imperfect justice system preferable to none at all. Would you argue that countries that don't kill criminals have, effectively, "no" justice system? Despite the cases that the fear-mongering media likes to present to us on a regular basis, the majority of the time when guilty people are put on trial they are convicted and locked up. That's enough for me. I don't need them slaughtered on mass to make me feel "safer".
Posted by: Angela | 2008-05-07 9:26:15 AM
O.K. Adam, if the death penalty actually was here, and you were given the opportunity to " throw the switch", so to speak, would you? Are you a killer Adam?
Posted by: glenn | 2008-05-07 9:33:43 AM
Actually, Angela, your point that an exonerated person can be set free (provided he has not been executed) is only a partial point in your favour. How can you ever return that man’s lost years to him? The answer is, you can’t. You can’t undo the years of suffering he endured. An executed man, on the other hand, feels nothing. So in a way, your methods are crueller.
As for why the murder rate has fallen, there are many theories as to what has brought about this happy reversal, including America’s much-maligned incarceration rate. Those who object to the death penalty in favour of life without parole also tend to object to the high numbers of incarcerated felons. Sort of like how environmentalists who hate big oil often advocate the use of synthetics and plastics (which are all derived from oil and non-renewable) over cotton, wool, and wood (which are all renewable). I think it’s more pro forma than anything else. Most people don’t put much thought into their views, since they’re primarily a product of peer identity, not deductive reasoning.
And your assumption is wrong: If the death penalty works, that alone justifies it, provided the harm done does not exceed the good done. No one can argue with any gravity that the number of innocents executed exceeds the number of lives saved by the drop in the murder rate, which amounts to THOUSANDS EVERY YEAR. So before you embark on a moralistic crusade, please remember that you may ultimately lose more than you save.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-07 9:34:30 AM
Should we be taking cues from the Arabian legal system, Angela? Only if what they're doing has been proven to work. The low murder rates in Europe are due to the fact that until recently their countries were not melting pots for immigrants and very homogenous. For instance, in the early 1900s Germany executed about 15 people per year, in spite of the fact that you were far more likely to get the death penalty for murder than in the U.S. today. England, same thing. Of course, now that Europe is being flooded with immigrants from the Middle East and Africa, their murder and crime rates have skyrocketed.
The U.S., and to a lesser extent Canada, have violence problems because they are immigrant nations. If you remove the black-on-black murder component from the murder rates in the U.S., they drop below those of Canada. (Up to 80 percent of murders and murder victims in the U.S. are black, although they comprise only 13 percent of the population.) America is a special case and always has been. Why people insist on comparing it to countries that bear no resemblance to it is beyond me.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-07 9:39:57 AM
"Actually, Angela, your point that an exonerated person can be set free (provided he has not been executed) is only a partial point in your favour. How can you ever return that man’s lost years to him? The answer is, you can’t. You can’t undo the years of suffering he endured. An executed man, on the other hand, feels nothing. So in a way, your methods are crueller."
Why don't you talk to someone who has been exonerated and released from prison and ask him if he would have preferred to have been executed, Shane? It's unfortunate when years of someone's life are wasted in this way, but it's the lesser of the evils.
"And your assumption is wrong: If the death penalty works, that alone justifies it, provided the harm done does not exceed the good done. No one can argue with any gravity that the number of innocents executed exceeds the number of lives saved by the drop in the murder rate, which amounts to THOUSANDS EVERY YEAR."
Again, you're assuming that having the death penalty automatically equals a drop in the murder rate, which I have never seen proven. If a convicted murderer is imprisoned for life without the possibility of parole then he's not going to be killing any more innocent people, and should he be subsequently proven to be innocent himself then at least the state would not have innocent blood on their hands, as they would had they executed him.
Posted by: Angela | 2008-05-07 9:42:00 AM
Glenn wrote: "O.K. Adam, if the death penalty actually was here, and you were given the opportunity to " throw the switch", so to speak, would you? Are you a killer Adam?"
Still relying on emotional blackmail and "what-ifs," Glenn? Honestly, what would you Leftish types do without emotion to appeal to? Because you certainly have little enough regard for the truth. You don't care what the facts of the case are. You only care about what makes you feel good.
And to answer your question: Yes, I would throw the switch. Particularly the one that cuts the power to your mouth.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-07 9:44:16 AM
"The U.S., and to a lesser extent Canada, have violence problems because they are immigrant nations. If you remove the black-on-black murder component from the murder rates in the U.S., they drop below those of Canada. (Up to 80 percent of murders and murder victims in the U.S. are black, although they comprise only 13 percent of the population.)"
I'm afraid I'm not fully understanding your point, Shane. The death penalty acts as an effective deterrent...except not for black people?
Posted by: Angela | 2008-05-07 9:46:18 AM
Angela wrote: “Why don't you talk to someone who has been exonerated and released from prison and ask him if he would have preferred to have been executed, Shane? It's unfortunate when years of someone's life are wasted in this way, but it's the lesser of the evils.”
Why don’t you? Many people would rather die than spend their lives behind bars, as evinced by the fact that they are willing to battle the police for what they know is likely to be borrowed time, even a little time. Of course once you’ve been in and you’ve been institutionalized, things change, often to the point where you dread getting back out. That’s the trouble with liberals—they don’t understand the criminal mind. Probably because of their naïve belief that all people are good unless forced to be otherwise.
Angela wrote: “Again, you're assuming that having the death penalty automatically equals a drop in the murder rate, which I have never seen proven. If a convicted murderer is imprisoned for life without the possibility of parole then he's not going to be killing any more innocent people, and should he be subsequently proven to be innocent himself then at least the state would not have innocent blood on their hands, as they would had they executed him.”
Tell it to the parents of the girls that Ted Bundy killed after he escaped from prison, Angela. We just had two hardened killers escape from minimum-security institutions here in Vancouver in the last few weeks. Fugitives are extremely dangerous; if a man is willing to kill when he is safe, he is even more likely to kill while on the lam. Moreover, laws change much over the years; pardons are granted, sentences are commuted, and so forth. Life without parole is NO guarantee that man will never kill again. The only thing that can keep that promise is the noose. There is no escaping this simple fact, distasteful as you might find it.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-07 9:56:02 AM
Angela wrote: "I'm afraid I'm not fully understanding your point, Shane. The death penalty acts as an effective deterrent...except not for black people?"
Actually, virtually all the gains in the reduction of the murder rate have been among blacks. The white-on-white murder rate is actually up slightly. But the rate among blacks has declined sharply. Blacks are also more likely to be executed for the same crime than a white person. Not proof of causation...but a convincing correlation nonetheless, and another nail in the coffin of your "deterrent" argument.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-07 9:58:07 AM
Shane wrote:
"Many people would rather die than spend their lives behind bars"
So....then doesn't life in prison offer just as much (if not more) of a deterrent as the death penalty?
"Of course once you’ve been in and you’ve been institutionalized, things change, often to the point where you dread getting back out."
Someone's seen The Shawshank Redemption one too many times.
Do you really think that someone like Guy Paul Morin, who was in prison for many years but then exonerated, would rather have just been executed instead of losing those years?
"We just had two hardened killers escape from minimum-security institutions here in Vancouver in the last few weeks. Fugitives are extremely dangerous; if a man is willing to kill when he is safe, he is even more likely to kill while on the lam."
Did either of these people kill anyone while "on the lam"? Didn't one of them turn himself in a couple of days later? But I see your point, Shane - these dangerous people should never have been allowed to escape. But the answer to that is to house them in more secure prison, not to kill them.
In a state that sanctions the death penalty, there will always be a chance that innocent people will be executed. In a state that doesn't, there will always be a chance that murderers will be set free or escape, and possibly kill again. Both options are distateful. The difference is that in one case, we are holding the state up to a higher standard than cold-blooded killers.
"Not proof of causation...but a convincing correlation nonetheless, and another nail in the coffin of your "deterrent" argument."
I don't find this argument all that convincing. So black people are more likely to be executed, and the crime rate is falling among black people, ergo the death penalty is a deterrent? That's pretty weak. Do you really think that a person, before committing a violent crime, sits down thinks about the probable punishment of that crime and weighs the pros and cons of committing it? While the probability of getting caught may have a deterrent effect, I haven't seen any evidence that the punishment (life in prison vs. execution) does.
Posted by: Angela | 2008-05-07 10:31:15 AM
Angela wrote: “So....then doesn't life in prison offer just as much (if not more) of a deterrent as the death penalty?”
But not as much safety for the rest of us.
Angela wrote: “Someone's seen The Shawshank Redemption one too many times. Do you really think that someone like Guy Paul Morin, who was in prison for many years but then exonerated, would rather have just been executed instead of losing those years?”
If you had asked him at the beginning of his sentence, he might have. However, I think you’re dwelling too much on this point, as justice does not consist of asking people what they want. This is evidence of an emotive, rather than a substantive, approach to justice.
Angela wrote: “Did either of these people kill anyone while "on the lam"? Didn't one of them turn himself in a couple of days later? But I see your point, Shane - these dangerous people should never have been allowed to escape. But the answer to that is to house them in more secure prison, not to kill them.”
One of them (the more dangerous one, the one classed as a “dangerous offender”) is still on the lam, so the question remains open. And your last sentence constitutes an opinion, not a fact. I reiterate: NO prison can protect society from a murderer as well as can a pine box. There is no point in trying to argue the point because you have nothing, aside from emotional concerns, with which to argue. You couldn’t possibly—unless you can prove that people rise from the dead.
Angela wrote: “In a state that sanctions the death penalty, there will always be a chance that innocent people will be executed. In a state that doesn't, there will always be a chance that murderers will be set free or escape, and possibly kill again. Both options are distateful. The difference is that in one case, we are holding the state up to a higher standard than cold-blooded killers.”
Again, emotional concern, and irrelevant. The responsible approach is realistic risk management, not doing whatever it takes to make you prouder while preening in front of the mirror. That’s another problem with liberals—they can’t get past the fact that everything isn’t about them. And since a majority of Americans support capital punishment, for whom else do you speak when you use the pronoun “we”?
"Not proof of causation...but a convincing correlation nonetheless, and another nail in the coffin of your "deterrent" argument."
Angela wrote: “I don't find this argument all that convincing. So black people are more likely to be executed, and the crime rate is falling among black people, ergo the death penalty is a deterrent? That's pretty weak.”
It is stronger than what you have, which is, “Oh, I hold the state to a higher standard than I hold criminals, so even if my approach results in more total dead, it’s still the right one, because it’s me.”
Angela wrote: “Do you really think that a person, before committing a violent crime, sits down thinks about the probable punishment of that crime and weighs the pros and cons of committing it? While the probability of getting caught may have a deterrent effect, I haven't seen any evidence that the punishment (life in prison vs. execution) does.”
Perhaps due to the fact that it is very uncommon these days to get a sentence. If the death sentence were applied for ALL cases of first-degree murder, I expect you’d notice a large difference. Let me put it to you this way—if you KNEW, with reasonable certainty, that a given course of action WOULD result in dying while tied and helpless, would you do it? Plan it in advance, even? How many people do you suppose would? And do you really think society is better off for including in its embrace those who would answer “Yes” to that question?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-07 10:48:23 AM
Shane wrote: "That's the trouble with Liberals - they don't understand the criminal mind". I take it you're an expert in criminology Shane? And you claim to know how all Liberals think, like you might know them all personally.
Posted by: glenn | 2008-05-07 10:55:32 AM
The issue boils down to how much one trusts the state. You would need to trust the conviction oriented gov't to get the right guy and to be responsible with the power to kill. You'd also have to trust them not to expand the scope of the death penalty.
Sorry, I don't even trust the state to provide my health care and now they are ruining the dynamics in the food supply. You want me to endorse these losers with the power to kill? Give your head a shake, Adam. Stop looking up to the gov't as if they are competent, respectable people. They are swine. Don't give them the power to kill.
Posted by: abc | 2008-05-07 10:58:17 AM
abc, I agree with you. The state couldn't even make cookies taste good, let alone do things like end poverty. Giving them the power of life and death over anyone is scary. They already have broad and sweeping power over us.
A better solution might be to change the gun laws.
Posted by: TM | 2008-05-07 11:07:13 AM
"Again, emotional concern, and irrelevant. The responsible approach is realistic risk management, not doing whatever it takes to make you prouder while preening in front of the mirror. That’s another problem with liberals—they can’t get past the fact that everything isn’t about them. And since a majority of Americans support capital punishment, for whom else do you speak when you use the pronoun “we”?"
How is this being emotional and irrelevant? You're talking about the potential death of innocent people and so am I. And I'm not speaking of Americans when I use "we" - I'm Canadian. Last time I checked we didn't have the death penalty in Canada.
"It is stronger than what you have, which is, “Oh, I hold the state to a higher standard than I hold criminals, so even if my approach results in more total dead, it’s still the right one, because it’s me.”"
The fact that you can't make a point without completely distorting my argument just serves to emphasize the weakness of your position. I never said anything close to the above. I said that your argument regarding the deterrent effect of the death penalty was weak. Some facts that demostrate this are: there is no death penalty in Canada, but our murder rate is lower than the U.S. The death penalty used to be used in Canada, and the murder rate actually declined when we abolished it.
"Let me put it to you this way—if you KNEW, with reasonable certainty, that a given course of action WOULD result in dying while tied and helpless, would you do it? "
First off, there's never going to be a way for criminals to KNOW that their actions will result in their death. Most people who commit a crime don't think they're going to get caught. Morever, a good chunk of murders are committed by family members and spouses and constitute "crimes of passion" - so there's very little thinking involved. There are also a large number of murders committed in the context of gang violence - again, not much thinking - or by the mentally ill. It is very rare for a murder to be carefully and thoughtfully planned out. If one were to plan out a murder in this fashion, the potential of spending life in prison would likely act as a deterrent equal to the death penalty.
Posted by: Angela | 2008-05-07 11:47:32 AM
Glenn wrote: "I take it you're an expert in criminology Shane? And you claim to know how all Liberals think, like you might know them all personally."
You don't need any special training to know the criminal mind, Glenn. You just need to know human nature and accept it for what it is. Liberals can't, or more likely won't. Apparently they are unable to acknowledge that some humans are flawed from the outset because they feel it somehow cheapens their own existence, although for the life of me I can't think why. Perhaps it stems from their collectivist outlook--the idea that everyone is responsible for everyone.
Of course, by "liberal" I mean "contemporary Leftist," not liberals in the classical sense. Just one of many words that has been perverted from its original meaning. I used it because most people will understand what I mean by it, not because I was unaware of its true origin. Perhaps I should have said "Leftists" instead. At least it's not as long-winded as "well-meaning but naive and self-absorbed nincompoops."
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-07 11:50:43 AM
Actually, Angela, murderers are almost always caught. The crook knows that. Everyone knows that. Maybe, like the idiot who starts mainlining heroin, they think they’ll be the one in a thousand who beats the odds and avoids the hook. It says something about criminals that they can be stupid enough to believe that. However, the great majority of criminals are not murderers, although many more probably would be if the penalties for murder were lighter.
Also, I am aware that any form of deterrence will have little effect on “crime of passion” murders. I’m also aware that, even in Texas, one doesn’t typically get the death penalty for them. Take the case of that woman who ran down her husband and dragged him under the car a ways because she believed him to be unfaithful. She received twenty years, not death. Or that woman who drowned her five children and received life in prison, not death. I would have executed them both, but the Americans are more generous—or perhaps more realistic about what they can get past the “bleeding hearts,” particularly when the offender is a woman.
Murders in the drug trade, however, are usually planned in advance. Street murders perpetrated in Toronto’s black community are usually also planned. Drive-by shootings are always planned. And these murders constitute a considerable threat to public safety, often catching innocents in the crossfire. There is NO reason to let such specimens live. It would be a fine idea to apply the death penalty to drug trafficking as well.
In any case, even if the death penalty provides no deterrent at all, there is more to it than that. There’s a little thing called justice, wherein you receive your just desserts. There’s also the public safety factor, which I have covered above. The antis have not made a convincing case that capital punishment does more harm than good. They best they can do is point out that the administration is not perfect and that there will always be crime regardless. Their argument is not, therefore, a strong one.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-07 12:01:11 PM
TM wrote: "A better solution might be to change the gun laws."
So the argument here is that banning murder doesn’t work and banning marijuana doesn’t work and banning liquor doesn’t work, but banning guns and banning dogs and banning tobacco will?
The day that Leftists face up to their capacity for self-delusion, and therefore acquire a modicum of sense, will be the day that pigs get wings.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-07 12:04:45 PM
ABC wrote: “The issue boils down to how much one trusts the state. You would need to trust the conviction oriented gov't to get the right guy and to be responsible with the power to kill. You'd also have to trust them not to expand the scope of the death penalty.”
No, the issue boils down to semantics. You trust the state enough to take away the prime of a man’s life and perhaps the entire remainder, but not to stretch his neck? And why is expanding the scope of the death penalty a bad thing, provided the populace agrees and fundamental justice is served?
ABC wrote: “Sorry, I don't even trust the state to provide my health care and now they are ruining the dynamics in the food supply. You want me to endorse these losers with the power to kill? Give your head a shake, Adam. Stop looking up to the gov't as if they are competent, respectable people. They are swine. Don't give them the power to kill.”
If they’re swine, ABC, that means the people are too, because it was the people who put them there. Describing the government as “losers” smacks of anarchy, so perhaps you have real grounds to fear a crackdown on criminal behaviour. That doesn’t amount to an argument against it, however.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-07 12:08:33 PM
Giving the government the power of life and death over rapists, murderers, child molesters, and so forth is actually less serious, so far as I'm concerned, than giving them the power to regulate economic life, levy taxes, and so forth - since those powers are infinitely more likely to touch upon me than those. Also, this is the one power of the state which is mediated by ordinary citizens in the form of a jury.
Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-05-07 12:13:19 PM
"Actually, Angela, murderers are almost always caught. The crook knows that. Everyone knows that."
So if murderers are almost always caught and the murderers know that, then how come there are still murders in death penalty states?
"blah blah blah...particularly when the offender is a woman"
Does this have anything to do with the death penalty discussion, or are you just clouding the issue?
"Murders in the drug trade, however, are usually planned in advance. Street murders perpetrated in Toronto’s black community are usually also planned. Drive-by shootings are always planned. "
I didn't say there was no planning. I said there wasn't much thinking. People planning this type of murder are usually young and stupid and trying to prove something, which is why the possibility of a death sentence will have very little if any deterrent effect. If they're already living the "gang" lifestyle, they can't have all that much fear of dying.
"There is NO reason to let such specimens live. It would be a fine idea to apply the death penalty to drug trafficking as well."
I'm going to steal one of your phrases: This is your opinion, and an unsupported opinion at that.
It's your choice to place no value on certain human lives. Not everyone agrees with you.
"There’s a little thing called justice, wherein you receive your just desserts. "
The "eye for an eye" approach is not everyone's idea of justice.
Posted by: Angela | 2008-05-07 12:39:27 PM
Angela wrote: “So if murderers are almost always caught and the murderers know that, then how come there are still murders in death penalty states?”
As I believe I have said, many criminals have the ability to convince themselves that they will escape capture, whatever the odds. That makes them stupid as well as brutal, and some just enjoy the insane risk.
Angela wrote: “Does this have anything to do with the death penalty discussion, or are you just clouding the issue?”
Interesting that you chose to make an entire bullet item out of such a minor and inconsequential sub-point. I haven’t unwittingly touched a nerve, by any chance?
Angela wrote: “I didn't say there was no planning. I said there wasn't much thinking.”
Not by you when you wrote that sentence, at any rate. You can’t plan without thinking.
Angela wrote: “People planning this type of murder are usually young and stupid and trying to prove something, which is why the possibility of a death sentence will have very little if any deterrent effect.”
But a death sentence will stop them from doing it again, and remove a dangerous threat from our streets.
Angela wrote: “If they're already living the "gang" lifestyle, they can't have all that much fear of dying.”
Then they’ve nothing to lose if we oblige them.
Angela wrote: “I'm going to steal one of your phrases: This is your opinion, and an unsupported opinion at that.”
Opinion, yes, but not unsupported. Support can be found in the very same sentence, wherein the great dangerous drug crime poses to society are outlined. There is less reason to let them live than there is to kill them. It sounds terrible, but they’re terrible people doing terrible things, to which end I would not enable them by letting them live.
Angela wrote: “It's your choice to place no value on certain human lives. Not everyone agrees with you.”
Most of the ones who object do so on emotional and ultimately self-serving rather than objective, substantive, or even ethical grounds, so their opinions matter little. Uninformed and unthinking bias may be equal with reasoned opinion at the ballot box, but not in debate and policy-making.
Angela wrote: “The "eye for an eye" approach is not everyone's idea of justice.”
Oh, get over yourself, Angela. If unanimous support were required to pass every law we’d have anarchy. I doesn’t matter what you think. It only matters what you can prove. I can prove that executed murderers do not kill again. I can prove that crime in America has declined concurrent with increased enforcement and tougher penalties. All you can prove is that the justice system is not perfect. Which it will be with or without the death penalty.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-07 1:00:55 PM
"As I believe I have said, many criminals have the ability to convince themselves that they will escape capture, whatever the odds. That makes them stupid as well as brutal, and some just enjoy the insane risk."
So have you completely abandoned your "deterrent" argument, then?
"Interesting that you chose to make an entire bullet item out of such a minor and inconsequential sub-point. I haven’t unwittingly touched a nerve, by any chance?"
This minor and inconsequential sub-point was the longest paragraph in your post. If you're going to insist on including irrelevant information, you can't blame me for calling you on it.
"Not by you when you wrote that sentence, at any rate. You can’t plan without thinking."
You can plan for the near future without thinking of distant consequences.
"But a death sentence will stop them from doing it again, and remove a dangerous threat from our streets."
Locking them up forever will do the same.
"Oh, get over yourself, Angela."
This is an empty phrase, Shane, and one that you throw around far too often. Just in my opinion, of course.
" I can prove that crime in America has declined concurrent with increased enforcement and tougher penalties. All you can prove is that the justice system is not perfect. Which it will be with or without the death penalty."
Crime in Canada has declined with the abolition of the death penalty. And the correlation is the U.S. does not prove causation. As I said, there are many theories as to why crime in the U.S. has declined. I'm sure you're familiar with Steven Levitt's theory for the decrease in crime.
Posted by: Angela | 2008-05-07 1:21:42 PM
"As I believe I have said, many criminals have the ability to convince themselves that they will escape capture, whatever the odds. That makes them stupid as well as brutal, and some just enjoy the insane risk."
So have you completely abandoned your "deterrent" argument, then?
"Interesting that you chose to make an entire bullet item out of such a minor and inconsequential sub-point. I haven’t unwittingly touched a nerve, by any chance?"
This minor and inconsequential sub-point was the longest paragraph in your post. If you're going to insist on including irrelevant information, you can't blame me for calling you on it.
"Not by you when you wrote that sentence, at any rate. You can’t plan without thinking."
You can plan for the near future without thinking of distant consequences.
"But a death sentence will stop them from doing it again, and remove a dangerous threat from our streets."
Locking them up forever will do the same.
"Oh, get over yourself, Angela."
This is an empty phrase, Shane, and one that you throw around far too often. Just in my opinion, of course.
" I can prove that crime in America has declined concurrent with increased enforcement and tougher penalties. All you can prove is that the justice system is not perfect. Which it will be with or without the death penalty."
Crime in Canada has declined with the abolition of the death penalty. And the correlation is the U.S. does not prove causation. As I said, there are many theories as to why crime in the U.S. has declined. I'm sure you're familiar with Steven Levitt's theory for the decrease in crime.
Posted by: Angela | 7-May-08 1:21:42 PM
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Posted by: set you free | 2008-05-07 2:18:14 PM
Angela wrote: “So have you completely abandoned your "deterrent" argument, then?”
No. I merely concede that some people are so messed up that the mere threat of death won’t stop them. But death will; death stops everybody. It’s just a question of when.
Angela wrote: “This minor and inconsequential sub-point was the longest paragraph in your post.”
And yet you took issue only with the last seven words.
Angela wrote: “If you're going to insist on including irrelevant information, you can't blame me for calling you on it.”
Like I call you on presenting emotions and opinions as fact and argument? Fair enough; the last seven words were not necessary to make the point. But nor did they merit so much attention. As before: Are you sure I didn’t touch a nerve?
Angela wrote: “You can plan for the near future without thinking of distant consequences.”
Which is not the same as not thinking at all. You’re comparing apples to oranges. The original point was that many murders are planned. This tangent you’ve taken us off on is unproductive.
Angela wrote: “Locking them up forever will do the same.”
Assuming you can keep them from busting out. There is no such thing as an escape-proof prison. Besides, bleeding-heart legal roadblocks aside, two metres of rope is a lot cheaper.
Angela wrote: “This is an empty phrase, Shane, and one that you throw around far too often. Just in my opinion, of course.”
Not when the main point is your tendency to offer your opinion as proof of fact, and emotion as justification for policy. Only a person who honestly believes that the world cares what she thinks, or ought to care, would do such a thing.
Angela wrote: “Crime in Canada has declined with the abolition of the death penalty.”
You’re bluffing. Violent crime in Canada rose steadily until 1992 (death penalty outlawed in 1976 and was already a dead letter by that time), plateaued in 1992, and has remained virtually unchanged since. There has not been the dramatic drop in murder rates seen in the States. (Crime Statistics in Canada, 2004.)
Angela wrote: “And the correlation is the U.S. does not prove causation. As I said, there are many theories as to why crime in the U.S. has declined. I'm sure you're familiar with Steven Levitt's theory for the decrease in crime.”
Sure thing, Angela. I’ll concede that if every fetus between now and 2050 is aborted, the crime rate will ultimately drop to zero. Because there’ll be no more humans left! That study has been recently criticized for statistical irregularities, but given your take on abortion I’m not surprised you should bring it up, any more than by your disproportionate umbrage to a remark that women generally receive lighter sentences and therefore have less to fear from the death penalty than men. Funny, isn’t it, how an unborn infant is a greater threat to your lifestyle and political identity than a convicted murderer? At least, if we do it my way, we actually wait for the condemned to be guilty of something first. But I, not you, am the barbarian. Oh very yes.
In any case, you still haven’t cracked the real issues—whether some people DESERVE the death penalty, and whether it prevents repeat offences. Do you fear to tackle those issues? By the way, in another of Levitt’s studies (1998), he found that for each additional prisoner incarcerated in the U.S., fifteen “Index 1” crimes were prevented. Another 1998 paper claims that young people are at least as responsive to criminal sanctions as adults and that deterrence does, in fact, play an important role in the decision to commit a crime.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-07 3:58:08 PM
"You’re bluffing. Violent crime in Canada rose steadily until 1992 (death penalty outlawed in 1976 and was already a dead letter by that time), plateaued in 1992, and has remained virtually unchanged since. There has not been the dramatic drop in murder rates seen in the States. (Crime Statistics in Canada, 2004.)"
I couldn't find the stats you were using on the StatsCan website, Shane. Here is what is on wikipedia:
The homicide rate in Canada peaked in 1975 at 3.03 per 100,000 and has dropped since then; it reached lower peaks in 1985 (2.72) and 1991 (2.69). It reached a post 1970 low of 1.73 in 2003. The average murder rate between 1970 and 1976 was 2.52, between 1977 and 1983 it was 2.67, between 1984 and 1990 it was 2.41, between 1991 and 1997 it was 2.23 and between 1998 to 2004 it was 1.82.
If you could provide a link to your source, I'd love to look at it.
"Fair enough; the last seven words were not necessary to make the point. "
Thank you for admitting your mistake, Shane.
"Which is not the same as not thinking at all. You’re comparing apples to oranges. The original point was that many murders are planned. This tangent you’ve taken us off on is unproductive."
Don't confuse you missing the point with a tangent, Shane. You were talking about the deterrent effect of the death penalty. My point was that there isn't much of one, because most people do not turn their mind to the legal consequences of murder before committing the crime. Whether or not they plan the crime itself is irrelevent.
"Assuming you can keep them from busting out. There is no such thing as an escape-proof prison. Besides, bleeding-heart legal roadblocks aside, two metres of rope is a lot cheaper."
I feel like they're going around in circles here. Yes, there will always be the occasional prisoner who can bust out of prison. But it's rare. Perhaps there should be reforms to ensure that dangerous offenders are always kept in maximum security prisons in order to help prevent this. And as you conceeded in your 8:32 post, the death penalty is not cheaper than life in prison. If you not only support the death penalty, but also support stringing people up without due process is order to cut costs, that's a whole other issue.
"In any case, you still haven’t cracked the real issues—whether some people DESERVE the death penalty, and whether it prevents repeat offences. Do you fear to tackle those issues?"
Whether or not some people deserve to die is a matter of opinion, Shane. Am I allowed to provide that even though you and the rest of the world don't care what I think? I wouldn't want to provoke another tirade.
Regarding your last reference to Levitt's study - I'm not going to argue that incarcerating criminals doesn't result in a drop in crime. So incarcerate them. I'm not against sending people to prison, I'm against killing them.
Regarding your reference to a "1998 study" - again, you're talking about "criminal sanctions" in general, not the death penalty specifically. So use incarceration as the deterrent.
I'm going to refrain from getting sucked in to yet another abortion debate - there's lots to talk about that actually relates to the death penalty directly. My fault - sorry I brought it up.
Posted by: Angela | 2008-05-07 4:56:06 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.