Question for Death Penalty Opponents
Please explain why whoever did this should be allowed to live out the rest of his/her/its natural life.
UPDATE: A suspect is in custody. Guilty or no, bonus points to any open borders advocate who can explain why he should have been in the country at all. Extra points to Andrew McCarthy for explaining why he should get a fair trial even though he didn’t give her one.
September 20th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
Isn’t it the more common argument of death penalty opponents that our justice system is inadequate at identifying this “whoever” with a level of certainty befitting the irrevocability of death, and not that the punishment doesn’t fit the crime?
September 20th, 2006 at 10:11 pm
She molested his child?
True story. Not too long ago, in a place not too far away, Communist rebels murdered a village policeman and his toddler son. They posed the dead bodies at an intersection with the baby’s body in his father’s arms. Some time later the government declared amnesty and the rebels surrendered at the county seat. The murderers of the policeman and the child went in to surrender. The police accepted their surrender and then chained them behind trucks and dragged them to the intersection where they had left the policeman and his baby. About fifteen miles.
So … I want to know more.
September 21st, 2006 at 1:17 am
The sad thing is, that’s a really nice quiet area. I can’t imagine having something like that happen in my neighborhood, let alone an area as removed and quiet as the area where this happened. Suburban doesn’t exactly describe it - there’s a very long road running parallel to the highway before you even get to the actual neighborhood, and even in the neighborhood the houses are really spread out. If I recall correctly from the time I got lost out there, there’s not even a gas station.
I think the woman in the picture looks enough like the guy to be his sister. Dunno if the woman in the picture is the victim though - the news here hasn’t said anything. The news I’ve heard has not been using ‘maybe’ when identifying the guy as an illegal alien.
Colorado seems to earn more of its share of crimes committed by illegal aliens and people fleeing to Mexico after having committed a serious crime here. I think it’s due to the sanctuary city policy in Denver that supposedly doesn’t exist, although Denver police are under orders to not bring in someone for being here illegally, even if, for instance, they are caught driving without a drivers license and insurance.
September 21st, 2006 at 1:52 am
She molested his child?
*Doubtful.*
Can’t answer Xrlq’s questions since I’m neither a DP opponent nor an open-borders proponent, but NK, you’d have to point me to a lot more cases where the victim had committed some horrendous offense against the perp before I’d go along with your “wait and see” … here comes the sexism … unless it was a woman who had killed a man.
September 21st, 2006 at 10:29 am
More than doubtful, I’m not aware of any such evidence whatsoever. Barring any such revelations, I’d want her death avenged. Even if it could be shown that she had done something horrible enough to deserve what was done to her, I’d still want the bastard dead, because he’s demonstrated an unusually depraved and sadistic side of himself that no part of society, including most maximum security prison inmates, should have to be confronted with. There is no nuance here. If you want nuance, see the previous post.
September 21st, 2006 at 10:43 am
There are at least two kinds of death penalty opponents: Those who oppose the death penalty itself, generally, and those who do not oppose the death penalty generally (executing criminals is wrong), but think that the process leading up to the death penalty is questionable (executing criminals is fine, but we can’t be sure we’re only executing criminals).
Your scenario only speaks to the latter group.
As a death penalty opponent of the former kind, the severity of the crime isn’t an issue to me; the death penalty simple isn’t an appropriate response to any crime.
Killing someone in order to make some sort of statement about how much we disapprove of the manner in which THEY killed someone just doesn’t make sense to me. So pointing to a crime that I really, really disapprove of doesn’t make me want to execute the perpetrator, any more than it makes me want to execute anyone else.
There’s simply no connection between how horrific I think the crime is and whether or not I’m going to kill the perpetrator.
September 21st, 2006 at 11:18 am
On the contrary, my question is directed primarily to the former group. If there’s a significant chance that we’ve got the wrong guy, that’s a great reason not to execute him, no matter how serious “his” crime may have been. But my question is directed toward those who believe that the death penalty is inherently immoral. Assuming arguendo that they do have (or get) the right guy, that there is no doubt about his guilt, and that he is duly convicted after a fair trial, what is the moral argument for allowing this low-life to live out the rest of his natural life?
Oh, c’mon. No one supports an automatic death penalty for all murders, no matter what; there are always issues surrounding the particular crime (heat of passion vs. premediated, lying in wait, etc.). Prison sentences are no different in that respect; e.g., two armed robbers involved in the same attack will not necessarily get the same sentence, at least not unless they were both tried by a single jury that specifically found they had equal culpability in the crime (and maybe not even then).
September 21st, 2006 at 11:27 am
I am not a death penalty opponent. I simply gave two examples, one speculative and one historical, where such a horrific murder would not necessarily require the death penalty. I disagree with Phil. The horribleness of the crime is the only reason for the death penalty especially in our country which has the resources to otherwise incapacitate the murderer by locking him up forever. Some crimes are so terrible that unless society expresses its disapproval violently they become stains on society’s own soul. So, to be clear, the only possible reason not to put this woman’s murderer(s) to death would be if she had been killed in revenge for a horrible crime that she had committed.
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:25 pm
Check out this article Is death penalty still needed?.
September 22nd, 2006 at 3:26 pm
That article sounds like it’s written by a death penalty opponent who is trying to sound fair, but can’t help himself:
That will come as news to Clifford and Angela Barnes, the Maryland couple who were viciously attacked by a convicted murderer who had been sentenced to life without parole.
Only if you accidentally-on-purpose forget to count the money taxpayers save every time a killer pleads guilty in exchange for life without parole rather than go to trial and risk a death sentence.
September 22nd, 2006 at 4:30 pm
“Assuming arguendo that they do have (or get) the right guy, that there is no doubt about his guilt, and that he is duly convicted after a fair trial, what is the moral argument for allowing this low-life to live out the rest of his natural life?”
I don’t see “allowing this low-life to live” as an act that requires moral justification. Rather, I see “killing this low-life” as the act requiring justification.
The proposed justification here, “He should be killed because he killed someone, and killing is wrong” is not a justification — it’s a self-falsifying proposition.
September 22nd, 2006 at 5:37 pm
Oh, really? How about this, then? Suppose a criminal kidnaps an innocent individual and holds him/her against his/her will for several months before finally being caught by the authorities. Bearing in mind the risk of self-falsifying propositions, what is the appropriate punishment for this act?
September 24th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
There was an update in the Denver Post a few days ago that wasn’t picked up by the national media.
I have to say, the guy was mighty stupid for not fleeing to Mexico. Colorado has *not* had good luck with extraditing suspects from Mexico to stand trial, and when someone does finally get extradited, it’s under the condition that they can’t receive the death penalty or life without parole.
This is the second case in a little over a year where Denver police stopped someone who was an illegal immigrant for a traffic violation - Rubi-Nava was even arrested and released - and Denver police didn’t refer the guy to immigration. You’d think Denver police would have wised up after the first case, since the guy killed a cop, but they’ve taken the attitude of “We’re not ICE.”
September 24th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
“Suppose a criminal kidnaps an innocent individual and holds him/her against his/her will for several months before finally being caught by the authorities. Bearing in mind the risk of self-falsifying propositions, what is the appropriate punishment for this act?”
From your question, I think you’re trying to get me to confront the possibility that imprisoning a criminal can create the same sort of contradictory reasoning. I think you’re missing what my objection to the death penalty (and to certain jail sentences) is.
I don’t object to jailing someone in order to protect others. Nor do I object to killing someone in order to protect others under certain circumstances.
What I object to is jailing or killing someone because they are a “low-life.” Whether that conclusion is reached because that person has failed to pay a parking ticket, has kidnapped an innocent, or has acted in the manner that the killer in this case acted, I don’t think that the lable of “low-life” justifies any action at all.
Conversely, you seem to take the jailing and killing of “low-lifes” as a given. To you, the real question is “why should we let them live” not “why should we kill them.”
September 24th, 2006 at 7:59 pm
There’s evidence that every execution prevents 18 murders. One can quibble about the precise number, I suppose, but even the most pessimistic but plausible assumptions have one execution translating into more than one innocent saved. So if you’re serious about the idea that it’s OK to kill someone in order to protect others, you should have no problem with the death penalty generally, not just for egregious murders like this one.
No one is saying that. Criminal punishments, from fines all the way up to the death penalty, are imposed according to what the perp did, not what he is. Nava (assuming he is the one who did it) was a low-life all along. No one advocated executing him until he acted on it.
Not for “low-lifes” generally, but for first-degree murderers specifically. Anyone who deprives an innocent person of his right to live is in a lousy position to argue that his own right to live should be respected. It ought to be the default rule: if you kill someone, and the state proves it beyond a reasonable doubt, the burden of proof should now be on YOU to show why your rights should exceed those of your victim.
September 25th, 2006 at 9:17 am
“There’s evidence that every execution prevents 18 murders. One can quibble about the precise number, I suppose, but even the most pessimistic but plausible assumptions have one execution translating into more than one innocent saved.”
That’s an absurd statistic, especially stated the way it is (does the execution of an innocent man who looks guilty also preven 18 murders, or only 17?).
Of course, the death penalty is one of those issues where most people on both sides have statistics that sound absurd to the other side, and can be undone by yanking one of the assumptions behind the statistic. There are plenty of statistics for and against the death penalty — take your pick.
I acknowledge that my disapproval of the death penalty is an entirely moral choice. I won’t argue that there isn’t a possibilty we’d have a more orderly society if the death penalty were more liberally applied. After all, China has sure been successful with it.
September 25th, 2006 at 10:20 am
Not an absurd statistic at all. For one thing, there are no known cases of innocents executed during the period examined, so asking the study to distinguish rightful from wrongful executions is unrealistic. A wrongful execution would be a terrible tragedy, but it’s not a murder, and unless it was generally known to be wrong, its deterrent effect should be identical to that of the execution of an actually guilty party. The only angle of deterrence I’d expect to be impacted here is the deterrent effect of future murders by the same individual. Obviously, killing a killer will deter him from murdering anyone else in the future, while convicting and killing (or not killing) the wrong guy, won’t. So maybe in his case, “only” 10-15 innocents would be saved, while slightly more than 18 are saved when the truly guilty are executed. The 18-1 figure is, after all, an average, not a representation that each individual execution saves exactly that number, with no variation from one to another.
Which goes back to my original question: what is the moral argument for allowing the animal who dragged that woman to death (or, if you prefer, that animal in E. St. Louis who murdered a pregnant woman, her unborn fetus and her three born children) to live out the rest of his natural life? The argument against doing so is an easy one: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, with a dose of mercy where circumstances warrant it. But is mercy warranted in such extreme cases as these? If so, why? And if not, then what is the “moral” argument against killing these two? Isn’t the very act of allowing them to live out their natural lives a posthumous affront to their innocent victims?
September 25th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
The death penalty does not act as a deterrent for violent criminals, and tends to disproportionately be applied to minorities and the poor.
Let’s get out of the dark ages.
September 25th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Greg, what’s your basis for either claim? Even if they were true, your conclusion wouldn’t follow. If it could be shown that poor and minority criminals served disproportionally long prison sentences, would you argue for the abolition of prisons, as well?
As for leaving the “dark ages,” I agree. The first step toward enlightenment is getting rid of such stupid, facile non-arguments as “let’s get out of the dark ages” - as if simply giving something a nasty name constituted proof it is wrong.
September 25th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
The prejudice shown in the application of the death penalty is generally well known, but if you need some citations:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/executj.htm
http://www.aclu.org/capital/unequal/10389pub20030226.html
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=105&scid=5
And as far as acting as a deterrent, many studies show that there is an inverse relationship:
http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/deterrence.html
http://www.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/dp/dppapers/mike.deterence
http://www.indiatogether.org/combatlaw/vol2/issue2/deathmyth.htm
If you are such a proponent of enlightment, perhaps a shift from less barbaric solutions would serve you well.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Sorry, Greg, we seem to be speaking different dialects of English. In mine, “well known” connotes actual knowledge, while in yours it appears to be synonymous with “frequently and forcefully alleged by hard-core death penalty opponents as though it were a fact.” And to argue that there is an inverse effect between crime and punishment defies logic. If you really think killers would rather be executed than incarcerated, why do so many convicts on death row appeal their sentences, even in situations where the best they can hope for is life without parole? I can’t think of a single instance in which a killer sentenced to life, with or without parole, has appealed his sentence in hopes of having it “commuted” to death. Can you?
September 25th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Are you implying then, that the death penalty is applied uniformly? Regardless of the race of defendant or victim? Regardless of the socioeconomic status of defendant or victim?
September 25th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
“what is the moral argument for allowing the animal who dragged that woman to death (or, if you prefer, that animal in E. St. Louis who murdered a pregnant woman, her unborn fetus and her three born children) to live out the rest of his natural life?”
The moral argument is simple: Causing the death of human beings should be done only under circumstances where there is no alternative, because we put preservation of life above all other “benefits” of policies. We do this because all other “benefits” are dependent on life itself, and because we are falible human beings who should not be making absolute determinations about who should live and who should die unless there is no alternative.
Saying an execution will save 18 lives isn’t enough, because you haven’t shown that those 18 lives can’t be saved in some other way that doesn’t involve taking one life. While this does require proving a negative, that seems fair considering how abstract these “18 lives” are. The proponents of the death penalty aren’t telling us *which* 18 lives will be saved, or that any particular execution will save 18 lives. They’re just making a broad statistical policy argument that can’t be refuted.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
I should have finished the above post “They’re just making a broad statistical policy argument that can’t be refuted can’t be refuted or confirmed as to any particular case.”
September 25th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
Greg: obviously, nothing is applied with 100% uniformity, an impossible standard. As to the application of the death penalty, well of course it’s far from uniform in one respect: obviously, people who can afford hot shot lawyers have a better chance of beating the rap than people who can’t. Beyond that, I think most of the mythology about a “racist” death penalty is just that, mythology, which largely disappears if you examine all the facts and circumstances of the murders that do and do not result in death sentences, and control for the fact that different types of murders are not distributed evenly among the races (e.g., some races have high rates of gang-on-gang murders, which may result in a low percentage of death sentences for their victims relative to races that have no gang activity to speak of).
Moreover, I think that as a death penalty abolitionist, you’re barking up the wrong tree by raising uniformity issues at all. Suppose, for argument’s sake, that you were able to show that all other things being equal (and I really do mean, all other things, not just all other things that some anti-death penalty “information” group chooses to focus on), a murderer whose victim is black is 10 times more likely to be executed than a murderer whose victim is white. If uniformity (or lack thereof) really were the issue, then the solution would not be to stop doing such a great job of avenging the lives of white victims, but to start doing a better job avenging the lives of blacks.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
Phil:
OK, that’s a viable argument, assuming it’s applied consistently. Where are you on the issues of abortion and Terri Schiavo (not right to die generally, but what to do in situations like hers, where the intent of the incapacitated person is in dispute)?
The study can’t show what all conceivable alternatives are. For all we know, maybe future studies will show that some method we’ve never even thought of before will save 20 lives instead. But until/unless someone finds that non-lethal magic bullet, one execution for 18 saved lives is the best we can do.
The reason it can’t be refuted is because the correlation is so strong. If it weren’t, there’d be plenty of studies out there to refute it. That there aren’t is NOT for a lack of trying. And why should it be necessary to show which 18 lives (or, if you prefer, which 3 to 33 lives) will be saved by each individual execution? Surely you don’t approve of intentionally killing 18 random people, as long as you can remain blissfully ignorant of which 18 people they are! Even if you do, you may not have that luxury, since some of those 18 may die at the perp’s own hands; those ones are pretty easy to identify.
September 25th, 2006 at 7:36 pm
“Where are you on the issues of abortion and Terri Schiavo (not right to die generally, but what to do in situations like hers, where the intent of the incapacitated person is in dispute)?”
Both very hard questions. My gut reaction (which is how we make moral, as opposed to rational judgments) was that I saw more value in the parent’s agenda than in Michael Schiavo’s. My gut on abortion tells me anything that has, or may have consciousness should be treated as “human life” and anything else is a clump of cells that probably has whatever value the conscious host nurturing the cells puts on it.
As for the “18 lives saved” study; I would have to take a really close look at it. and I know nothing about it other than what you’ve told me. Obvously it sounds impressive when you describe it; I’m seriously doubtful as to its validity *because it sounds so good.*
In practical application, if it’s as good as it sounds, then even if the person being executed was innocent, it’d be justifiable to execute him.
In fact, if your statistic is certain to be true, then when a murder is unsolved it’d be arguably justifiable to simply frame someone and execute them for the crime. The 18 murders prevented by the execution of our framed suspect would very likely exceed the number of murders the guilty person remaining on the loose will commmit in his lifetime (based on my understanding of the average murders a murderer commits in a lifetime).
September 25th, 2006 at 10:00 pm
On strictly utilitarian grounds, sure - at least once in a great while, if you never get caught by the public (or the criminal underworld) at large. If it ever got out that the state had a habit of killing people at random to punish murders, any deterrent effect the death penalty may have would be gone, as no potential killer will lose sleep over the possibility of someone else frying for his crime.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:01 am
Phil, you’re ignoring one very important argument in favor of the death penalty. Namely, that there are some crimes so heinous, so devoid of humanity that the only possible atonement for them is for the criminal to forfeit his own life.
We do this not because we are so enthralled with killing another human being, but because we hold that life is so sacred that in some cases the taking of it warrants the execution of the murderer.
The fact is, the death penalty doesn’t apply to a wide range of murders, only those which we in society find especially repugnant.