John Demetriou comments on the recent execution of Ronnie Lee Gardner and asks the age old question:
The death penalty. What do you make of it?
Okay, I’ll bite…
My opposition remains implacable, which puts me in much the same company as Bella, Falco, Rab, Mrs Rigby and other libertarians. I’m opposed on two grounds; the first is that the state has decided that it is wrong for us to kill, therefore it is wrong for the state to do so on our behalf, even if we recognise the perfectly valid argument that it prevents recidivism, which it does. If it worked effectively as a deterrent, then there would never be a need to carry it out…
Secondly, and for me, much more importantly, is the matter of miscarriage of justice. No justice system is perfect and ours is a fuck-up, frankly. One thing of which we can be absolutely certain, is that innocent people will be convicted of crimes they did not commit. It has happened all too frequently and I am reminded of the infanticide cases during the nineteen nineties when innocent parents were convicted of murder on the testomy of an “expert” witness – should we have exeucted them? In past centuries, that is exactly what happened. Imprisonment may be a living hell, but the operative word here is “living”. We can at least set the innocent free and compensate; for what what is worth. Once executed, it is too late.
JD answers this point reasonably on the face of it:
Also, Gardner 100% without a shadow of a doubt did it. And there will be many cases where, similarly, there can be absolutely no fucking shadow of a doubt. If you look into the Gardner case, you’ll see what I mean.
So, the fear of miscarriage of justice need not necessarily apply, if the penalty were to only be appliedi in case iron guaranteed guilty verdicts.
Well, yes… Gardner was unquestionably guilty, but what mechanism can be used to determine that point where people are unquestionably guilty so must be put to death, and others who have been determined – incorrectly – by a jury to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt?
No, better by far not to go down that road.
Violent offences should be fittingly punished and life really should mean life, but the state has no business executing people, no matter how heinous the offence as it will, sooner or later, kill the wrong person and that is never justified. Recognising this does not make me a bleeding heart, it makes me a pragmatist who recognises the fallibility of the organs of the state.
Agreed.
I would have agreed with you in the past, but I don’t any more. I accept your second argument about possible miscarriages of justice, a valid objection, but not your first argument. Just because its against the law for individuals to kill, it doesn’t follow that capital punishment after due process is the same thing. The state has the power to use force and coercion, which individuals do not have. We have given up such liberty as a price of being a member of society. The argument you use (we can’t do it, so the state shouldn’t do it) applies equally to imprisonment.
What if capital punishment actually worked as a deterrent? It is generally denied that it does, and it obviously would never work 100%, but if it did, would you support it? Don’t forget the old Bastiat maxim: there is what is seen, and there is what is unseen. There would be many instances where things didn’t happen that would never be known.
It may come down to opinions beyond rational arguments. I just think there are some people who deserve to die for the terrible crimes they have committed.
No.
I stand by my first point. There is a world of difference between removing someone from society because they have caused harm – and are likely to continue to do so, and carrying out judicial murder from which there is no return. Conducting an act of revenge, which is what capital punishment is, makes us no better than them.
Agreed, and Gardner was undoubtedly one of them. That doesn’t make it right for the state to do it, though. Also, as a side point, the US seems to do both – prisoners spend so long on death row that they serve a life sentence and are executed. If you are going to do it, then get it over with quickly at least. No matter the crimes involved, what happens there is indeed cruel and unusual punishment.
You do not “talk to” a rabid rat. You blow the bastards head off.
All this sentimental tosh, just because on occasions it happens to be able to be roughly described as “human” is a complete mystery to me.
XX
What if capital punishment actually worked as a deterrent? It is generally denied that it does, and it obviously would never work 100%,
Comment by Trooper Thompson XX
Repeating my rabid animal comparison above. We do not shoot rabid dogs to scare off other rabid dogs from biting people, we shoot them because they are a danger to society.
WTF has “deterrent” to do with it?
And what happens if, when you’ve blown its head off, you realise that you got it wrong? Which is the main thrust of my argument. There’s nothing sentimental about it, it’s pure pragmatism. I do not trust the state to get it right and I’m not prepared to see the state have power over life and death. Ask Edith Thompson or Timothy Evans. Oh, sorry… You can’t, can you?
Agree with you on deterrence, though. It never has, so is not worth considering as a reason for execution. The only justification is the permanent removal of the offender from society.
Arguing about the death penalty, like arguing about gun laws, suffers somewhat from having the American experience referenced and our own past experience ignored. The way they conduct the death penalty is one of many things I would not want to see this country emulate. Their prison system is incredibly violent, indeed in some prisons, your life expectancy is better on death row than in the main prison, I’ve heard.
There is certainly a difference between locking someone up and killing them, but both are illegal for the private citizen, which was my point. To call capital punishment ‘judicial murder’ is emotive, and to borrow a phrase, ‘there’s a world of difference’ between hanging a convicted killer and the crime that got the killer to the end of the rope. Also, you talk about ‘revenge’. I think this is another emotive, rather than rational, argument. But why, if somebody deserves to die (google Henry H Holmes for instance!), shouldn’t the state ensure they get what they deserve? You’re having your cake and eating it too. What does ‘deserve’ mean to you?
FT,
there is a difference between the Rule of Law and a demagogue leading a lynch mob.
Noble sentiments Longrider. However I would disagree because then there is no way of editing the monsters out of the human race, short of vigilantism, for monsters there are. We have to accept that there are a minority in whose veins the commonality of humanity does not flow. Even within the supposed confines of the penal system, they still can and do kill again.
Yet there are those well meaning souls who would, and do, free these killers from prison to repeat their crimes.
Now I’m bang alongside you regarding the ‘miscarriage of Justice’ meme, and deterrence only works if you have a moral core, but there are some without such self control. They are the ones who should be put down, or executed for their crimes to prevent them doing so again.
TT, Taking your points in order, the US is referenced here only because this incident happened in the US – I agree with your comments on their system.
This one will always be emotive to a greater or lesser degree and I accept that there will always be some inconsistency – possibly because of that.
We have to have some form of sanction for lawbreaking. Prison is probably the least bad option for violent offences. It does allow for differing sanctions for different situations and there is always the possibility of reform. Once you have killed someone, that’s it.
I have a real problem with the state deciding life and death. It’s a line too far for me. Call it emotive if you like – and I won’t disagree, but our past in this area fills me with revulsion and I don’t want to go back there. I have no faith that should I find myself wrongly charged with a crime that a jury will acquit under our adversarial system with its winners and losers. The evidence of our history tends to substantiate that mistrust.
What does deserve mean to me? probably the same as it means to you. If someone carried out a violent or fatal attack on me or mine, I would, doubtless, want blood and lots of it. That is why any justice system needs to be dispassionate and evidence based. Killing the convicted person really is the ultimate revenge. Sure, it will remove the offender – if, indeed, they are guilty – but ultimately it satisfies the blood-lust of society and the victims. So I stand by my revenge comment.
That said, if I was guilty of murder, I’d rather a quick end than a life behind bars, so I’d probably commit suicide…
JD said as much in his piece. So how do you decide which are the minority of irredeemables who are really, really guilty as decided by a jury beyond reasonable doubt and those who may not be but have been decided guilty by a jury beyond reasonable doubt? Someone may look really, really guilty but is entirely innocent. Too late once you’ve topped ’em. What mechanism do you use to differentiate between the two?
“prisoners spend so long on death row that they serve a life sentence and are executed. If you are going to do it, then get it over with quickly at least. No matter the crimes involved, what happens there is indeed cruel and unusual punishment.”
I think you’re all over the place on this one.
If you’re worried about the legal system executing the wrong person and therefore think it is better to imprison them instead in case something crops up to prove their innocence*, then surely it would seem better to imprison them for a long time before executing them thereby giving time for something to crop up?
I think you’re making a good case for imprisoning our undeniable murderers for the few years sentence they usually get, and then executing rather than releasing them to kill again (edited to say, I guess then LIFE really would mean LIFE).
As it is you seem to use the problems with our legal system (one which imprisons Council Tax refuseniks but tries to avoid jailing violent criminals) as one reason to avoid using the death penalty when that is a separate but important issue which also needs addressing.
*I believe this is happening with improvements in the use of DNA evidence.
Disagree. I do not support the death penalty, but if you are going to have one, then get the process over with quickly. To drag it out for decades, keeping some form of hope alive in the prisoner, is, indeed, cruel and unjustified. There is no reason why appeals should take years or decades – and that applies to those trying to prove their innocence for lesser crimes.
No, I’m not. I dislike the adversarial system. A situation whereby perfectly truthful testimony may be undermined by counsel’s cross examination of the witness to the point where the evidence is tarnished for the jury is contrary to justice. Or, as in Roy Meadow’s case, undue credibility was given to an expert witness, resulting in a series of miscarriages of justice. That is what I object to.
*The disparity of output – such as council tax refusniks and violent offenders you cite – is indeed a separate issue and one I’m not conflating here. My objection is that it is unreliable when determining guilt and therefore, the ultimate sanction, being irreversible, should not be an option for punishment.
——————-
*I suspect, on reflection, you are referring to my link to TT’s blog with that comment. It was a general point that our system is a mess that I was referring to. Which it is. maybe the link was misleading. Oh, well…
Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord. 🙂
Longrider,
I don’t know if you’re a fan, if so you may have read this Orwell essay:
http://www.george-orwell.org/A_Hanging/0.html
I am a fan and I studied Orwell’s essays for my A levels a long, long time ago. So, yes I do recall it. It makes the point rather well, I think.
TT
Thanks for the link. Really enjoyed reading it
His other essays are also worth reading.
I have never heard of an executed murderer going on to kill again yet every year a released murderer seems able to do so. Maybe the innocent killed by the released killers would make some balance for the innocent murderer executed.
So are you volunteering then? Such sentiments wouldn’t hold much sway with me if I was facing wrongful execution, nor I suspect anyone else facing the same fate. I am not prepared to have my life used as a balance against the theoretical lives saved – ever.
The alternative to execution is life without parole. That would serve the same purpose of removing the offender from society while allowing the option of release in the event of a wrongful conviction.
“I am not prepared to have my life used as a balance against the theoretical lives saved – ever.”
Yet you are prepared to have it used as a balance against the general convenience of vehicular motorised road transport, and with a far greater statistical likelihood of your losing it.
I’ll probably get derided for saying this, but if your objection lies in the unintended consequences of the death penalty rather than moral principle, other unintended consequences can be legitimately cited.
OMG! You’re trying that bollocks here, too? There is a chasm between the risks posed by all forms of human transport and the deliberate taking of life when it is not necessary. I refer you to Falco’s response to this comment on the original thread. You may not like the manner of his response, but his underlying point stands. I suggest that the tone of his response in a reaction to the massive strawman you have constructed here to make an incredibly tenuous correlation where none exists.
Yep, thought so.
Please explain why the certain consequence of using motor cars, that innocent pedestrians will die, is qualitatively different from the (granted) certain consequence of the death penalty, that innocent people will die.
Don’t call it bollocks, don’t call it a straw man, try using a rational argument.
I’m afraid it is both bollocks and a straw man, and no, you shouldn’t be surprised.
Travel involves risks over which we have a degree of control. We take risks of one sort or another throughout our lives – again, we make decisions over our exposure.
There is no correlation between the risks posed by every day activity and the state taking a life wrongly as a consequence of a flawed decision on the part of a jury. Not least, because it is entirely avoidable – unlike those risks posed by every day life.
I don’t get in my car and think to myself “who shall I kill today?” The hangman does.
I’m afraid that you seem to be preoccupied with the method by which an innocent meets his death rather than the fact of it. Your final sentence is emotive, but makes no point.
A pedestrian lives in a society where he suffers the risk of being dismembered by a badly driven or out of control motor vehicle, in exchange for the believed benefits that motor vehicle use brings to him as a member of that society.
An innocent person who lives in a society with the death penalty suffers the (far smaller) risk of being unjustly executed, in exchange for the believed benefits that use of the death penalty brings to him as a member of that society.
Please could you explain the difference.
I’m rapidly losing the will to live here.
There is no benefit to having the death penalty as there are viable alternatives that remove the risk of wrongful execution in its entirety. You cannot remove the risks posed by travel – no matter what the means you decide to use.
My last sentence was meant to be somewhat trite – it was however making a perfectly valid point – intent.
Ultimately, if you cannot see that there is a difference between every day risk management and the state wrongfully taking life, well, you probably never will. There is no correlation There never was.
As an aside, I wonder if there ought to be a Godwin equivalent for those people who insist upon dragging in road fatalities to try and make a tenuous point about risk and death where it simply does not apply?
Okay, I’m done with this one.
I’m rapidly losing the will to live here.
No you’re not! 😛
But it would be handy if some stuck to the point(s). We don’t live in USA, there is no death penalty in the EU and there are plenty of good reasons why it no longer happens.
If it did, then maybe they’d change their minds.
Oh yes I am! 😀
“Ultimately, if you cannot see that there is a difference between every day risk management and the state wrongfully taking life, well, you probably never will. There is no correlation There never was.”
If you cannot explain what the difference is, other than announcing that “there is no correlation” (incorrect use of the word by the way), so be it.
I have explained it. Repeatedly. Falco explained it, ChrisM explained it. You have simply repeated the question every time that explanation has been proffered. You don’t like the answer. Fine. No point enabling it further.
Given that you sought to draw a parallel between road deaths and wrongful execution, my use of “correlation” was perfectly acceptable, in that there is no such parallel to be drawn. My Collins dictionary provides usage advice thus:
Can we leave the grammar and usage pedantry at home, please?
There is no parallel between road deaths and wrongful execution, if that is what you wish correlation to mean. However, what you term risk management is based on utilitarian priciple, as is the argument for accepting a level of unjust executions under a death penalty. You accept one, but not the other.
Could you provide a link to these explanations please?
Longrider,
I also agree with you points.
I would also add mission creep to the reasons for opposing the death penalty. First it would be cast iron convictions (lets allow that they exist), then it would be definitely probably convictions, then it will be for child mollestors and before long we will be following the Chinese and executing fraudsters.
Yes I know the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy, but I refute that argument thus: RIPA
I agree about death penalty but the moment that inflicts my mind that no one could take the life of someone other than God. As human, it is an issue for us to take the life of criminal whether he/she kills thousands of people. It is not necessary to impose death penalty. Life is important; court should impose lifetime imprisonment rather than death penalty.
Well one way to avoid miscarriages of justice might be a benchmark level of proof. Independent corroborated eye witnesses combined with scientific evidence would be fairly bombproof wouldn’t it?
Sorry, I forgot to add.
LR, someone responded saying this
“It may come down to opinions beyond rational arguments. I just think there are some people who deserve to die for the terrible crimes they have committed.”
And you replied with this
“Agreed, and Gardner was undoubtedly one of them. That doesn’t make it right for the state to do it, though.”
I agree with the poin that the state does not have the right to do many things on our behalf.
However, in the case of the death penalty, the state would be carrying out the wishes of the public as, by all accounts, the majority of the population have been shown to be in favour of the death penalty.
So in this case, the state would be representing it’s citizens in the manner in which they want it to. That’s not something we can say too often nowadays.
Having said that, the dreaded governmnetal function creep would undoubtedly become an issue. If it was introduced for cases where the evidence was the same as in my post above, you can bet that in the future it would be watered down.
The more I read about politics and politicians, I just keep asking myself the same question: why do they always act in the same way? Why is it always wrong? Why do they view the world in the way that they do?
And then someone recommended that I watch this and it all fitted into place
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dkdur94d5Z8
Bootsy, I think you’ve answered your own question here. Function creep should be a grave concern. As to the original point you make, such an approach is fallible. Okay, in Gardner’s case, a courtroom full of people is pretty conclusive and there will always be some cases where there is no doubt at all (and I cannot rationally argue that Gardener didn’t deserve his fate), but I’m going to refer you to something Albert Pierrepoint said (thanks to Trooper Thompson):
You know, I really couldn’t put it any better than that. Just because the majority want something, it doesn’t necessarily make it right…