I'm against the death penalty as a state sanction, though perhaps for rather odd reasons. I think people have a perfect right to shoot robbers--once someone has implicitly threatened you, they've forfeited their right to the protection of the law. But I think that a state which commits cold-blooded murder is a brutalized state, and I have a visceral horror at the idea of putting a man in a cage and declaring to him the day that he will die. The process of executing criminals damages the moral fiber of all who are engaged in it, including the voters, a cost far in excess of the benefit to be gained from either deterrance or retribution. The former is dubious; the latter cold comfort. We strap a man to a gurney, pump corrosive chemicals into his veins, and then stand watching, awkwardly, while his life ebbs. All we get out of it is one more corpse.
But if we are going to have the death penalty, I don't see any particular reason to limit its application to murder. I can imagine much worse things than a quick, clean death.
My chief reservation about the death penalty is the probability of mistakes. You can release a prisoner. You can apologise. You can indemnify. Once you've executed someone by mistake the alternatives add up to saying "Oops!".
I would like to be more confident in the accuracy of jury verdicts than I am.
The "chemicals" used for lethal injection aren't "corrosive" in any sense of the word. They're usually a combination of short-action barbituates and paralytics, like sodium thiopental used in combination with other drugs.
Excellent post, thanks
All criminal endeavors damage the moral fiber of all who are engaged in it. The question is where does it rank in the grand scheme of things. Personally I would rather see an execution than see a trial for a repeat offender. Each person has to make their own value judgement.
In general, the objections to the death penalty include both the possibility of mistakes and the fact that it is more expensive for the state to execute someone than it is to just lock them up for life.
But in the case of something like rape (of a child or otherwise) there is another objection. If the penalty is going to be death anyway, what motivation does the criminal have to NOT kill the victim afterwards? I can't say how often it would make a difference -- but at all would seem to me to be sufficient reason not to set up a perverse incentive.
Yes! You explained it exactly. I was in high school when the state of Florida executed John Spinkalink. Until then, I was agnostic about it. But seeing the hearse drive up outside the prison--before the man was dead--struck me very viscerally. It is rare to remember the exact moment when a moral or political position was formed, but that was it for me.
All these cold-blooded objections--the expense, the possibility of an innocent being executed--mean nothing to me compared to the sheer emotional sense of wrong I felt that day.
Are vegans naturally predisposed to object to the death penalty?
Inmates LOVE child molesters. A quick death may be preferable from the rapist's POV. Jeff Dahmer (who counted a minor among his victims) was actually murdered in prison.
I agree with wj. Yes, child rapists are among society's worst, but worse still is the person who rapes and kills a child, and I see death penalty for rape as incentivizing murder. After all, dead men tell no tales.
But I do think that the death penalty is warranted for murder. I just think that the burden of proof should be higher than "beyond reasonable doubt" to get it.
Some of the points on incentives help explain it, such as those wj illustrated with not killing the victim afterward, makes a bit of sense, but generally I don't think child rapists make these kinds of sophisticated risk analyses. But I think such a ban boils down to a few things:
1) Generally speaking there are members of the court who would invalidate the death penalty as "cruel and unusual" and I think that this is just a hint of moving towards that notion on the part of some of the justices.
2) The difference between murder and say rape is that often rape convictions are based upon the direct testimony of the victims themselves. In the case of murder it often requires harder more objective evidence. This is not to say most rape conviction are wrong, but that they are more prone to error because a compelling source of evidence can be the human victim themselves. In the case of murder the conviction usually falls on harder genetic or forensic evidence or more objective, less traumatized testimony.
3) In the case of child rape the previous point is further exacerbated. A youthful victim is far more likely to make an error of identification. Yet to a jury testimony from a child is likely to be amongst the most damning of evidence. In the end, I think we can have as much faith in these convictions as we do in the rest of the justice system. However, if we must have an incontrovertible penalty we should err towards cases where the testimony and evidence is likely to be the most incontrovertible, murder.
I'm not sure I understand why a savage beating (and I mean savage i.e broken bones, burns, torn flesh) is any worse than rape.
If I had the choice of beaing beating for 15 min with a baseball bat until your bones break or being raped - I'd have to go with rape.
I don't see why a parent who rapes a child should die and a parent who puts out lit cigarets on the kids genitals should get 3 years...
another point against executing child rapists is that they are often family members. One might be willing to send an uncle or brother to jail but not willing to see them executed.
Capt. Jim Cernich of the Sheriff's Office in Citrus County, Florida, said deputies in San Juan
The Dollars face charges in Citrus County, where they lived in Beverly Hills, on one count of aggravated child abuse/torture for all five children.
The accusations include pulling out the children's toenails with pliers and keeping them so malnourished they "looked like pictures from Auschwitz," authorities said.
And they shouldn't die? How is that worse than 5 min of sex...
If child rape is punishable by death then sever child abuse should be as well.
If that was the case I'd be 100% behind it. You torture a kid you die.
That's not an odd reason, at all. It is one of my core reasons for being against the death penalty (along with the fact that DNA shows we keep getting things wrong, and you can't "undo" death).
While I think child rapists deserve a special place in hell, the death penalty should be reserved for killers. There should be some incentive for the rapist not to kill.
That's not an odd reason, at all. It is one of my core reasons for being against the death penalty (along with the fact that DNA shows we keep getting things wrong, and you can't "undo" death).
While I think child rapists deserve a special place in hell, the death penalty should be reserved for killers. There should be some incentive for the rapist not to kill.
That's not an odd reason, at all. It is one of my core reasons for being against the death penalty (along with the fact that DNA shows we keep getting things wrong, and you can't "undo" death).
While I think child rapists deserve a special place in hell, the death penalty should be reserved for killers. There should be some incentive for the rapist not to kill.
That's not an odd reason, at all. It is one of my core reasons for being against the death penalty (along with the fact that DNA shows we keep getting things wrong, and you can't "undo" death).
While I think child rapists deserve a special place in hell, the death penalty should be reserved for killers. There should be some incentive for the rapist not to kill.
That's not an odd reason, at all. It is one of my core reasons for being against the death penalty (along with the fact that DNA shows we keep getting things wrong, and you can't "undo" death).
While I think child rapists deserve a special place in hell, the death penalty should be reserved for killers. There should be some incentive for the rapist not to kill.
That's not an odd reason, at all. It is one of my core reasons for being against the death penalty (along with the fact that DNA shows we keep getting things wrong, and you can't "undo" death).
While I think child rapists deserve a special place in hell, the death penalty should be reserved for killers. There should be some incentive for the rapist not to kill.
M&M says:
"I'm against the death penalty as a state sanction, though perhaps for rather odd reasons."
Because vegans don't believe in killing animals?
I'm agnostic on the subject of capital punishment. To me, the decision should be based on deterrence. If the deterrent to crime is real, than lives are saved by executing criminals. Yes, mistakes can be made, but if more innocent lives are saved by the practice that are lost, by several orders of magnitude, than the practice would be justified in my mind.
However, I am against capital punishment as a form of revenge. Revenge should have no place in our legal system.
I'm not sure I understand why a savage beating (and I mean savage i.e broken bones, burns, torn flesh) is any worse than rape.
If I had the choice of beaing beating for 15 min with a baseball bat until your bones break or being raped - I'd have to go with rape.
I don't see why a parent who rapes a child should die and a parent who puts out lit cigarets on the kids genitals should get 3 years...
A savage beating is not worse than rape. But the feminist lobby is much more powerful than the masculinist lobby, and the over-emphasis on rape is a great way to express their hatred of men.
All we get out of it is one more corpse? Did you seriously write that?
It's also the elimination of a danger to society, and/or the expense of keeping that danger locked away where it can't hurt anyone.
This from an econoblogger. You should be more objective and less bleeding-heart!
My father told me that when they abolished captal punishment in Canada in the 1960s', part of the deal was that the convicted would stay in prison for life. The problem has become keeping the convicted murderer in prison for life. They should not be paroled, let out on day passes and whatever.
My father, who is against the death penalty, says that the people that are against the death penalty failed to keep their end of the bargain.
I am against the death penalty because of the potential for errors.
So really you think the death penalty is icky but you're not actually "against the death penalty..."
Why not just say that instead of playing this silly game? You're thought process isn't even remotely logical.
Shorter McMegan, "I oppose the death penalty but I really wish we applied it in more arbitrary circumstances than the law presently allows."
"The process of executing criminals damages the moral fiber of all who are engaged in it, including the voters, a cost far in excess of the benefit to be gained from either deterrance or retribution."
Um, yes and no.
I too am against the death penalty but for very different reasons. I hope I'm not offending anyone but I think the death penalty is too lenient. If someone commits murder I want them rotting in a jail cell for the rest of their damn life.
"I have a visceral horror at the idea of putting a man in a cage and declaring to him the day that he will die"
Yeah but think about it for a second. None of us knows when we are going to die or even how (Well those of us w/o a terminal disease). It might be tomorrow, it might be years from now. It might be gruesume and agonizing (car wreck?), it might be quick and painless.
Let's assume for a moment that our murderer is guilty. She or he knows not only when but how -
"...pump corrosive chemicals into his veins, and then stand watching, awkwardly, while his life ebbs... "
- the most humane way that the law allows. She/he gets to prepare for it mentally, say sorry, goodbye, or f-you (writing letters and emails if need be), get spritual counselling, and finally, she or he knows that they don't have to die alone. And, instead of fading into obscurity once the sentence is handed down, she or he can look forward to several years of visits by eager law students and members of the media all with increasing frequency leading up to the moment when he/she meets his/her end.
Considering I might be smashed to bits on the interstate tomorrow that actually doesn't sound that bad.
Stop and think for a moment about what life in prison might be like. Year after year of mold, sweat, and crap food. Year after year of living in tiny little rooms with head cases and thugs. Year after year of being ordered, intimidated, pushed, or beaten, by the other prisoners or - maybe if you don't follow the rules - by the guards. And, year after year of family, friends, and society in general forgetting about you and watching life pass you by. Grandma dies and you want to go to the funeral. Sorry, uh-uh, no way. You want to say goodbye you do it here.
Now that's brutal - but just - punishment.
Finally which do you think makes a bigger impression on at risk kids: the dead gang banger who got massive media coverage for insisting that he didn't do it or was framed. Or, the fat, smelly, bald, grey haired guy with bad teeth who's only 50 but looks like he's 70, who has to ask other convicts to help him eat because of the arthritis in his hands.
Now, I am prepared to concede that some crimes merit the death penalty b/c other concerns beat out my need for vengeance - like if we ever catch Osama Bin Laden - but for now life in prison is the only punishment that is sufficient. This all assumes of course - and it's a big assumption - that we keep them there.
Folks, omitted context here: SCOTUS just said that the death penalty for child rape is unconstitutional.
I, too, oppose the death penalty--it's just Big Government in action--but I find the notion that we should replace the considered judgment of state legislators, prosecutors, judges, and juries, with the modish opinions of SCOTUS and their friends on the Georgetown cocktail-party circuit to be deeply offensive.
I hope I'm not offending anyone but I think the death penalty is too lenient.
That must explain all the criminals plea-bargining for execution instead of life.
Sorry, didn't mean to get off on a rant.
Getting back to your original post - 'Why not the death penalty for child rape?'
Obviously no, for the reasons in my post and for the reason that Matt B described as well.
So, "outside the box" thought experiment; how about if life prisoners were kept in a sleep like state until they died?
"I hope I'm not offending anyone but I think the death penalty is too lenient.
That must explain all the criminals plea-bargining for execution instead of life."
-Rob Lyman
Yeah, that was a poor choice of words. Point taken.
But, I still stand by the argument I was trying to make though.
It would be really interesting to hear from cops and former prosecutors who operated when the death penalty was suspended in the U.S. (1972 - 1976) to learn how they talked about the possibility of life imprisonment with suspects i.e. "take this deal and talk or else".
"I have a visceral horror at the idea of putting a man in a cage and declaring to him the day that he will die."
I also have a visceral horror of putting a man in a cage and declaring that he will be there until he dies - and I think that might be an even more appropriate punishment for such crimes. Life in solitary confinement, no parole. No hope of ever seeing the light of day again. Never again to speak with another human being, except the guard and your lawyer. Total isolation. No quick, merciful death to end it. Just a slow, lingering death over the course of decades.
It wouldn't quite be justice, but it would be closer to it than death.
But in the case of something like rape (of a child or otherwise) there is another objection. If the penalty is going to be death anyway, what motivation does the criminal have to NOT kill the victim afterwards? I can't say how often it would make a difference -- but at all would seem to me to be sufficient reason not to set up a perverse incentive.
What perverse incentive? First, how many criminals expect to be caught? One of my friends clerks in a district criminal court and it is amazing how many people end up getting 5+ years in the slammer for 2-bit holdup attempts that generally net less than $300. Second, if the motivation for child rape is the same as for child murder, the child will die anyway -- it happens too often even without this alleged perverse incentive. Third, in the case of intrafamily abuse, killing the kid pretty much guarantees getting caught while a living victim can potentially be intimidated.
nb - I mean that they should be kept alive, but in a sleep state until they die of natural causes.
This may require some advancements in technology to avoid certain conditions, such as bed sores.
I haven't followed this case, but how is "child rape" defined? If we were to apply the death penalty in such cases, what would be the appropriate age cutoff? I don't know if that question is answerable.
"a state which commits cold-blooded murder is a brutalized state"
The legal execution of a convict is, by definition, not murder.
"That must explain all the criminals plea-bargining for execution instead of life"
If our prisons were sufficiently unpleasant, that might well happen. Isn't the case now, though.
"This is not to say most rape conviction are wrong, but that they are more prone to error because a compelling source of evidence can be the human victim themselves"
The error argument is less an argument against the DP than an argument that juries should be instructed that while they convict when convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, they sentence to death only when there is absolutely no question the defendant is guilty, i.e., the defendant doesn't contest commission of the act, and/or there is clear forensic or other objective evidence that establishes guilt beyond any question.
While I generally have no problem with the DP, I'd also have no problem with a law that no convict could ever be sentenced to death solely on the basis of eyewitness testimony.
I'm against the death penalty for the simple fact that it isn't an instantaneous need. If you're being assaulted, raped, whatever and you kill your attacker. Fine, encouraged even. But to have death doled out from a bench. Under laws of man, interpreted by man, with all the fallacies of man. It does not sit right in my head that death can be a term of sentencing. It seems the unnatural course. It seems in some cases like state-sanctioned vengeance (the Timothy Mcveigh closed circuit execution) vengeance is never justice even if it looks that way. Take away the fact that 30+ people have not only left death row, but were exonerated from the crimes that put them there. The idea that a jury of 12, with a judge and a series of lawyers, and then all the appeals courts, briefs, and the governor, that somehow all these people with finite judgment can calmly and coldly hand down death. No, if it looks wrong it usually is.
And heaven forbid, but I'd bet its already happened, an innocent man has probably been through all of it to the climax of being strapped down and feeling the needle, or the current, or the bullet, or noose. Can anyone have a more horrifying thought than knowing for a long time that you were going to be killed for something you didn't do, holding out the faint hope that somehow it won't happen, that truth will prevail, right up unto the last moments with a potential pardon or commutation. Only to suddenly realize its not going to happen, and your not even going to have chance to fight back. That any effort you expend will be crushed and your going to die.
Death isn't a prison sentence gone wrong, you don't get anything back. You don't get exonerated after 20 years and are left to look back on a life you could've had. With some kind of financial compensation due to you, and whatever time you have left. The statistical truths are irrelevant to the individual, thats true for our society on this issue. The argument cannot be made for the utility in executing 10,000 guilty people at the expense of at least 1 innocent person. Ending 1 innocent person's is unacceptable if their is any kind of responsible alternative. And I'll personally pay the money to keep someone monstrous and very guilty in jail, fed well enough, with free medical care, if it keeps us from pretending that we can be a fair and impartial arbiter of death.
Rob Lyman and J, there are prisoners who are willing enough to accept execution that they try to stop appeals in their name. There are also some significant number who commit suicide, despite the prison system's attempt to prevent it, so it does appear that some number of prisoners prefer to die rather than remain in jail for the rest of their natural lives.
Rob is right about how the decision should be made - there is nothing in the Constitution which forbids the death penalty, and the decision ought to be left to the legislative branch. There are good moral and practical arguments both for and against the death penalty, and for the extent of its application. But with the exception of "cruel and unusual punishment", lawmakers have not had any of their options foreclosed by the constitution.
Circus watcher's father has an important point. If I had confidence that the politicians who want to abolish the death penalty would not then go and fudge sentences to the point where murderers were let loose after 5 or 10 years, I'd be willing to vote for the abolition of the death penalty. But lacking that confidence, I'll keep voting for the death penalty, even if the only effect is to keep prisoners in for life while their appeals work through the system.
You're in agreement with Leon Kass, then, that an inquiry in moral philosophy can legitimately begin and end with the word "eeewww"?
In every country where the death penalty has been abolished, there has been a slippery slope of reduced punishment for murderers. The average 'life sentence' for Britain is less than 12 years. 'Life' in Canada is 25 years (it's a rare murderer that gets more than this). I agree that firm evidence should be used to convict criminals, and with advances in science, this should strengthen our resolve with the death penalty (even, ironically, as it shows the weakness of the previous level of evidence).
When used appropriately, the death penalty affirms the sense of justice, that murder is punished in a sufficient manner. People who say that a life sentence is worse are against the rehabilitation model of prison and/or active supporters of the cesspool that prisons have become (if we are to take them at their words). Death, by firing squad, is quick efficient, and honest. This is an execution, it is not a medical procedure. While I am sure that some pain is involved with getting 4 bullets to the heart, that pain is shut off after the loss of blood to the brain. In many instances, it will be a kinder death than the one they inflicted (or, in the case of child rapists, the damage they inflicted). But that's okay. It isn't about inflicting pain, it's about seeing justice done.
I'm also in favor of extending the death penalty to rape in prison, and pretty much any rape, or at least rape that involves a violent assault (use of weapon, physical beatings, etc.). In prison, from what I've heard, the perpetrators are typically lifers who have little to lose with additional punishment. Putting these scum to death will make the prisons, and the world, a better place. Extending appropriate punishment to men who would prey upon women, may just be appropriate as well.
scores of innocent americans have been killed by the state because of contrived evidence, incompetent legal representation, jury bias, etc.
so, i ask all those who support the death penalty: since these unlucky men and women were condemned to death in your name, do you take responsibility?
A good argument can be made against the death penalty for crimes not involving murder, based on the idea that applying the penalty to such crimes make make the criminal more likely to kill the victim.
But it shouldn't be the job of the courts to decide whether or not the death penalty for a particular crime is a good idea. The job of the courts is to decide if the penalty is against the constitution. I think they got this one wrong.