State versus Individual Justice

[Seth]

Seth

Nothing in this world is perfect. The fact that one in a thousand murderers may escape from prison is no reason to kill them.

It's not? Sez who? It's important that innocent persons not be executed, but if a guilty killer escapes it puts society at risk again, and execution is one way of ensuring that does not happen. The real question is one of justice, and at what point in the escalation of crime does it become just to execute someone as a matter of public safety and justice for those who have been killed?

Unlike some here, I do not see justice as revenge.

Revenge and justice are not compatible, but then again executing a criminal is not necessarily revenge and may well be justice.

I see it as a means of making society safer.

Indeed.

To kill a murderer as revenge for the fact that he killed someone is an ignoble and ultimately non constructive motive.

What about killing a murderer as a means of making society safer?

However, to take measures to ensure that he, and possibly others, do not cause more killings, is a constructive thing to do.

That kind of goes without saying, but since nothing is perfect, including prisons, how do you propose to achieve that while allowing the murderer to live?

With respect to that, locking him up and executing him achieve the same end. Locking him up, though, demonstrates a civilised, rather than barbaric approach, and ensures that you are not killing someone innocent.

This alleges, without evidence, that executing a criminal is "barbaric," which is a matter of opinion on your part. It is important to improve the trial process to prevent miscarriages of justice and the conviction of innocent persons, but it's also worth recognizing that going to prison is inherently dangerous and many people in prison for relatively minor crimes are victimized, raped and killed by other inmates, some of whom should have been executed, and some of whom should be executed for committing a crime inside prison. The solution is, of course, for people not to commit crimes and get sent to prison. Prison should be a scary, dangerous place to be so that people think twice, or even three times about committing a crime that will get them sent there.

It is worth noting that even in the USA, executions are getting less and less common. Eventually, with a bit of luck, even the American justice system will move totally in the direction of the more humane and civilised system.

This falsely presumes that the death penalty is inhumane and/or uncivilized, which is a matter of opinion, which is precisely what we're trying to examine. Can the death penalty ever be seen as justice, or as you suggest, is imposing it always a manifestation of revenge. Along with that one should probably examine revenge as well, to see if revenge can ever be just.

Let me also mention the effect of age on Violent offences. Violent crimes are age and gender affected. By far the greater number of violent crimes are committed by young men, with a peak incidence between 18 and 24 years of age. It is also true that, after age 30, reoffending drops markedly.

This may be the case, but it's largely irrelevant to the matter of justice.

So my suggestion is that a first offender for crimes other than murder be treated reasonably leniently, and a restorative justice approach be used.

I don't necessarily disagree, but of course it depends entirely on the nature and gravity of the crime, which the law already takes into account.

However, after that, the offender be removed from society till he is of an age less likely to reoffend, say 35 years plus. Then he be released under supervision.

Have you considered the simple fact that prisons are criminal factories and that people who are incarcerated are more likely to reoffend under new crime categories as they learn new criminal tactics and techniques in the slammer?

If an offender shows he is still repeating those offences, then the second time he gets locked up till he is a candidate for an old folks home.

Three strikes and you're out is a common prosecutorial metric here, and many states have "habitual offender" laws that mandate life sentences for serious repeat offenders.

However, I see no point in 'punishing' him.

And how does that help dissuade him from further criminality. Also, what is the effect on the victims and their families when an offender is sent to Club Fed after committing a crime that devastates the victims? Is it justice that the criminal not be punished? We punish children for wrongdoing in order to teach them not to do wrong, and have been doing so for millions of years to good effect, why should it be any different for adults?

If he is to be locked up to remove him from society, then make it comfortable, as I described in my earlier post. In fact, a Swedish study showed that prisoners treated better, with more comfortable cells, reoffended less often than those treated harshly.

There are other factors involved, not the least of which is financial. How much of your nation's GNP are you willing to spend making inmates "comfortable," and are you willing to spend the same amount, at a minimum, to make everyone else, specifically including the homeless and destitute at least as comfortable as those who are in prison?

Sheriff Joe Arpio of Arizona houses his jail inmates in tents, winter and summer, and he feeds them nutritious but not particularly palatable food. He makes them wear pink and black uniforms and he lets them sweat. His theory, one to which I happen to subscribe, is that prisoners aren't entitled to any greater degree of comfort during their sentence than our soldiers endure in the field, in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, where they live in tents and eat crap. I'm with him. No prisoner should have better living conditions that the poorest person in the country. Period. If we're not going to make the poor "comfortable" then I damned well do not want to pay to make criminals comfortable.

That's what I call "justice."

[Brian Peacock]

... It's important that innocent persons not be executed, but if a guilty killer escapes it puts society at risk again, and execution is one way of ensuring that does not happen...

Another way of ensuring that does not happen is to commit someone to prison for life. This also completely removes the chances of an innocent person being executed.

[Seth]

... It's important that innocent persons not be executed, but if a guilty killer escapes it puts society at risk again, and execution is one way of ensuring that does not happen...

Another way of ensuring that does not happen is to commit someone to prison for life. This also completely removes the chances of an innocent person being executed.

Er, the point is that committing someone to prison for life is not a guarantee that they will stay in prison for life.

[Brian Peacock]

Er, the point is, surely, that executing the wrong person can easily be avoided by a change in sentencing policy, where a full-life prison term without parole replaces execution. Arguing that this cannot be done because it isn't the way the system currently works is bogus.

[JimC]

Er, the point is, surely, that executing the wrong person can easily be avoided by a change in sentencing policy, where a full-life prison term without parole replaces execution. Arguing that this cannot be done because it isn't the way the system currently works is bogus.

I think Seth was considering the possibility of a prison escape. However, the number of additional murders that result from this relatively rare event would surely be insignificant in numbers, compared to, say, the number of additional murders committed when incompetent law enforcement fails to catch a murderer early, or an incompetent justice system lets people out on parole...

[Brian Peacock]

If that's the case, then its silly, even though executing a prisoner certainly removes the possibility of them escaping and then committing another crime - it removes all possibilities for that person of course, even of them subsequently being found innocent

In fact, if that is the case, then we're being asked to weigh the possibility of a prisoner escaping and possibly committing another crime, possibly a murder, against the possibility of the State convicting and executing the wrong person, and then being asked to accept that the State killing the wrong person is acceptable if it removes the possibility of that prisoner escaping and possibly committing another crime.

When a justice system justifies its actions against what a person might possibly do rather than what the available evidence shows they have done then it is tending towards the draconian, probably for the sake of maintaining its own authority.

[laklak]

Organ banks, that's the ticket. Hell, they're talking about head transplants now. Pretty soon jaywalking will be a capital offense.

[Seth]

Er, the point is, surely, that executing the wrong person can easily be avoided by a change in sentencing policy, where a full-life prison term without parole replaces execution. Arguing that this cannot be done because it isn't the way the system currently works is bogus.

The problem is that sentencing policy can change, and does change. Also, there is the matter of escape and murder in prison as well as changes in social policy that can allow a single judge to order the release of an offender for any number of reasons including health or, by way of example, court-ordered release of inmates due to overcrowding or other abuses by prison officials intended to punish the state but which end up releasing dangerous criminals back into society.

There are plenty of ways that true, convicted murderers can be and are released despite a "life sentence," including vacation of sentences caused by technical but not substantive errors in the original trial.

Certainly the standards of conviction with a death penalty need to be substantially changed to eliminate the most common miscarriages of justice, which include prosecutorial misconduct (a big one), racial bias, and non-forensic eyewitness identification as the prime or only evidence.

For example, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the Boston bombers did what they did and now that the remaining one has been convicted, there is no reason for him not to be executed. There is no doubt whatsoever that he did it, so why should he be spared on the false premise that the law must be that no one be executed because there is a chance, however remote, that someone, somewhere may be wrongfully convicted?

With standards of evidence and guilt set high enough, which has not historically been the case, particularly when minorities are involved, the benefits of executing heinous criminals far outweigh the chance that an innocent person will be executed.

[Seth]

Er, the point is, surely, that executing the wrong person can easily be avoided by a change in sentencing policy, where a full-life prison term without parole replaces execution. Arguing that this cannot be done because it isn't the way the system currently works is bogus.

I think Seth was considering the possibility of a prison escape. However, the number of additional murders that result from this relatively rare event would surely be insignificant in numbers, compared to, say, the number of additional murders committed when incompetent law enforcement fails to catch a murderer early, or an incompetent justice system lets people out on parole...

Or incompetent law enforcement that kills citizens who have not committed any serious crime, or any crime at all for that matter.

The case of the man in Baltimore who "mysteriously" died of a severed spine after being taken into custody by Baltimore police is one such example. The man was pursued and arrested merely for running from the police, which any qualified police officer knows is not a crime in and of itself. The excuse that the suspect was in "an area known for drug dealing" and was allegedly "talking to a known drug user" does not raise sufficient probable cause to arrest him in the first place, and even if the pursuit was instigated for the purposes of a "Terry stop," or temporary detention to investigate suspicious circumstances, the police likely violated his rights, and then when he became "irate" in the paddy wagon, it looks very much like somebody hit him in the throat, as his voicebox was shattered, and severed his spine. This could be from a deliberate blow or it could have been a "screen test," which is a hoary old "street justice" police tactic where an unsecured prisoner who mouths off in the back of the patrol car is bashed against the divider screen by slamming on the brakes.

Police need to learn that just because someone doesn't want to interact with them, and either flees or simply ignores them, isn't any sort of justification for using any degree of force at all to detain them. Unless the officer has independent reasonable suspicion or probable cause to arrest other than the flight itself, officers need to just let the person go, even if their authoritarian instincts are, much like a police dog's, to chase someone just because they run or head the other way.

[Brian Peacock]

Er, the point is, surely, that executing the wrong person can easily be avoided by a change in sentencing policy, where a full-life prison term without parole replaces execution. Arguing that this cannot be done because it isn't the way the system currently works is bogus.

The problem is that sentencing policy can change, and does change. Also, there is the matter of escape and murder in prison as well as changes in social policy that can allow a single judge to order the release of an offender for any number of reasons including health or, by way of example, court-ordered release of inmates due to overcrowding or other abuses by prison officials intended to punish the state but which end up releasing dangerous criminals back into society.

There are plenty of ways that true, convicted murderers can be and are released despite a "life sentence," including vacation of sentences caused by technical but not substantive errors in the original trial.

Certainly the standards of conviction with a death penalty need to be substantially changed to eliminate the most common miscarriages of justice, which include prosecutorial misconduct (a big one), racial bias, and non-forensic eyewitness identification as the prime or only evidence.

For example, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the Boston bombers did what they did and now that the remaining one has been convicted, there is no reason for him not to be executed. There is no doubt whatsoever that he did it, so why should he be spared on the false premise that the law must be that no one be executed because there is a chance, however remote, that someone, somewhere may be wrongfully convicted?

With standards of evidence and guilt set high enough, which has not historically been the case, particularly when minorities are involved, the benefits of executing heinous criminals far outweigh the chance that an innocent person will be executed.

I guess I just have a problem with seeing the state killing an innocent person being an acceptable price to pay for the nominal benefit to society it's said to bring.

Sentencing policy might change. So what? That's a social-political issue that (hopefully) is determined by accountable and democratic means - we all have to operate within the bounds of the social-political-judicial circumstances of our time - and if the parole board release a dangerous person into the community then surely the parole process needs to be looked at? But saying that no future legal or judicial provision should ever be applied in the case of X, so we better execute X just to be sure, is dogmatic authoritarian bullshit, and I'm genuinely surprised at you'd seriously fall for that kind of guff.

[Seth]

Er, the point is, surely, that executing the wrong person can easily be avoided by a change in sentencing policy, where a full-life prison term without parole replaces execution. Arguing that this cannot be done because it isn't the way the system currently works is bogus.

The problem is that sentencing policy can change, and does change. Also, there is the matter of escape and murder in prison as well as changes in social policy that can allow a single judge to order the release of an offender for any number of reasons including health or, by way of example, court-ordered release of inmates due to overcrowding or other abuses by prison officials intended to punish the state but which end up releasing dangerous criminals back into society.

There are plenty of ways that true, convicted murderers can be and are released despite a "life sentence," including vacation of sentences caused by technical but not substantive errors in the original trial.

Certainly the standards of conviction with a death penalty need to be substantially changed to eliminate the most common miscarriages of justice, which include prosecutorial misconduct (a big one), racial bias, and non-forensic eyewitness identification as the prime or only evidence.

For example, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the Boston bombers did what they did and now that the remaining one has been convicted, there is no reason for him not to be executed. There is no doubt whatsoever that he did it, so why should he be spared on the false premise that the law must be that no one be executed because there is a chance, however remote, that someone, somewhere may be wrongfully convicted?

With standards of evidence and guilt set high enough, which has not historically been the case, particularly when minorities are involved, the benefits of executing heinous criminals far outweigh the chance that an innocent person will be executed.

I guess I just have a problem with seeing the state killing an innocent person being an acceptable price to pay for the nominal benefit to society it's said to bring.

Well, the problem is that you make the assumption that innocent persons will be executed and that the permanent removal of dangerous killers from society is a nominal benefit.

I agree that in the past too many people, particularly blacks, were convicted and sentenced to death improperly, but the solution to that problem is changes to the procedures used to try and convict people of capital crimes and setting the burden of proof extraordinarily high during the penalty phase of the trial so as to ensure that only the truly guilty face the death penalty, not doing away with the death penalty.

Sentencing policy might change. So what? That's a social-political issue that (hopefully) is determined by accountable and democratic means - we all have to operate within the bounds of the social-political-judicial circumstances of our time - and if the parole board release a dangerous person into the community then surely the parole process needs to be looked at? But saying that no future legal or judicial provision should ever be applied in the case of X, so we better execute X just to be sure, is dogmatic authoritarian bullshit, and I'm genuinely surprised at you'd seriously fall for that kind of guff.

Sorry, but the safety of every individual who might come into contact with such a person trumps "social-political" democratic whims and caprices. If the prohibition against murder is not universal and absolute, then we end up with places like Iran and groups like the IS, who accept murder as justifiable for this or that reason. That's a "social-political" democratic decision being made, and it's a heinous evil.

So yes, it's better to be certain that someone who commits a death-penalty crime actually be put to death than to chance "democratic" changes in social policy down the road. That's justice.

[Blind groper]

Ironically, the reoffending rate for murder is actually a lot less than most other crimes. Relatively few murderers who are caught and serve time, will commit another murder after release.

If you want to execute someone to prevent reoffending, then look to burglars, car thieves, and pedophiles. They have a much higher rate of reoffending than murderers.

[Seth]

Ironically, the reoffending rate for murder is actually a lot less than most other crimes. Relatively few murderers who are caught and serve time, will commit another murder after release.

I dispute that factoid.

If you want to execute someone to prevent reoffending, then look to burglars, car thieves, and pedophiles. They have a much higher rate of reoffending than murderers.

Works for Saudi Arabia and Iran, among others. Although thievery usually brings just a hand-chopping. Get caught twice and you can't thieve very effectively anymore.

And I'm concerned about murderers reoffending, not so much about burglars. Burglars take your stuff, murderers take your life. Big difference.