Hate Crime?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Personally, I think crimes like this deserve the death penalty. We shouldn’t limit it to only first-degree murder. Child molesters and sick pieces of garbage like this should be eligible.

EmilyQ wrote:
I prefer life in prison for a number of reasons. Some are moral, of course, but those are largely personal.

Other reasons I think of as practical. The higher cost of housing an inmate on death row and of dealing with the appeals, for example.

And then there’s justice. I think justice is better served by sending these people into the general population. If what I’ve seen in movies is representative, death row is a protected place.

I don’t think the gang in question deserves protection, frankly. I think they deserve to deal with their fellow inmates as best they can for the rest of their long, miserable lives, finally dying without the privilege of choosing a “last meal.”

The death penalty serves no purpose that I can see. Returning to the moral aspect for a moment, I wonder how many of us would be able to fill the role of executioner. I certainly couldn’t. I don’t think it’s fair to ask that others do so in my stead.

It’s important to me that the people who committed this crime never walk free, and in all honesty, I’d be fine with their deaths. I just have a problem with the state killing them.

I’ve been trying to imagine being the social worker or psychologist who came into initial contact with this girl post-rescue. It’s overwhelming to think about.[/quote]

I disagree, naturally. There are definitely high costs associated with how we administer the death penalty - but I would be for ameliorating those with swifter execution of sentences, particularly in cases in which there is no question of guilt (as in, we know they did what they were charged with doing).

Generally, I refer you to the writing of Ernest van der Haag for a philosophical defense of the death penalty. Here is n outline of one of his essays:

http://www.public.iastate.edu/~cfehr/230%20Shaw%20Haag.htm

22

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Generally, I refer you to the writing of Ernest van der Haag for a philosophical defense of the death penalty. Here is n outline of one of his essays:

http://www.public.iastate.edu/~cfehr/230%20Shaw%20Haag.htm [/quote]

I think his arguments in “miscarriages of justice” are very, very poor.

No one argues we should ban cars because the primary purpose of cars is not to kill someone; and the utility they provide to society far outweighs their nuisance.

You can’t apply that logic to the death penalty. There is no other purpose to it other than to kill the perpetrator. Not using it does not stifle the economy or cause a massive societal upheaval.

Some of his other arguments aren’t much better. For example, saying that other punishments can also be dealt unevenly or wrongly, while true, doesn’t take into account that when mistakes are revealed, the situation can be corrected and reparations be made. You can’t do that after you’ve killed an innocent. You could do some sort of reparation by paying his family, but you can never bring him back so he may enjoy the rest of his life.

I’m too pressed for time to address them all, but I was expecting something a lot more convincing than that. If those are the best pro-death penalty arguments around, it’s no wonder that less and less countries still employ it.

23

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Generally, I refer you to the writing of Ernest van der Haag for a philosophical defense of the death penalty. Here is n outline of one of his essays:

http://www.public.iastate.edu/~cfehr/230%20Shaw%20Haag.htm

pookie wrote:
I think his arguments in “miscarriages of justice” are very, very poor.

No one argues we should ban cars because the primary purpose of cars is not to kill someone; and the utility they provide to society far outweighs their nuisance.

You can’t apply that logic to the death penalty. There is no other purpose to it other than to kill the perpetrator. Not using it does not stifle the economy or cause a massive societal upheaval.[/quote]

I don’t think that captures the point. The point is that if there is independent value, you need to weigh it against the cost. I don’t think the example was meant to be a perfect correlary - just an example of something in society that has value and costs.

Remember, these arguments were in response to anti-death penalty points that claimed the death penalty is necessarily incorrect because of the proffered claim. Thus, the point he was arguing against was that the death penalty is bad because of the cost. I don’t think he was implying one couldn’t have a discussion of whether the cost was too high.

I don’t think it is, personally - particularly with the improvements in technology that make it less and less likely that any innocent people would be convicted in the first instance.

[quote]pookie wrote:
Some of his other arguments aren’t much better. For example, saying that other punishments can also be dealt unevenly or wrongly, while true, doesn’t take into account that when mistakes are revealed, the situation can be corrected and reparations be made. You can’t do that after you’ve killed an innocent. You could do some sort of reparation by paying his family, but you can never bring him back so he may enjoy the rest of his life.[/quote]

This is a slightly more fulsome breakdown of his points – they are much more thoroughly explained in his journal articles: Ernest van den Haag/Legal Scholar

24

West Virginia is one of the creepiest, backwoods places I have ever seen. The sub-culture there is really unexplainable.

25

[quote]texasguy1 wrote:
West Virginia is one of the creepiest, backwoods places I have ever seen. The sub-culture there is really unexplainable. [/quote]

Not that much different than the cedar choppers in East Texas.

26

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

This is a slightly more fulsome breakdown of his points – they are much more thoroughly explained in his journal articles: Ernest van den Haag/Legal Scholar
[/quote]

I think the problem I have with both versions is that he doesn’t address what I consider to be the more compelling points against, and when he does touch upon a point of interest to me (the possibility of killing an innocent, the lack of proved deterrence), his response seems to be a lengthily worded “I don’t care.”

This, in particular, struck me as being fatuous:

[i]Despite much recent work, there has been no conclusive statistical demonstration that the death penalty is a better deterrent than are alternative punishments (13).

However, deterrence is less than decisive for either side. Most abolitionists acknowledge that they would continue to favor abolition even if the death penalty were shown to deter more murders than alternatives could deter (14).

Abolitionists appear to value the life of a convicted murderer or, at least, his non-execution, more highly than they value the lives of the innocent victims who might be spared by deterring prospective murderers.[/i]

What is that last bit? Value the life of the murderer more than his victims? Please. This is both unctuous and side-stepping, as well as being an appeal to emotion.

His underlying premise seems to be that opponents of the death penalty value the life and comfort of the murderer. Not so, at least in my case. As I said previously, I have no investment in keeping alive the kind of people we’re discussing here. I simply am not interested in killing them. My reasons:

  1. The lack of proof that the DP deters. Perhaps I would have agreed with Haag and James Fitzjames Stephen that men view being hanged with enough horror that they will avoid murdering in order to avoid hanging if I, like Stephen, had been born in 1829, when justice was swift and decisive. But I wasn’t.

I don’t think criminals operating at the level we’re discussing are capable of reasoned thought, frankly. They are entirely impulse-driven. I suspect if we chose to impose a death penalty on people caught dealing weed we’d see an immediate and significant drop in weed-dealing.

Because by and large, people who deal weed are capable of rational thought. People who commit monstrous atrocities? Not so much.

  1. The possibility of killing an innocent. I agree with you, BB, that this is becoming less of an issue with DNA testing so evolved. Still. I was amused at Haag’s varying attitudes about the death of one or two people:

Despite precautions, nearly all human activities, such as trucking, lighting, or construction, cost the lives of some innocent bystanders. We do not give up these activities, because the advantages, moral or material, outweigh the unintended losses (12). Analogously, for those who think the death penalty just, miscarriages of justice are offset by the moral benefits and the usefulness of doing justice.

Eh, accidents happen. What can you do, right? But then:

Execution of those who have committed heinous murders may deter only one murder per year. If it does, it seems quite warranted.

By God, if it saves even ONE life, it will have been worthwhile!

  1. Again, am not against the suffering of criminals of this stripe. I’m for it. I am Kantian in my belief that the people who chose to trap and torture the woman in West Virginia have willingly chosen their futures…in this case as the lifelong target of their fellow inmates. They should be allowed the opportunity to reap what they’ve chosen to sow.

  2. Most of you will probably find this laughably soft or naive, but I believe in redemption. Killing someone deprives them of the opportunity to redeem themselves, which I think is important.

Maybe one of them will change. In the case we’ve been discussing I particularly hold out hope for the two 20-somethings whose mothers were involved. Maybe they’re not completely twisted yet. Maybe they can one day do something decent. Perhaps prevent another innocent being hurt (a prison guard, whatever). This won’t happen on death row, where everyone is isolated.

  1. Lastly, as mentioned before I believe that the role of executioner “degrades human dignity,” and Haag put it in another context.

Again I ask, would those of you for the death penalty find executing prisoners a satisfying livelihood?

27

This crew reminds me of the family from “Devils Rejects” and “House of 1000 Corpses”; I wish the death penalty was used more liberally.

28

The death penalty costs more, is barely an extra deterrent at all, and most of all ends their punishment quickly.

Fuck the death penalty. Death after dishonor restores honor. It is an escape. Make those who’ve shamed the human race own up to the human race, and live as scum before their escape into nothingness.

29

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

I disagree, naturally. There are definitely high costs associated with how we administer the death penalty - but I would be for ameliorating those with swifter execution of sentences, particularly in cases in which there is no question of guilt (as in, we know they did what they were charged with doing).
[/quote]

You kill people even if you are not sure they did it?

30

No, the point was to contrast reasons for appeal: some appeals reach the question of innocence (even if they’re not credible questions), while others are purely procedural or technical appeals.

31

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

This is a slightly more fulsome breakdown of his points – they are much more thoroughly explained in his journal articles: Ernest van den Haag/Legal Scholar

EmilyQ wrote:
I think the problem I have with both versions is that he doesn’t address what I consider to be the more compelling points against, and when he does touch upon a point of interest to me (the possibility of killing an innocent, the lack of proved deterrence), his response seems to be a lengthily worded “I don’t care.”

This, in particular, struck me as being fatuous:

[i]Despite much recent work, there has been no conclusive statistical demonstration that the death penalty is a better deterrent than are alternative punishments (13).

However, deterrence is less than decisive for either side. Most abolitionists acknowledge that they would continue to favor abolition even if the death penalty were shown to deter more murders than alternatives could deter (14).

Abolitionists appear to value the life of a convicted murderer or, at least, his non-execution, more highly than they value the lives of the innocent victims who might be spared by deterring prospective murderers.[/i]

What is that last bit? Value the life of the murderer more than his victims? Please. This is both unctuous and side-stepping, as well as being an appeal to emotion.

His underlying premise seems to be that opponents of the death penalty value the life and comfort of the murderer. Not so, at least in my case. [/quote]

I read his premise as being that the concept of deterrence isn’t really important to most opponents of the death penalty because they aren’t arguing that jail is a better deterrent than the death penalty.

[quote]
EmilyQ wrote:
As I said previously, I have no investment in keeping alive the kind of people we’re discussing here. I simply am not interested in killing them. My reasons:

  1. The lack of proof that the DP deters. Perhaps I would have agreed with Haag and James Fitzjames Stephen that men view being hanged with enough horror that they will avoid murdering in order to avoid hanging if I, like Stephen, had been born in 1829, when justice was swift and decisive. But I wasn’t.

I don’t think criminals operating at the level we’re discussing are capable of reasoned thought, frankly. They are entirely impulse-driven. I suspect if we chose to impose a death penalty on people caught dealing weed we’d see an immediate and significant drop in weed-dealing.

Because by and large, people who deal weed are capable of rational thought. People who commit monstrous atrocities? Not so much.[/quote]

I wouldn’t underestimate the criminal’s ability to think and act in the manner he perceives to be in his own self interest. This wouldn’t apply in all scenarios (suicide by police scenario springs to mind), but if it applied in some percentage of scenarios to deter murder, I would be satisfied. I think this would particularly be the case in robbery homicides.

[quote]
EmilyQ wrote:
2. The possibility of killing an innocent. I agree with you, BB, that this is becoming less of an issue with DNA testing so evolved. Still. I was amused at Haag’s varying attitudes about the death of one or two people:

Despite precautions, nearly all human activities, such as trucking, lighting, or construction, cost the lives of some innocent bystanders. We do not give up these activities, because the advantages, moral or material, outweigh the unintended losses (12). Analogously, for those who think the death penalty just, miscarriages of justice are offset by the moral benefits and the usefulness of doing justice.

Eh, accidents happen. What can you do, right? But then:

Execution of those who have committed heinous murders may deter only one murder per year. If it does, it seems quite warranted.

By God, if it saves even ONE life, it will have been worthwhile![/quote]

I think his point is utilitarian here, and I think it’s important to realize that his points are independent. In the first above case, I think his argument is that the benefit of the death penalty overall outweighs the cost of having a possible miscarriage of justice with the application of the death penalty to someone who is innocent.

The second above case is making the point that if the execution of a guilty person yields at least one murder deterred, and thus one fewer murder victim, that is a sufficient level of deterrence to win his support.

[quote]
EmilyQ wrote:
2. Again, am not against the suffering of criminals of this stripe. I’m for it. I am Kantian in my belief that the people who chose to trap and torture the woman in West Virginia have willingly chosen their futures…in this case as the lifelong target of their fellow inmates. They should be allowed the opportunity to reap what they’ve chosen to sow.

  1. Most of you will probably find this laughably soft or naive, but I believe in redemption. Killing someone deprives them of the opportunity to redeem themselves, which I think is important.

Maybe one of them will change. In the case we’ve been discussing I particularly hold out hope for the two 20-somethings whose mothers were involved. Maybe they’re not completely twisted yet. Maybe they can one day do something decent. Perhaps prevent another innocent being hurt (a prison guard, whatever). This won’t happen on death row, where everyone is isolated. [/quote]

It only deprives them of that opportunity for the delta of time between the life sentence and the death sentence. Even if the administration of the death penalty were vastly accelerated, it would still take years on death row for a sentence to be carried out. While I don’t discount the idea of redemption on a personal level, I do think that whatever number of years is expended during the administration proceedings would provide an ample period of time for a repentent person to engage in redemptive activities.

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
4. Lastly, as mentioned before I believe that the role of executioner “degrades human dignity,” and Haag put it in another context.

Again I ask, would those of you for the death penalty find executing prisoners a satisfying livelihood?[/quote]

No, but I’m sure there is someone who would. Not to be trite, but I wouldn’t want to be a toll collector either, and would find no satisfaction in it, but that doesn’t discredit toll collections. Ditto corrections officer.

32

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
His underlying premise seems to be that opponents of the death penalty value the life and comfort of the murderer. Not so, at least in my case.

I read his premise as being that the concept of deterrence isn’t really important to most opponents of the death penalty because they aren’t arguing that jail is a better deterrent than the death penalty.[/quote]

Perhaps. I reread that part of the article, and am unconvinced that your interpretation is more accurate than mine. I am particularly irritated by this last sentence, which I read as sarcasm:

[i]Despite much recent work, there has been no conclusive statistical demonstration that the death penalty is a better deterrent than are alternative punishments (13).

However, deterrence is less than decisive for either side. Most abolitionists acknowledge that they would continue to favor abolition even if the death penalty were shown to deter more murders than alternatives could deter (14).

Abolitionists appear to value the life of a convicted murderer or, at least, his non-execution, more highly than they value the lives of the innocent victims who might be spared by deterring prospective murderers.[/i]

Appear to value based upon what evidence? It sounds childish and snippy. Particularly given the lack of proof, which I seem to come back to again and again. Although he starts that paragraph by admitting that there is no evidence to support the DP, Haag seems to keep arguing as if deterrence is a given.

I may be misinformed, but I don’t think the typical robbery homicide is garnering the death penalty, is it?

I understood the DP to be reserved for particularly gruesome or egregious circumstances. So those are the types of murders I’m considering, and I’m expanding my consideration to include circumstances such as the West Virginia torture case, which, if the victim had died, would have made a good DP case.

In those cases, I believe the murderers to be driven by their demons or impulses to the point of irrationality. When a crime is of sufficient horror that it simply defies understanding, then in my opinion, it was committed by someone who has been driven to act, not by someone who has been pursuing his own best interest.

A robbery homicide? Sure. Rational thought is part of the calculation to shoot a witness and try to get away. Taking hours/days/weeks to torture someone or storing pieces of them in your home isn’t calculated to increase self-interest.

[quote]I think his point is utilitarian here, and I think it’s important to realize that his points are independent. In the first above case, I think his argument is that the benefit of the death penalty overall outweighs the cost of having a possible miscarriage of justice with the application of the death penalty to someone who is innocent.

The second above case is making the point that if the execution of a guilty person yields at least one murder deterred, and thus one fewer murder victim, that is a sufficient level of deterrence to win his support.[/quote]

Oh, I get that the points are meant to be taken independently! I prefer that my inconsistencies be considered independently, too. Then, voila, no inconsistency! But as a reader I’m under no obligation to ignore the fact that he has contradicted himself. Either one life is precious enough that any sacrifice is worthwhile, or it is not.

Also, regarding the first point, the greater good is not adequately proved when an increase in deterrence is not at all a given.

My qualm on this point wasn’t that the inmate’s death cuts short his opportunity to redeem himself, but rather that death row isolates prisoners. I know that many people believe that redemption is a matter of religious faith, but I am not one of them. I don’t think redemption is possible in isolation from others, because self-sacrifice is not possible in a vacuum.

[quote]Again I ask, would those of you for the death penalty find executing prisoners a satisfying livelihood?

No, but I’m sure there is someone who would. Not to be trite, but I wouldn’t want to be a toll collector either, and would find no satisfaction in it, but that doesn’t discredit toll collections. Ditto corrections officer.[/quote]

That doesn’t really answer my question. I would heartily dislike working on a road crew, tarring roads or whatever. It would be really hard labor, I think, and I’m not particularly built for that.

Also, I’m fair-skinned, so I burn easily. Even more, I’m lacking in fortitude. I get really whiny in harsh conditions, such as I imagine road-crewing to be.

Much easier to push a button for a living. To fill syringes. To keep a room clean and ready for use, to clean and maintain the bindings on a chair or stretcher. But I would have to choose the road crew over being an executioner, because I feel executing people would cost me something important.

It isn’t that I think all unpleasantness should be avoided. I don’t like blood or gore, either. Yet I have - and will again, I’m sure - chosen to work with people who’ve been battered. Though I don’t relish seeing the effects of physical abuse, I think it’s essential that the work be done. I feel that I am serving the greater good in doing it.

If I thought the death penalty saved innocent lives I might feel ennobled as an active participant in it. But again, we have no proof of that.

33

I don’t necessarily think I’m serving the greater good by working on corporate contracts, but it often intellectually stimulating and it pays well. Sure I might get the opportunity to work on something that “serves the greater good”, but it’s not going to be the driving factor in my job, which I mostly do to provide a nice living for my family.

[We can get into a more deep philosophical argument about whether taking care of my family serves the greater good some other time.]

Your question had dual embedded premises: 1) something unpleasant/squeamish and 2) no service to the greater good. My point was that you cannot assume the latter just due to the fact I wouldn’t necessarily want it as a career, because many people might avoid it or find no satisfaction in it due to the former.

My point was there might be certain people who got enough utility from thinking they were doing something useful for society who would take the job despite disliking its other aspects – kind of like your example above in working with abuse victims. But I’m not one of them.

To put it another way, the choice of a profession and the various utility people get from their professions are sufficiently complex as to make such an inquiry valueless in the discussion.

Finally, though deterrence is an open question (and given how we’ve applied the DP over the past half century, I’m surprised it’s still in dispute – the odds that a murderer will get caught, then not be able to plea bargain, then not be able to fake insanity or mental incapacitation sufficiently to avoid that penalty, then be convicted of the first-degree charge, then not be able to have a technical appeal come through, and then not die of old age on death row, are so minuscule as to be completely disregarded), there are separate societal reasons for keeping the death penalty, the most important of which are intertwined: usurping private vengeance and enacting justice.

There are also utilitarian arguments for the DP independent of deterrence, but these require a more swift application of the penalty to reduce the carrying costs of the inmates, and/or a more broad application of the DP against those types of criminals that are essentially incurable (e.g. child molesters).

34

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

there are separate societal reasons for keeping the death penalty, the most important of which are intertwined: usurping private vengeance and enacting justice.

There are also utilitarian arguments for the DP independent of deterrence, but these require a more swift application of the penalty to reduce the carrying costs of the inmates, and/or a more broad application of the DP against those types of criminals that are essentially incurable (e.g. child molesters).[/quote]

I think coming right to the heart of the matter, I don’t find that vengeance or justice are necessarily served by the death penalty. The justifications I need are more practical; either significantly reduced cost to society or proven deterrence. Absent one of those, I’m left with what seem to be gratuitous killings.

One of the places you and I disagree is in whether it’s preferable to receive life in prison. You seem to think that it’s a lesser sentence, but I’m inclined to think that a relatively quick, painless death is easier than a lifetime (however long that may be) of rape and abuse. So it satisfies my need for both vengeance and justice. And right now it’s cheaper.

I would be more likely to think that the DP would deter child molesters and your run-of-the-mill rapist (presumably more capable of rational thought than a torturer). So a case could be made for expansion, but then the cost of ensuring that no innocents were accidentally killed would be astronomical.

By the way, BB, maybe it’s the posting format, but I think you make a more eloquent case than Haag does. I realize that you’re influenced by his writings, but you seem to me to be offering more compelling arguments for the death penalty. Less emotion-driven.

If I’m going to be swayed by emotions, it will be by my own.

35

This is a very interesting paper on the stats related to the DP as a deterrent:

http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/jwolfers/Papers/DeathPenalty(SLR).pdf

Note the conclusion that the rare use of the DP effectively lowers its deterrence, which was one of my contentions above.

Bottom line is that the outcome of the stats are highly dependent on the initial conditions, and the stats are inconclusive because of other factors that influence the homicide rate.