When you save a victim - Jayme Closs

[Glenn E. Meyer]

So your principle reason for the death penalty is vengeance as the case for deterrence isn't found in the criminological literature?

If the moral dilemma against the death penalty is we occasionally put an innocent person to death - then we should eliminate the death penalty. We should also continuously re-try cases for all people serving prison sentences. We have reasonable doubt as a standard for a reason, because humans inherently make mistakes.

1. The moral case is sound for eliminating it unless you vengenance. The small number of cases makes an economic argument not equal to the moral one.

2. We don't continually retry. That's a silly statement. We re-try when some new circumstance comes to light. I don't see how this follows. There are some horror shows were the person could have been acquitted with DNA evidence. However, the prosecutors argued against an appeal as the time limit for appeals was up, even though it ran out before the technology existed. Luckily, a judge said that was stupid and the person freed.

Emotionally wanting to kill the person is understandable. I would like to parse the motivations - emotional or cognitive.

[RoyGBiv]

So your principle reason for the death penalty is vengeance as the case for deterrence isn't found in the criminological literature?

I'm going to go out of my lane and guess that deterrence is dramatically lessened because it takes decades to carry out a death sentence. How about we raise the evidentiary requirements and shorten the appeals process.? Videotape evidence, recorded confession, 2 unrelated eyewitnesses if both without prior felony convictions, ??...

Cases that don't meet the raised bar are commuted to life without parole. Sentence to be carried out within 1 year of conviction after immediate review by the Circuit Court with jurisdiction. Only due process appeals to SCOTUS allowed.

[Robinson]

If the moral dilemma against the death penalty is we occasionally put an innocent person to death - then we should eliminate the death penalty.

Perhaps, though not over moral or emotional objections (at least for me). A deliberate act by the State that ends with the death of a person deserves a higher standard of proof and due process than other cases. After all, if an innocent person is found guilty and sentenced to life in prison a retrial or new evidence could potentially save that person. Not so if the death penalty is carried out. That seems logical to me.

Finally, the scumbag who kidnapped Jayme Closs and brutally murdered her parents, should be convicted and executed for his crimes, it is a shame that he won't be, in my opinion. I hope that he meets rather quick jailhouse justice, since it is unlikely the justice system will give him the punishment he deserves.

Yes.

[RevolverRob]

So your principle reason for the death penalty is vengeance as the case for deterrence isn't found in the criminological literature?

I've not, nor will ever, make a case for deterrence. If existing penalties are inadequate to deter the determined from staying on their course and committing their crimes, the death penalty won't function like a deterrence, either.

1. The moral case is sound for eliminating it unless you vengenance. The small number of cases makes an economic argument not equal to the moral one.

Vengeance is the wrong word in this case. Taking a life isn't about "settling the score", it's about eliminating that person's ability to continually breathe and consume in our society. We aren't settling the score, we're ending the drain. The economic argument may be small, based on the current number of death row sentencees, but not when applied more liberally.

I think a real economic argument can be made that it financially makes more sense to expand the death penalty or get rid of it entirely. The current approach creates more financial drain than necessary, while simultaneously creating a moral quandary.

2. We don't continually retry. That's a silly statement. We re-try when some new circumstance comes to light. I don't see how this follows. There are some horror shows were the person could have been acquitted with DNA evidence. However, the prosecutors argued against an appeal as the time limit for appeals was up, even though it ran out before the technology existed. Luckily, a judge said that was stupid and the person freed.

Continually retry or effectively have an infinite period of appeals. What's the functional difference here? Okay, instead of having a new trial every 3-years. We file a new appeal every 3 years. Either we accept that people are wrongfully convicted and do our best to prevent that or we build substantial protections into the system that guarantees each individual has an infinite number of redos until they serve their initial sentence, die a natural death, or are exonerated. Given enough time, witnesses die or move away, memories fade, physical evidence is misplaced, and new methods may create reasonable doubt; almost anyone could probably be exonerated, even those who committed the crime in question.

Emotionally wanting to kill the person is understandable. I would like to parse the motivations - emotional or cognitive.

To be honest, you lost me right here, Glenn. Are you asking me if I emotionally feel that some people need killing? Or are you asking me if I pragmatically see that some people are drains on society and may need to be culled from our broader societal herd without concern for the emotional passion(s) that may be related to their crimes?

My answer is - both. Some people just need killing, for purely emotional, visceral, reasons. And some people just need killing, because they are non-functional members of our society who would and do seek to do others harm and refuse to play by the broader societal rules. In the venn diagram of people, it so happens that the people who commit emotional and visceral crimes and those who serially refuse to participate as functional members of society overlap considerably.

[RevolverRob]

Perhaps, though not over moral or emotional objections (at least for me). A deliberate act by the State that ends with the death of a person deserves a higher standard of proof and due process than other cases. After all, if an innocent person is found guilty and sentenced to life in prison a retrial or new evidence could potentially save that person. Not so if the death penalty is carried out. That seems logical to me.

I suppose that brings to bear my quandary with the justice system. Doesn't every person, regardless of the potential punishments for their crimes, deserve the highest standards of proof and due process? If that's not currently the case (and I honestly don't think that is currently the case), then we need judicial system reform before we need punishment reform.

Which, I'll be clear, I only briefly alluded to before, I feel judicial system reform must come before substantial death penalty liberalization (or even elimination). We must standardized our judicial proceedings and level out our judiciary approaches. Then and only then, do I think we can really have a more liberally applied death penalty.

@Lester Polfus made the extremely compelling point that instances of wrongful convictions are not evenly distributed across our nation. Which I conceded and acknowledge is by far among the most powerful arguments against liberalization of the death penalty and maybe even in favor of abolishing the penalty. Why? Because until the justice system is equal across the land, then there will be an uneven distribution of mistakes. Mistakes that cost lives. When the distribution is even and mistakes are extreme outliers? Then I don't worry about those mistakes.

Finally, I've been pretty consistent here (or tried to be). That I think those who are convicted of our most heinous violent crimes and/or are repeat offenders are the ones who will be in line for the more liberalized use of the death penalty. In other words, it's those who have continually shown a disregard for life of their fellow citizens. I'm not saying the kid who robs a liquor store and injures no one gets a needle in the arm. I am saying those who serially rape old ladies or molest children do. I am saying those with a dozen convictions for felonies that refuse to straighten up and fly right. They can be up for consideration for a needle in the arm too.