Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Catch-22 for Murderers
However you feel about capital punishment (I'm ambivalent for several reasons), you have to admit there is something screwy about this situation: Public defenders argue, in essence, that serial murderer Michael Ross should not be executed because he wants to be executed. They are trying to prevent Ross' execution, which was scheduled for Wednesday morning, by having him declared mentally incompetent.
"I owe these people," Ross says of his victims' families. "I killed their daughters. If I could stop the pain, I have to do that. This is my right. I don't think there's anything crazy or incompetent about that."
But a psychiatrist who will testify at Ross' competency hearing says convicts who spend years on death row develop "a desperate need to regain control," which "underlies an inmate's decision to volunteer [for execution] by waiving his appeals and dismissing his attorneys." That argument suggests such a decision is always suspect, calling into question the convict's ability to make it. In other words, only murderers who are not ready for execution are ready for execution.
|1.24.05 @ 2:49PM|#
It kind of sounds like he wants to stop his own pain-that of guilt. So let him spend the rest of his life making big rocks into small rocks. Or put him in a box and let him stick his head for one hour each day.
|1.24.05 @ 2:58PM|#
This is the silliest shit I've ever heard. Fry the fucker then take the families out to dinner with the money you saved.
|1.24.05 @ 2:58PM|#
Personally, I've often thought that keeping someone alive for the rest of their days in prison would be a worse punishment than death. Nothing to look forward to, yet no way to end it all.
Pete Guither|1.24.05 @ 3:04PM|#
Of course, the way we do things, if he wants to die, we won't
let him. We're not satisfied unless we can kill him
ourselves.
Why not have a self-service execution station?
|1.24.05 @ 3:12PM|#
I don't support capital punishment, but if an inmate really
believes that death would be preferable to life in prison, he
should be allowed to stay in a cell that contains a bed with
pre-knotted sheets, a pipe on the ceiling to hang from, a TV with
frayed electrical wiring, a pre-sharpened razor blade (chained
down, so that it can't migrate out of the cell, of course), and any
other implements of suicide that he may want.
I don't approve of killing other people, but far be it from me to
block the exit for those who want it.
|1.24.05 @ 3:16PM|#
This seems to be leaving out a pretty important part of the
story, as well as its most important dilemna.
By all accounts, Michael Ross is rooting for his death sentence
simply to feed his narcissicm. He's granted dozens of interviews,
wrote books, he's the center of attention, etc. Wanting to "end the
pain" of his victims families hasn't factored high on his list. As
one person involved in the case said "All the attention is on Mr.
Ross, isn't that kind of messed up?" (paraphrased).
The interesting question here is, do we really want to give a
scumbag what he wants? If he'd prefer a sensational death, is that
a good reason to force him to instead sit anonymously in a jail
cell for the rest of his days?
I don't know, but it's an interesting conundrum.
Check the story in the Boston Globe. I'm too lazy to look up the
link.
p.s. Incidentally, I'm generally against the death penalty, but if
they restricted its use to cases like this (as opposed to every
petty-robbery-gone-wrong like in Texas) I'd find it difficult to
get very exercised about it.
|1.24.05 @ 3:23PM|#
This guy Ross was a serial rapist and murderer, and has been a guest of the State since the mid-80s. Enough already.
CodeMonkeySteve|1.24.05 @ 4:06PM|#
I'm against the death penalty for two reasons:
(1) It's one thing to convict someone "beyond a reasonable doubt",
but Due Process requires that any non-reversable sentence be
imposed only when guilt is "beyond any doubt whatsoever", something
that rarely, if ever, happens.
(2) Death's too good for 'em. As sage and Duncan pointed out, a
fate worse than death would be to make big rocks into small rocks
for as long as modern medicine can keep them alive.
The only time the death penaltiy is appropriate is at the time and
place of the attempted crime, and at the hands of the intended
victim.
In certain cases where guilt is not in question, and the crime is
severe enough, I would give the victim (or their family) the option
of execution (but they'd have to/get to do it themselves).
|1.24.05 @ 4:27PM|#
This is local news here in Connecticut; a couple weeks ago there was an appeal on the grounds that Ross shouldn't fry because he "suffers from sadistic personality disorder." In other words, we can't kill him because he ENJOYED committing his murders; only murderers who DISLIKE murder should be killed.
|1.24.05 @ 4:31PM|#
The whole rocks thing is fine, but without cable TV and meat
only once a week. And no soloflexes.
Best would be to keep just the multiple life killer's head alive.
That way he knows he's in prison, can't run away, and really has a
minimal cost to society. In a jar, of course. And none of that
Conrad Baines' head on Rosy Greer's neck neither. That's just
silly.
|1.24.05 @ 5:05PM|#
I'm for capital punishment. Using these arguments against, I
support my pro:
(1) It's one thing to convict someone "beyond a reasonable
doubt", but Due Process requires that any non-reversable sentence
be imposed only when guilt is "beyond any doubt whatsoever",
something that rarely, if ever, happens.
Many verdicts are beyond any doubt whatsoever. When a crime is
committed, physical evidence obtained, circumstances logically
preclude anyone else from doing it, and you have a confession
containing details of the crime that only the criminal could know,
that removes any doubt. Sure, you could argue that space aliens did
it using mental vibrations, but that's not doubt, that's just
noise.
(2) Death's too good for 'em. As sage and Duncan pointed out, a
fate worse than death would be to make big rocks into small rocks
for as long as modern medicine can keep them alive.
That's a negatory. If it were true, then convicts headed for the
[fill in your favorite form of execution here] wouldn't spend so
much time fighting it. Plus, once executed, the chances of that
convict ever committing another crime while on the inside is zero.
Therefore, future crimes are prevented.
In certain cases where guilt is not in question, and the crime
is severe enough, I would give the victim (or their family) the
option of execution (but they'd have to/get to do it
themselves).
Oh, and this one is often used to force people into thinking twice
about the death penalty. While yes, this would reduce the number of
executions- there are too many (present company included) who would
gladly pull the lever, pull the trigger, hit the plunger if one of
our loved ones was the victim. Performing the task would be like
cleaning something off the bottom of our shoes.
Paul
pococurante|1.24.05 @ 5:10PM|#
Someone should tell Ross's PDs that Sadistic Personality Disorder isn't in the DSM anymore.
|1.24.05 @ 5:20PM|#
Due Process requires that any non-reversable sentence be
imposed only when guilt is "beyond any doubt whatsoever", something
that rarely, if ever, happens.
At first that sounds all well and good, but no punishment is
reversible. Even if evidence surfaced that Ross was innocent, and
he were freed, he's had 20+ years of his life taken away. Can the
State give them back?
If capital punishment is state-sanctioned murder, incarceration is
state-sanctinoed kidnapping.
Xrlq|1.24.05 @ 5:21PM|#
I'm with Andy; this one should be a no-brainer. He's earned the death penalty, let him have it. Otherwise, brace yourself for an influx of death row inmates who will now be able to escape Old Sparky just by pretending to want it.
|1.24.05 @ 5:28PM|#
At first that sounds all well and good, but no punishment is
reversible.
Good point about terminology. The fact remains, however, that you
can at least try to make some sort of amends to a person who was
wrongly imprisoned, but you can't do all that much for somebody who
was wrongly killed.
|1.24.05 @ 5:35PM|#
"I've often thought that keeping someone alive for the rest of
their days in prison would be a worse punishment than death."
If a life sentence is so much worse a punishment than death, why
don't more of them kill themselves?
|1.24.05 @ 5:49PM|#
The fact remains, however, that you can at least try to make
some sort of amends to a person who was wrongly imprisoned, but you
can't do all that much for somebody who was wrongly
killed.
Can you, though? What would you consider to be adequate
compensation for wrongly spending 30 years of your life in prison,
and what do you think the odds are that anyone would ever get it? I
think crimethink's got a good point.
CodeMonkeySteve|1.24.05 @ 5:59PM|#
Paul: for any crime, there is *always* the possibility, however
improbable, that the accused was framed and/or railroaded and/or
lying about his confession. Evidence (even fingerprints or DNA) can
be planted or doctored, witnesses intimidated, jurors bribed, ad
infinitum. For that matter, someone could theoretically be tricked
into thinking they *did* commit the crime, when they were in fact
innocent. And are you going to let those space aliens get off
scott-free?
Any just system must have the capacity for self-correction. Once
you've flipped the switch/pushed the plunger/released the trap
door, no correction can be made.
crimethink: Someone can always be released from prison, and (in
theory) restituted to some degree for their improper incarceration.
If the criminal's executed, there's really only one thing you can
do: "Go through his pockets and look for loose change".
One final point against the death penalty: the condemned may still
have information pertinant to some other crime. Take, for example,
the Timothy McVeigh case, where even some of the victims' families
were arguing against his execution, given additional information he
must surely have had about his co-conspirators. With him dead, the
rest go free, and the executioner becomes an accessory after the
fact ...
CodeMonkeySteve|1.24.05 @ 6:03PM|#
Douglas: I see this as clinching proof that, for the worst offenders at least, prison is way too easy. What's the suicide rate of convicted murderes vs. the average public?
|1.24.05 @ 6:42PM|#
In one interview/tv report I saw, they clarified Ross' stance a
bit differently - he said if he was *guaranteed* life behind bars
rather than execution, he would accept the life sentence. Without
that guarantee, he wants to get it over with. In other words, he
wants to end the uncertainty - one way or the other.
His current lawyer, arguing (at his request) that he should die, is
actually against the death penalty, but feels Ross has the right to
make this choice. The public defender apparently thinks that the
depression caused by living under a death penalty amounts to a
mental disorder and means that the person can't make a rational
decision that he'd prefer to just get it over with.
|1.24.05 @ 6:43PM|#
crimethink: Someone can always be released from prison, and
(in theory) restituted to some degree for their improper
incarceration.
Key phrases being "in theory" and "to some degree." From my POV at
least, there's no sum of money -- and no amount of non-monetary
compensation -- that will make up for having spent decades of the
prime of my life incarcerated in rape-land. Not to say that I'd
rather be dead, but don't pretend that decades-long imprisonment is
an undoable punishment.
If our justice system is not fair enough that we feel comfortable
putting people to death (after appeal after appeal has been
exhausted), then it isn't fair enough to feel comfortable throwing
them in prison for long periods of time.
|1.24.05 @ 8:43PM|#
Why should a death row inmate essentially be allowed a assisted suicide, when the same service is denied to good, law abiding folks?
|1.24.05 @ 10:30PM|#
crimethink:
The fact that an innocent can't be adequately compensated doesn't
mean the attempt shouldn't be made. What about civil injury, where
one person's recklessness paralyzes another person. Should the
victim never sue, because no compensation can ever be adequate?
Nonsense! Whenever there is negligence, some form redress must be
allowed, even if it is grossly inadequate. With state sanctioned
kidnapping, compensation is always possible, whereas with state
sanctioned murder, no redress is possible. Perhaps the family can
win a wrongful death suit, but that doesn't help the principle
victim.
|1.24.05 @ 11:03PM|#
Just Say No,
Nowhere did I argue that the state should never compensate people
who have been wrongfully imprisoned. Just say no to straw
men!
I am arguing that if you think the death penalty should be
discontinued because it's irreversible, we'll have to discontinue
imprisoning people too. True, more can be done to compensate
innocent people who are released after decades of imprisonment,
than those who are executed; but as I stated, there is no monetary
award that could even come close to making up for the loss of 20-30
years of my life behind bars.
|1.25.05 @ 12:35AM|#
No, Paul, Jeremy Nimmo was correct, the book you read was The Executioner's Song
|1.25.05 @ 1:43AM|#
Although incarceration is irreversible as well, one can argue
that incarceration is necessary, whereas capital punishment is not.
We have to do _something_ with those we have convicted of crimes;
reforms of the system notwithstanding, incarceration is what we've
decided upon for the time being.
I think you've strawmanned the argument that Ross's attorneys are
making. It's not that _anyone_ who wants to die is mentally
incompetent, it's that Ross is mentally incompetent and therefore
his waiver of his appeals is invalid. Their argument about the
effects of being on death row does not necessarily create a
Catch-22 � it is possible that the conditions on death row have
caused or exacerbated Ross's poor mental health without necessarily
meaning that death row would have the same effects on other
condemned inmates. Even if their argument is the latter, however,
the fact that it appears to be a Catch-22 doesn't make it wrong.
Ross's lawyers are arguing, in essence, that life on death row is
the equivalent of psychological torture. If someone who was being
tortured physically chose to die, few would argue with the
proposition that nobody can make any rational choices (including
the choice to die) under those conditions. How is this so
different?
raymond|1.25.05 @ 1:44AM|#
On a libertarian board, libertarians arguing IN FAVOUR OF
government violation of that most basic inalienable right, the
right to Life.
On a libertarian board, libertarians arguing IN FAVOUR OF
government violation of those most basic inalienable rights, the
rights to Liberty and Property.
Government forcing citizens to become accomplices to ritual state
killing.
Mention Social Security and gun control and libertarians go all red
in the face and spluttery. "How dare they set up a programme to
help old people avoid what used to be inevitable poverty? How dare
they try to protect inner-city residents from drive-by shootings."
Outrage.
But talk about the death penalty, and "libertarians" are out in
force, baying for humiliation, torture, blood.
You've got a sick, sadistic prison system. You've got ritual
killing. You've got the fruits of your labour taken by force to
support these things.
Capital punishment is an attack on the very notion of fundamental
individual rights. "Libertarians" my @ss.
|1.25.05 @ 4:25AM|#
crimethink said:
"I am arguing that if you think the death penalty should be
discontinued because it's irreversible, we'll have to discontinue
imprisoning people too. True, more can be done to compensate
innocent people who are released after decades of imprisonment,
than those who are executed; but as I stated, there is no monetary
award that could even come close to making up for the loss of 20-30
years of my life behind bars."
You seem to be saying, "In for a penny, in for a pound. Once a
non-compensible injustice is done, further injustice can be added
for no additional cost. Since false state-sanctioned kidnapping
can't be properly compensated, what the hell do we care about false
state-sanctioned murder?"
Since you are hung up on the arguement of compensation, try this
on: Your house burns down, complete with your momentoes, photos,
rare collectables, and other irreplaceable items. Since you can't
be properly compensated for your loss of these treasures, should
you forego buying fire insurance? I mean, all the fire insurance
will do is give you new housing. It can never replace the
irreplaceable.
The analogy is this: state-sanctioned kidnapping is to burning down
your house as state-sanctioned murder is to burning down your house
with you in it. Some form of compensation is available in the first
instance; no compensation is available in the second. It's not just
a matter of degree, it's a matter of kind. If the state is make
errors (and it will), then it should make errors that are (in
theory) compensible. State-sanctioned murder is not such an
error.
|1.25.05 @ 10:40AM|#
Just Say No,
You're making the same mistake again. Go back and read my post and
tell me where I say we shouldn't compensate people who were
wrongfully jailed (or the families of those wrongfully
executed).
Neither the death penalty nor decades-long imprisonment is
reversible. So, if as CodeMonkeySteve stated, due process requires
that irreversible punishments be proven absolutely beyond any
doubt, the State can neither execute nor long imprison practically
anyone for any crime. That is my argument -- have at it.
|1.25.05 @ 10:45AM|#
raymond,
Not sure which of the many varieties of libertarianism you think we
should follow, but I'm sure that the vast majority of libertarians
agree that one of the few legit functions of govt is to take away
the liberty and property (and possibly the life) of those who
violate the rights of others.
Xrlq|1.25.05 @ 1:14PM|#
Sorry, Raymond, but you're the @ss here. There is no libertarian position on the death penalty, one way or the other.
dagny|1.25.05 @ 2:50PM|#
And I'm sure Social Security is the only thing that prevents all those retirees with two houses and a motor home that costs $100 to fill up with gas from inevitable poverty, and every inner-city drug dealer has a totally legal and licensed gun.
|1.25.05 @ 2:56PM|#
But talk about the death penalty, and "libertarians" are out
in force, baying for humiliation, torture, blood.
I disagree. Going back to refuting the 'death is too good for 'em'
argument, I reject this, but still support the death penalty.
The 'death's too good form em' argument seems to be something that
stems from the idea that one is against the death penalty for lofty
intellectual reasons, but is still 'tough on crime' so as not to be
pidgeon-holed as a limp-writsted softy.
I do not believe that torture, humiliation and/or blood is an ideal
to uphold. IF death were too good for 'em, as some say, then we
could really be doing much more to make their lives miserable, but
yet we don't. If we're going to keep ALL offenders alive,
regardless of their crime, they should be treated with dignity and
compassion (within the boundaries of their lifetime confinement). I
do not believe the death penalty is inhumane- and violates the
priciples of 'right to life'. To be consistent with an 'absolute
right to life' regardless of the violations against others' right
to life, then we'd better start closing the abortion clinics,
too.
I strongly believe that a just system can reasonably take the most
horrendous violators of that right to life, and end theirs as long
as a stringent due process is followed.
The ONLY anti death-penalty argument that carries ANY weight, is
the lifetime possibility of self-correction. This too, is
debatable, but at least it carries wieght. Any other argument is
hopelessly, forgive me, tortured.
Paul
raymond|1.25.05 @ 4:29PM|#
To be consistent with an 'absolute right to life' regardless
of the violations against others' right to life, then we'd better
start closing the abortion clinics, too.
Perhaps. However, that's not my "cause" here right now.
I believe that the fundamental individual rights are inalienable.
They cannot be given away, or taken away.
I believe that even those who commit the most "horrendous" crimes -
adultery, homosexual acts, murder, blasphemy - do not and cannot
forfeit their right to Life.
I believe that capital punishment as it is practised in the US is
"inconstant, uncertain, ... arbitrary".
I believe the only valid role of government is to secure the rights
of the people. The only valid powers of government come from the
people, and the government may by right do only what the individual
may do.
And I think the first victim of capital punishment is the concept
of the right to Life. And while I feel sympathy for the innocent
people condemned to death - and for the mentally ill, the retarded,
those who were children at the time of their crime - what really
worries me is... I could be next.
ps -
You know how some businesses say, for example, "For every $10 you
spend in our store, $1 goes to Save the Children or
Tsunami Relief or some such charity? Well, in Texas, there
should be signs warning "For every hamburger you buy, 10¢ goes
toward the ritual killing of a defenseless human being" or "Buy a
shirt and a donation of $1 to Kill A Mentally Retarded
Person will be made in your name."
|1.25.05 @ 6:56PM|#
"For every hamburger you buy, 10? goes toward the ritual
killing of a defenseless human being" or "Buy a shirt and a
donation of $1 to Kill A Mentally Retarded Person will be made in
your name."
While I understand your being repelled by knowing that you're being
forced to contribute to a practice you disagree with through
taxation, these examples are mere hyperbole. Simply changing the
language doesn't change the Truth(tm). Or maybe I could more
accurately say, changing the statements gives a perception to a
different, yet equally True(tm) concept. Example "For every
hamburger you buy, 10c goes toward the execution of society's most
dangerous murderers". Or, "...10c goes toward maintaining the
lifestyle of the states most dangerous criminals" (if say, the
death penalty were outlawed). Oh, and "Defenseless human being" is,
I'm sorry to say, a tortured 'truth'. Yes, at the time of the
execution, the individual is of course, defenseless. So was Carla
Faye Tucker's victim...
|1.25.05 @ 7:05PM|#
While it's true that most libertarians accept a criminal justice
system as one of the legitimate functions of the state, I've always
understood that acceptance as stemming from a belief that a
criminal justice system is necessary to protect the liberty of
citizens (i.e., to prevent crime). Following that logic, though,
shouldn't libertarians object to a criminal justice system that
does more than is necessary to prevent crime?
To demonstrate my point, many progressives (myself included)
believe that welfare is part of a just state and that welfare
recipients are morally worthy of government assistance.
Libertarians generally respond that it's unreasonable for me to tax
them to enforce my morality.
Regardless of whether capital defendants deserve the death
penalty, how can you tax me to enforce your morality if I can't tax
you to enforce mine?
Xrlq|1.26.05 @ 12:29AM|#
I have a question for the "death's too good for 'em" crowd. Seeing we all agree that death is too harsh of a penalty for some crimes (petty theft, for example), and you claim it is too light of a penalty for others (capital murder), you should have little trouble identifying an intermediate group of crimes for which death is "just right." So, what are they? Rape? Voluntary manslaughter? DUI? What, exactly?
raymond|1.26.05 @ 12:52AM|#
Example "For every hamburger you buy, 10c goes toward the
execution of society's most dangerous murderers".
In January, Republican Governor George Ryan of Illinois suspended all executions in that state after 13 death row inmates were found to have been wrongly convicted. Mother Jones
Ryan Matthews spent five years on Louisiana�s death row for a crime he did not commit. Seventeen years old at the time he was arrested, Matthews was sentenced to death for the shooting death of Tommy Vanhoose, a convenience store owner, in Bridge City, Louisiana. DNA testing results both exonerated Matthews and revealed the identity of the actual perpetrator. Innocence Project
No further comment needed, imo.
Oh, and "Defenseless human being" is, I'm sorry to say, a
tortured 'truth'. Yes, at the time of the execution, the individual
is of course, defenseless.
QED, then.
In the US, certain kinds of murder (eg, black-on-white) are
considered to be "the most heinous crime".
By reserving and arguing in favour of the use of capital punishment
for only "the most heinous crimes", though, one is arguing in
favour of capital punishment in countries in which the most
despicable crime is, say, blasphemy. Or adultery. Or homosexual
acts. Or drug dealing.
Defending the death penalty means rejecting the notion of
inalienable fundamental individual rights. George W Bush's
promising respect for human rights throughout the world is just
more cynical hypocrisy. Though sickening, it's only to be expected.
Libertarians (those "who advocate maximizing individual rights and
minimizing the role of the state") screaming "fry the fucker" make
me shake my head in disbelief.
There is no libertarian position on the death penalty, one way
or the other.
If that is true, then libertarianism is meaningless.
Xrlq|1.26.05 @ 1:22PM|#
There is no libertarian position on the death penalty, one way or the other.
If that is true, then libertarianism is meaningless.
Not meaningless at all; it just doesn't mean what you want it to
mean. Libertarianism means promoting liberty, not life per
se. Prohibiting certain acts (e.g., victimless crime laws)
offends libertarian values, no matter how light the penalty may be.
Prohibiting others (e.g., murder, rape and other victimful crimes)
does not, no matter how serious the penalty may be. Once you figure
out what should and should not be a crime, how severely you punish
the remaining crimes is a practical question, and may also involve
some moral dilemmas, but it cannot be decided according to
libertarian principles. "Life-arian" ones, maybe, although even
then, it's debatable what conclusion such principles should lead to
(some say that any state sponsored killing cheapens life, others
say that failure to avenge the most heinous murders does). But it
is a life question, not a liberty one.
Think about it this way: when was the last time any self-proclaimed
libertarian seriously argued that life was an
unalienable/inalienable right, but liberty, property and/or the
pursuit of happiness are not? They say it all the time, probably
because they have no clue what "inalienable" means. They assume it
means that the big, bad state can't take it away on a whim, which
is good. The state shouldn't be able to kill, imprison or rob its
citizens arbitrarily. But that's not what inalienable means.
Inalienable property rights don't just mean that the government
can't take your land; they also mean you can't sell it yourself, a
most unlibertarian concept. If life, liberty and property really
are in/unalienable rights, then not only does it follow that an
individual cannot relinquish his own right to life by committing a
heinous murder, he can't reliquish his right to liberty, either,
and can therefore never be imprisoned for his crime. Like it or
not, that's where your pseudo-libertarian argument against the
death penalty leads.
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting to hear from the "death is too good
for them" crowd as to which lesser crimes meet the Goldilocks
standard. [Locusts chirping in background.]
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245