Too Old To Execute?

Whatever your opinion about capital punishment, the argument that just because a killer of four people is now too old and sick to execute after burning up 20 years of appeals just doesn't fly with me. After all, thanks to him, the four people that Clarence Allen murdered never got a chance to get old and sick themselves. The cruel side of me wants to retort that if he's that sick, then maybe we could think of his execution as euthanasia.

Comments

[NoStar]

Euthanasia?

Ron, What do you have against Chinese teenagers?

[Dead Man Squawking]

Whatever your opinion about capital punishment

I'm agin it.

But for jebus' sake, the guy will be dead shortly anyway, and the remainder of his time will be awful. What's the goal here? Seems like anything but justice.

[Jennifer]

But for jebus' sake, the guy will be dead shortly anyway, and the remainder of his time will be awful. What's the goal here? Seems like anything but justice.

So do you think the Israelis should stop going after the surviving concentration-camp guards, and let the old farts live in peace? How old does a person have to be before it becomes cruel to execute them for murder?

[smacky]

From the article:

The quality of health care in California's 165,000-inmate prison system is under federal court scrutiny. Last month, a judge ordered Schwarzenegger to take immediate steps to resolve problems that result in the death of an average of one inmate a month.

I don't understand why there is an investigation over this. If anything, the governement should be investigating hospital deaths among the free, unimprisoned citizens of the US. I believe hospital-related and medical treatment-related deaths in the US are either the third or fourth primary cause of death in the United States. Yes, the United States. Not to sound biased, but screw the people in the prisons...we should work on solutions for saving those with sound minds first, and then concentrate on the emprisoned.

[Curious]

Wouldn't it be better that the money that would be spent on his life support and meals be used by cops to go to titty bars?

[Jennifer]

Not to sound biased, but screw the people in the prisons...we should work on solutions for saving those with sound minds first, and then concentrate on the emprisoned.

Does this include people imprisoned for victimless crimes like drug possession or prostitution?

[Phil]

Or people who are only on short sentences, rather than under life or capital sentences?

[independent worm]

Yeah, fry that fucker! That'll teach people to murder each other! If we kill enough people, especially old farts, children, and retards, then maybe they'll get it through their fucking heads that killing is wrong!

[Kwix]

I'm a fer it.
That having been said, at least 'Tookie' Williams wrote books trying to keep kids out of gangs. What has the freaking red-man/cracker done?

Economically, how expensive is his health care going to be for his limited lifespan vs. 30cc of drain cleaner or whatever they use these days?

[AmyLou]

I am for capital punishment in cases where there is irrefutable proof that a capital crime has been committed. I also think that, given the proof should be irrefutable, it shouldn't take 20+ years for a convicted murderer to be executed. There shouldn't be enough time for a convict to become debilitated by poor health so s/he can then use it as an excuse to not face the sentencing handed down to him/her.

As far as his treatment at the hands of San Quentin's sub-standard health care system is concerned, it is probably better care than many non-murderous, law-abiding citizens get "on the outside."

Using the term euthanasia is too kind; I think of euthanasia done to help someone who is suffering and who will continue to suffer until released by death. How about "destroyed" in the way it used to describe euthanized pitt-bulls or other domestic animals that attack people?

[smacky]

Jennifer,

That's not exactly my point. I guess it might have seemed like I was suggesting that all prison inmates are not sane. That is not the case. My point is that if the government is going to meddle with healthcare investigations, people in the free society should take precedence over people in prisons. Period.

[Dave W.]

Sometimes R. Bailey has faith in court verdicts. Other times not so much.

Maybe these little concessions we sometimes make to death penalty are best viewed as a rough accommodation for the (unavoidable?) vagaries of the judicial system. Daeth is a severe sanction, and should be imposed reluctantly (if at all) and withdrawn readily (just in case). Sort of like when an appellate court leaves a liability verdict intact, but steals away some, most or all of the punitives the jury had originally wanted. Compromise solution for a fallen world of humans.

[Jennifer]

Yeah, fry that fucker! That'll teach people to murder each other! If we kill enough people, especially old farts, children, and retards, then maybe they'll get it through their fucking heads that killing is wrong!

Imprison that kidnapper! That'll teach people to steal each other's freedom! If we imprison enough kidnappers, especially old farts, children and retards, them maybe they'll get it through their fucking heads that taking people's freedom away is wrong!

[smacky]

Especially since that people who are in, for example, San Quentin, are frequently in there for things such as, oh, rape and murder.

[Kwix]

Jennifer,
So do you think the Israelis should stop going after the surviving concentration-camp guards, and let the old farts live in peace? How old does a person have to be before it becomes cruel to execute them for murder?

Do you really think this is a good use of the Israeli Government's, ahem, Citizen's tax money? I mean, shouldn't they be worring about bulldozing some palistinian olive groves or preserving Sharon's head in vinegar or something , you know, constructive?

[smacky]

strike the word "that" from my last post.

[Rimfax]

That was akin to my argument against commuting Williams' sentence. They didn't sentence him to death for being a bad influence. They sentenced him to death for murdering people. (Yes, I know that many argued that he was innocent, but they all seemed to be biting their cheeks as they did so.)

The fact that he spent his free time between appeals writing kiddie books or strolling on water or healing lepers or wishing that he wasn't enjoying government provided health care didn't change the fact that he murdered people.

I don't even support the death penalty, but I don't have a moral objection to it either. My practical objection is that it denies the possibility of exoneration. I have a similar objection to the libertarian plank of victim restitution, though in that case the wrongly convicted is at least still alive.

[Jennifer]

Smacky, the loss of freedom is supposed to to be the punishment for various crimes, not the loss of freedom plus the inability to get necessary medical care.

[smacky]

Jennifer,

I didn't say that prison inmates shouldn't have access to necessary medical care. I simply said that if healthcare is to be improved somewhere, the efforts should go to improving healthcare in the free society, before throwing dollars at the prisons (of course, only since the government has its nose in health care to begin with...). I would be scared out of my mind to go into a hospital, and I'm not talking about a prison hospital. One inmate a month per state doesn't compare to the number of hospital related deaths in the free population of a single state.

[Jennifer]

Smacky, as a free person you at least have the ability to go to another doctor if you don't like the one you have. Prison inmates don't. So I see no problem with improving their healthcare.

[Kwix]

Rimfax,
At least in the case of victim restitution if they are later exonerated they have rights to redress the State and the victims for monies payed out (plus a reasonable interest rate I should think).

See, this is why the death penalty is such a touchy subject. On one hand you have the "eye for an eye" thought(plus saving tax money over incarceration), but if you execute the wrong man then it becomes a travesty of justice where the government then becomes the "murderer".

I suppose that if we imprisioned only criminals with "true victims" the tax burden wouldn't be so bad and we could afford to store folks for life.

So conflicted. 🙁

[John]

Kwix,

There is more to justice than cost benifit analysis. By your logic, the government shouldn't prosecute crimes no matter how horrible if it costs too much to do so. Why spend millions going after a really tough case when we could take that money and solve 15 easy ones? I don't think someone should get away with a serious crime just because it is hard to prosecute them for it.

As far as this guy. He got to live to be old and sick, which is more than I can say for his victims. Give him the needle.

[Dead Man Squawking]

So do you think the Israelis should stop going after the surviving concentration-camp guards, and let the old farts live in peace?

How neatly you summarize my argument!

No, wait, that wasn't anything to do with what I wrote.

I can't see how this old fart will have anything like a life in peace. The nice thing might be to fry him. Setting him free would increase his misery. Letting him die blind and alone in prison -- this is leniency?

[Jennifer]

Letting him die blind and alone in prison -- this is leniency?

Yes--it commutes the death penalty to a life sentence.

[Kwix]

In a completely OT bit. This is the reason we have so much Governmental interference to begin with.

Calif. Town Remembers Deadly Mudslide

"The defiant homeowners claim Ventura County should shore up the bluff.
...
"I think the government should bring in engineers to determine if it's a livable area," said Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, who heads the urban planning department at the University of California, Los Angeles.
"It shouldn't be left up to people whether they should live there," she said.
...
Bell dismissed assertions that common sense should compel residents to leave La Conchita.
"Where can you live in the United States where you are safe from natural disasters?" he asked. "If a tsunami hit would they fix homes on the beaches? You are damn right they would. Why are we any different?"

[Les]

Imprison that kidnapper! That'll teach people to steal each other's freedom! If we imprison enough kidnappers, especially old farts, children and retards, them maybe they'll get it through their fucking heads that taking people's freedom away is wrong!

I don't know if that's a good analogy. Kidnappers are put in prison because they endanger society. So in that case, kidnapping (the kidnapper) is a moral act. Just as killing a dangerous, potentially lethal man is moral, because that protects society. I don't know how killing imprisoned unarmed people protects society. I've often thought that if we could decrease the subjective elements of "punishment" and "justice" in the sentencing process, and focus instead on the more objective notion public safety, the prison system might be more efficient than it is today.

[David]

I don't know how killing imprisoned unarmed people protects society.

Allen was given the death penalty for orchestrating the deaths of witnesses from prison.

[independent worm]

I am for capital punishment in cases where there is irrefutable proof that a capital crime has been committed. I also think that, given the proof should be irrefutable, it it shouldn't take 20+ years for a convicted murderer to be executed

Well golly, then I guess all we have to do is have the judge press the magic Irrefutability Button then, and all those pesky issues relating to "proof" and "due process" will just vanish into thin air.

I suppose you are proposing a higher evidentiary standard than "beyond reasonable doubt". That's interesting. I'd like to hear more about how that might work.

[Jeff P.]

Didn't a couple right-wingers get in hot water recently for saying that the elderly have a duty to die and get out of the way?

[Les]

Allen was given the death penalty for orchestrating the deaths of witnesses from prison.

So, what, he should have been killed while he was waiting for trial? That he did so is more evidence of gross incompetence on the part of his captors (and perhaps the prosecutors) than it is proof that people in prison are a danger to society. Though if many other inmates sentenced to life w/out possibility of parole orchestrated killings, you may have a point.

[mediageek]

Sounds like something Fukuyama (sp?) would say.

[JD]

Kwix - Actually, Phoenix, Arizona seems pretty safe. No tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, mudslides, or volcanoes.

[John]

Didn't a couple right-wingers get in hot water recently for saying that the elderly have a duty to die and get out of the way?

The only person I can think of who ever got in trouble for saying that was Governor Lamb in Colorado back in the 1980s. He was a Democrat if my memory serves me, but it was a long time ago, so I may be mistaken.

[bubba]

IIRC, it's cheaper to put away an inmate for life, than to execute him. The legal defense of a capital case is much more expensive than the cost of incarceration, especially since you're going to incarcerate these guys for at least 20 years, even if you execute him.

If someone is particularly clever/dangerous, then stick him in solitary. That doesn't solve the problem of crooked lawyers and guards, but I'm not sure what does.

[Phil]

I am for capital punishment in cases where there is irrefutable proof that a capital crime has been committed. I also think that, given the proof should be irrefutable, it shouldn't take 20+ years for a convicted murderer to be executed.

You know, sometimes -- not often, but sometimes -- there are appeals issues completely unrelated to whether the proper burden of proof has been met that can tie a capital case up for years. Criminal defendants still have Constitutionally-enshrined due process and other legal rights that apply even if you have photographs, a videotape, a signed confession, and the victim's ghost pointing out the defendant in the courtroom; and if the state violates those rights, you're damned right I want to see appeals, no matter how long it takes. "Irrefutable proof" doesn't mean the state doesn't have to play by the rules.

Imprison that kidnapper! That'll teach people to steal each other's freedom! If we imprison enough kidnappers, especially old farts, children and retards, them maybe they'll get it through their fucking heads that taking people's freedom away is wrong!

This isn't a tenth as clever as you think it is.

[johnl]

Mediageek, maybe you mean HAYAKAWA. He's now dead. When alive, he was very smart, funny, and strange.

[Jennifer]

Phil, if you wish to be clever you'll have to do more than tell me I'm not.

I've often thought that if we could decrease the subjective elements of "punishment" and "justice" in the sentencing process, and focus instead on the more objective notion public safety, the prison system might be more efficient than it is today.

Fifty years ago I might have agreed with you, but considering the ways lawmakers have reacted lately in the name of public safety--stopping thousands of drivers at a checkpoint in hopes of catching one driver who's not wearing a seatbelt, anti-smoking laws, anti-fast-food laws, laws against swings and seesaws in playgrounds, and the like--I think imprisoning people solely on the basis of public safety would lead to all sorts of horrors.

Besides, I think there's more than safety involved--there's also the matter of justice. And I consider it unjust, to allow a multiple murderer to die of old age.

[independent worm]

Well, one of the fundamental problems here is that murder is one of MANY things in this world that isn't compensable.

What we tend to struggle with is the fact that individuals can CAUSE far more harm than they can ever PAY FOR.

One person can burn down an entire 50 story building, but he'll never have the money to pay for it to be rebuilt. So where's the justice, people cry. Well, if by justice you mean "pay for all the damage you've caused", then you, the building's owner, will be damned to live a life of eternal injustice, because the guy who burnt down your building isn't likely to find $500 million under his couch cushions to pay you with.

Similarly, one person might kill 5,000 people, but even if you believe in "an eye for an eye", this guy only has one life you can take away from him. That leaves him 4,999 lives short of "payment in full", for those who subscribe to that notion.

Regarding the death penalty, as long as one's idea of "justice" contains the concept of "eye for an eye" or a similar idea, one will always remain frustrated with the possible remedies available, because even the most extreme among these -- death -- will still fall short of achieving it.

[Phil]

OK, Jennifer: The very specific question of whether capital punishment, either as a general proposition or as it is currently dispensed in the US, is either a just punishment or a useful deterrent is not an analogue for, and does not reduce to, the more general question of the need to incarcerate criminal perpetrators. A sarcastic comment to the effect that executing "children, retards and the elderly" does not appear to deter violent criminals is not a comment to the effect that we therefore shouldn't punish violent criminals at all.

Therefore, attempting to answer a sarcastic post which questions the effectiveness of death-penalty-as-deterrent with some clumsy form of reductio which makes it appear that the poster was trying to imply that we shouldn't apply any punishments to any offenders isn't at all clever. It's juvenile, and a strawman to boot.

Is that better?

[Jennifer]

Phil, I've seen many people make the argument "putting murderers to death cheapens respect for human life," which I assume is what that sarcastic "let's kill the killers" comment referred to. And I've said before, that the statement "executing killers cheapens respect for human life" makes as much sense as "imprisoning kidnappers cheapens respect for human freedom." But admittedly, my allusion wasn't too clear in my post.

And I have no problem with killing elderly murderers or retarded murderers or even murderers who were not yet eighteen when they committed their crime. The victim of a retarded murderer is just as dead as the victim of a murderous genius, and the victim of an elderly murderer is just as dead as the victim of a murderer in his prime of life.

[anon]

Except, that's not the argument Jennifer was ridiculing.

independent worm said:
We tell people that murder is wrong by murdering those who do it. Isn't that silly, paradoxical, and unjust?

To which, Jennifer replied:
No. We tell people that kidnapping is wrong by kidnapping those who do it. Nobody sees that as silly or paradoxical because isn't whether or not the punishment is different from the crime that makes it just or unjust.

[independent worm]

anon -- not exactly what I was getting at, but a fair reading of what I wrote, how i wrote it. Yes, that's part of it. I make fun of the paradox because it seems that so many people are hell bent on using the "deterrence" aspect of the DP as a justification for it; as if a critical mass of executions will push society over the hump and end murder forever.

What I don't accept, among other things, about Jennifer's reply is that locking people up isn't particular to kidnapping. It's used for all crimes. So cherry picking that one crime is dishonest, obviously. Locking people up is also used for tax evasion, robbery, and even ... murder. It's how we deter and protect.

My question, really, is not so much about the paradox of killing as deterrent, but rather this: what's so different about first degree murder that we, through our appointed/elected government, ought to have the power to KILL the perpetrator instead of just keeping him where he already is -- locked him away in prison?

Why is prison good enough for all the other crimes in creation, but not for first degree murder?

Before someone answers that, consider this: what's to say that OTHER crimes' punishments don't warrant a little bit "spicing up"? What would be so wrong with having the guards shove dildos into the asses of rapists? Does the rapist not deserve it? Why should he be allowed to sit in jail, unraped, while his victims have to go through life scarred?

What about people in for assault? Why should the victim have to have facial reconstructive surgery while the prisoner sits there with a perfectly good face? Would it not be appropriate to bust the guy's head in a little bit, to punish him for what he's done? Why should he get to just sit there like some embezzler or pot dealer, being treated like a king in a country club while his victim lies in a hospital on morphine awaiting another surgery?

Really, why can't some of the other crimes come with a special little "bonus penalty" too? Are their victims no less victimized? Is their outrage not as important? Don't they need closure too? Where is the justice? Where?

[Jennifer]

what's so different about first degree murder

Unlike the victim of a rape or a financial crime, with murder there isn't even a theoretical possibility that the victim will one day recover and go on to lead a normal life.

I'm not arguing deterrence for the death penalty, by the way; I'm just arguing justice. If you don't want your life deliberately taken from you, then don't deliberately take it from someone else. My sympathy lies with the victim, not the criminal.

[independent worm]

Everyone's sympathies are with the victim. I bet there aren't 1 in 100,000 people stumping for the right of murderers to commit more murders.

Unfortunately, that alone is no basis for creating public policy or actually handling criminals.

There's the Constitution to consider, and there's the very notion of what Justice means, a subject which fills volumes of legal and philosophical text. Some of it actually more thoughtful and nuanced than an "eye for an eye". Then there are, the punitive, deterrent, and vengeance aspects to consider in coming up with the right punishment. Not to mention the whole, "if we give the State the power to kill citizes, will that power ever be abused" thing. And the whole "could we ever accidentally execute an innocent man" thing.

Not to mention the possibility of "mission creep." Today it's only for murder, sure, but what about future governments full of wackos? Jesus was executed for Blaspheming a god who wasn't even worshipped by the Romans under whose law he was sentenced. How's that for fucked up?

Then there was Socrates, executed for "corrupting the youth" with his crazy ideas about thinking logically and questioning basic assumptions held by the many. Socrates didn't have shit on this blog on that count. If this were ancient Athens, we'd all be drinking the hemlock.

Then there's those places like northern Nigeria, where the folks in power aren't just outraged by murder, but inchastity too. Remember the Amina Lawal case in Nigeria not long ago? Sentenced to death for having a child out of wedlock?

Once you give the state that power -- to execute -- you're rolling the dice as to when that power will ever be expanded or abused. Just like with all other government powers. Certainly, the power to punish is a necessary one, and I won't argue that. But great care is needed in examining the proper limits of that power.

[Jennifer]

Not to mention the possibility of "mission creep." Today it's only for murder, sure, but what about future governments full of wackos?

You can make the same argument for imprisonment as well: if we let the state imprison thieves, what's to stop them from imprisoning people whom the President simply dislikes? If we are allowed to give fines to speeders, what's to stop the government from fining people for wearing the wrong color?

Any power can be abused; that does not automatically mean it should not be granted.

There's the Constitution to consider

The Constitution doesn't outlaw the death penalty. Maybe you could argue that society has evolved to the point where it is considered "cruel and unusual," but that is another matter.