Posted: 8/1/2014; Updated: 11/21/2017, 8/6/2014
Update Of 11/19/2017
Recently, I discovered this quote by Alphonse Karr (he is famous for this quote: “The more things change, the more they stay the same.”):
“Si l'on veut abolir la peine de mort en ce cas, que MM. les assassins commencent: qu'ils ne tuent pas, on ne les tuera pas.
(If one wants to abolish the death penalty in this case, Messrs. murderers should take the first step: they do not kill, we will not kill them.” (Source)
Trigger
One of the leaders of the libertarians in the U.S., Nick Gillespie, the editor in chief of Reason Magazine, just wrote “Why the Death Penalty Needs to Die/The recent botched executions are just the tip of the iceberg. The death penalty is and always has been a financial and moral disaster.”
The latest execution of a murder in Arizona was criticized, because it took two hours before the murderer succumbed in supposed agony to the new deadly, chemical cocktail.
Prologue
I grew up in a family, where my parents have strictly opposed capital punishment on grounds of e.g. that just one innocent person put to death would be one too many. It is irreversible!
Plus, capital punishment has no deterrent effect!
Why Should Civil Society Allow A Murderer To Live?
I presume here that the convicted person is not innocent!
How does civil society benefit from having a murderer spend the next 20 years or his remaining life time in jail?
Yes the murder could write a bestseller or sell sought after model cars like that triple murderer in Germany and make perhaps oodles of money, the murderer could then donate to good causes.
Yes, scientists and doctors could analyze his brains etc. and figure out how to identify future murderers or help future would be murders not to become murders.
Yes, upon his release from jail, the murderer could make valuable contributions to society. How many have actually done this?
The Highest Command
Thou shalt not kill! Well, the murderer has violated this highest command of god (or for atheists of civilized society). By committing this act, a murderer has waived any remorse or restraint on legitimately killing the murderer.
Any human has the innate capability to realize that there are always other alternatives to murder! Period!
Excuses For Murder
In principle, there are no excuses for murder! Period!
Well known excuses like rage, alcohol, drugs, or mental illness or similar are quite lame.
Individual responsibility means that if I know that rage, alcohol or drugs etc. trigger violent behavior of mine I have to avoid such triggers. Period!
I would posit that most murders recognize very well that they are susceptible to these influences before they commit their first murder. If they don’t care or prefer to ignore, well the consequences could be dire!
I would also posit that many murderers have been told at some point in their lives before the first murder occurred by someone who cared that they are heading for disaster. A responsible person might have listened and acknowledged.
Similar mentally ill persons. I would posit, no seriously mentally ill person becomes one overnight. I would posit it is usually a process over time. I would also posit that many mentally ill persons became aware of becoming one over time. It is a responsible person’s obligation to seek help or to seek even incarceration, in particular, with mental illnesses. I would also posit that other people who cared warned the future murderer before the first murder was committed. There could be more to be said about mentally ill murderers, e.g. the fashionable, but questionable general deinstitutionalization of mentally ill persons in the 1960s and later; or that mentally ill persons end up disproportionately in our prisons instead of medical treatment. Mentally ill persons who avoid seeking help or who refuse or stop participating in medical treatment act probably irresponsible especially if they are a risk to other humans.
Don’t get me wrong, mentally ill persons and those who care about them should have all the medical treatment available as humanly possible. There should be more search into the causes and treatment of mental illness, more campaigns to reduce the societal stigma and taboo of mental illness.
Deterrence Questioned!
Well, if there is no deterrence, as the opponents of capital punishment so strenuously argue, then guilty murderers do not mind to be executed and they would not constantly appeal! Are not most humans terribly afraid of dying too early?
They give up their lives willingly and knowingly as they commit their murder!
Defining Capital Crimes & Punishment
The definition of capital crimes should be very narrow! E.g. only multiple murder committed at different times and different locations, because this would most likely rule out accidental or negligent murder. Or if it is a single murder, if premeditation was involved and evidenced.
Further, a capital punishment should not be carried out immediately, but a number of years later after conviction, e.g. five years to give the defendant or any other person a chance to come up or come out with exculpatory evidence. A rule like this would allow the defendant or it would put pressure on everyone or any organisation to find any evidence to the contrary if the defendant is innocent!
The current practice of almost endless appeals is appalling!
The Jury Of Peers
Proposals regarding jurors:
- Allowed to choose, e.g. between lifelong prison or capital punishment
- They should receive enhanced Instructions and education (e.g. about prosecutor tactics, limitations of forensics, jury nullification and more)
Choosing The Method of Execution!
Why don’t we allow convicted murders the choice of method of execution! Why don’t we use e.g. the beheading (e.g. guillotine) anymore? I would claim, it is certainly faster than two hours and it can be helped with modern medication. Why is hemlock (Socrates) or other, similarly effective poison aided by medication not used anymore? Why not carbon monoxide?
It is an absurd and totally disingenuous discussion lately that the chemical cocktails are causing agony etc., since the opponents of the death penalty are doing everything possible to make the best chemicals unavailable e.g. by prohibiting export of such chemicals from Europe to the U.s.
Execution Of Innocents
This is perhaps the only, strongest and most serious argument of all to abolish the death sentence, because a carried out death sentence is de facto irreversible.
However, as long as there is no miscarriage of justice or overzealous and biased law enforcement involved, modern technology is much more accurate at identifying the culprit than at any time before. It is the defendant’s and the defense attorney’s responsibility to convince the jury or public of the innocence of or exonerative factors benefiting the defendant.
No comments:
Post a Comment