If the guy had been electrocuted, that would have been the single most insurmountably brilliant verbal slip in all human history, past and future.
I think that is a very valuable point. The death penalty is a pretty settled matter around these parts; some of us object to it on moral grounds, some on utilitarian or constitutional issues. I have yet to hear a coherent argument for it that does not hinge on emotional appeals or a justice system based upon vengeance. On the other hand, Rob’s post and some of the ones prior really got me thinking…where does a governor of all things have that sort of power/responsibility? Is that really the best failsafe we can come up with for something as serious as state mandated death? Perhaps I’ve watched too many episodes of “Oz”, but matters like this should really be resolved well before it gets to the kangaroo court combination of perceived public opinion and its minions.
Yeah, I’ve always found it somewhat undermining and a ridicule of the justice system that a governor or president with absolutely no legal background is granted the privilege of “final say” in legal matters – and most especially those involving murder or other serious crimes. How stupid is that?
I heard he called him just before midnight:
“Hey Tookie, it’s AHnold. Remember when I said I was going to kill you last? I LIYEED HUAAGH!” click
You shouldn’t tell me what to be against and not against, OK? I said I wasn’t for letting him out, and you still opened with the statement that such a position was silly. What, pray tell, will avoid the problem of having to counter arguments I didn’t make?
Generally, though, this entire thread seems to imply most people believe rehabilitation is basically impossible. If you believe this, why incarcerate at all? What’s the point of 5, 10, 25 years if all change in prison is “bullshit?” Why not just kill 'em all? But if the death penalty is wrong, then all we can do is warehouse em and release em when their sentence is up, “changed” or not? Brilliant! The penal system is stupid. “Justice” needs to get away from the whole punishment thing (or more correctly, only punishment), and really start to look at how to actually reform criminals. Anything else is a waste of time (thiers), money (ours) and lives (anyone’s/everyone’s).
I just remembered something interesting in thie vein: remember the two ~10 year old boys in England who abducted Jamie Bulger, a toddler, beat him to a pulp and left him in train tracks to die?
Well, they were tried and convicted in about as humane and fair way as was reasonably possible given the absolute horror of the crime. They were basically held permanently until rehabilitated.
IIRC, judicial review capped the sentence, so the british Home Secretary tried to issue an edict, specifically in regard to that case, mandating that
the two boys stay in jail for life.
It all went through the wringer, with the ultimate outcome being that legislators in Britain can’t interfere with sentences at all. The justification was that such a thing could only happen for inherent unjust reasons, such as the legislator reacting to public opinion. Which was, of course, exactly what the home secretary was doing.
For my part, I think that if a specific sentence didn’t include the possibility of rehabilitation (a la Tookie), then rehabilitation can’t reasonably be used as an argument for clemency in that specific case. Instead, it is an argument against sentences in general that don’t include the possibility of rehabilitation, such as, well, being executed.
So, I think Arnie should have announced a moritorium on executions pending a plebiscite (or at least legislative review so that everyone was basically forced to go on the record) on the death penalty, with an eye to ayeing or naying capital punishment and establishing a more formal system of clemency and commuting sentences.
Or, maybe we should acknowledge that prison is to keep them away from us and to exact revenge, and just try to deal with it on that basis as humanely as possible.
I wasn’t talking about letting anyone out, I was talking about killing them or not. You missed my point a bit.
Rehabilitation is mostly a joke. Rehabituation is a much better prospect. As it is prisons are a bizaare mixture of kindergarten classes on sharing and togetherness and brutal violence. As for change, the only change we can rely on is the decrease in violent crime after the age of thirty-five in men across the board. There are people who should never be released to the general population of medium security prisons, let alone society at large. That being said, shorter sentences overall like you see in Europe would probably be the way to go. Follow it up with the rehabituation of a shock trooper for a community corrections officer and you’re good to go.
We just need to devote more resources to keeping newly released convicts from reoffending before they can get a couple of years and regular human life experience under their belts. That doesn’t mean your average electrician has no place paying taxes and voting to make a murderer eat shit sandwiches for a couple decades, however.
I said:
You said:
I don’t think you’re making the points you think you’re making.
I said:
You said:
I don’t think you’re making the points you think you’re making.[/quote]
Break me off a piece of that Kit Kat Bar.
It seems like a holdover from a more literally aristocratic era. Or possibly Wild West posse justice. That British example is an excellent case of what happens when demagogues try their hand at this sort of thing. Just make it a nonissue by revoking that power. But I guess like with other common sense cases (such as Kelo), it wouldn’t get changed unless it hit someone important in the pants. Just as then someone recommended building a Walmart on select Supreme Court justices’ homes, we need a couple of those bigshots to end up on death row.
I think you’re making up arguments on my behalf. I’m not saying that society never needs to imprison anyone for life, I am saying that it’s a very serious sentence that has to be tried constantly for it to be the least morally reprehensible. “Constantly assessed” does not mean “released”.
I don’t actually believe in evil men. Or women. Evil deeds, I can see an argument for.
LK, I’ve always thought it was an executive branch check on the judicial branch.
I definitely see that in a theoretical perspective, but I really don’t see its value in a real world environment. I’m all for rethinking the appeal system or whatever, but I fail to see any moral or practical benefits for the judicial system as a whole to end up beholden to popular whims of the moment. I mean, honestly, I don’t care how many celebrities come out for someone or how many grassroots movements throw a party; if they can produce material that would alter the verdict materially then they should introduce it via the legal system, not through some absurd special interests free for all.
Sometimes the legal system screws up, and the prisoner exhausts his appeals on the deaf ears of an aged judiciary. Sometimes society moves on from a certain crime of the month, or hysteria dies down around a point of social contention, and the moral force behind a harsh penalty just isn’t there anymore. And sometimes, political cronies and pet causes get released too.
Well, governors have had the right to commute death sentences for as long as I can remember, and I suspect the right grows out of much earlier traditions where the chief executive authority of a judicial district–be it a feudal lord or a governor or whatever–had such rights. It’s significant that the executive cannot increase the sentence, but can only reduce it. I suspect it is both a recognition that the ultimate penalty needs a fail safe, no matter how “good” the judicial system is, and a recognition of the political value of such acts… Either way I for one don’t find it particularly ludicrous, as it ultimately has little possiblity of doing irrevocable harm–commuting a sentence to life in prison is reversible, whereas lethal injection is not.
Of course, governors have the power to pardon criminals too, don’t they? Though I don’t know exactly what the limits on that power are. It doesn’t seem to frequently used however.
If I had it my way, Tookie would have “Rode the Lightning” but unfornuately ol’ Sparky isn’t plugged in many places anymore. Oh well, so instead he got to get sleepy and never wake up. Such justice! I’m sure the 12 gauge rounds he fired into a few folks hurt a bit more than that little needle.
Fuck him and anyone else like him. Remind me to come to Anders house to rape and sodomize his mother and murder his father after robbing them blind and then walk away knowing I needn’t ever fear any real retribution for my acts.
Viva la liberal Europeans!
If you ever make it to the States and get to our beautiful nation’s capital remind me to let you meet some good friends of mine. With an outlook like yours, they’d love to get to know you better. Bring lots of cash.
Fuck him and anyone else like him. Remind me to come to Anders house to rape and sodomize his mother and murder his father after robbing them blind and then walk away knowing I needn’t ever fear any real retribution for my acts.
Except that the “real retribution” doesn’t deter such acts. Never has, really. People who are deterred from committing crimes by the fear of punishment generally aren’t the ones sitting on death row. Or even in jail. Even societies with much swifter and certain death penalties still have to use them, because, well, they don’t deter very effectively. Look at the horrendous punishments those “liberal Europeans” dished out a few centuries ago, with gusto (public hangings, drawing and quartering, guillotinings)–crime was not exactly rare, and the brutality of the punishments did little to make anyone safer.
Go for revenge if you like, it’s a logical and arguable position even if one that I think is short sighted and socially destructive. Just be honest about it, though. It’s not about deterrence, because harsh punishments don’t deter this sort of crime. It’s about revenge, plain and simple, so call it like it is.
So do you feel safer now that he’s dead?