RoR: Forum

Post 0

Monday, June 11, 2007 - 1:20pm

Link

Edit

Clarence,

I assume we're talking about the death sentence as a punishment and deterrent for murder. Based on that assumption, do you know if the study compared the death sentence against life in prison without the possibility of parole, or against all prison sentences for murder, including those with time off for good behavior? If the latter, then it remains to be seen whether the death sentence would deter murder more than would life in prison without the possibility of parole.

As I'm sure you are aware, given the current (fallible) standards of forensic evidence, Objectivism opposes the death penalty on the grounds that it eliminates the possibility that new evidence could overturn a conviction and allow prisoners who were wrongly convicted to be recompensed and given back their lives and freedom, something which would be impossible if they had already been executed. See in this connection Nathaniel Branden's article "Capital punishment" in the January 1963 issue of The Objectivist Newsletter.

- Bill

Post 1

Monday, June 11, 2007 - 2:28pm

Link

Edit

It looks like they based the article on several studies but the principle one compared crime statistics in areas with similar economic and social backgrounds but with different laws pertaining to the death penalty.

You said:

“Objectivism opposes the death penalty on the grounds that it eliminates the possibility that new evidence could overturn a conviction”

Just to exact with words here I’m going to assume you mean ‘execution’ instead of the death penalty, many people who get the death penalty do get their convictions overturned…which brings me to my next point. Ever since the death penalty was reinstated there has yet to be a proven case where an innocent man was executed and I’ve looked. The case of Jesse Tafero comes to mind as being concerning but looking at the evidence; even I would have convicted him. The death penalty process takes years to make damn sure only the guilty are executed and if someone is found to be innocent, well that only shows the process works.

Honestly, if I were an innocent man convicted of a murder or rape (I’m not sure if other states beyond my home state of Louisiana execute people for rape) and my choices were life in prison or execution, I’d prefer the death penalty because I’d have 10 years of a stringent appeals process to show that I’m innocent. If I was sentenced to life in prison, I would probably get two appeals at most and go to jail for the rest of my life.

Another thing you would have to do to convince me that the death penalty is wrong is show me why we shouldn’t execute the Saddam Hussein’s or Tim McVeigh’s of the world…when everyone and their mama know they’re guilty as sin. If we ever catch bin Laden I’d be pissed if anything less then a rope and a tree were involved.

Post 2

Monday, June 11, 2007 - 5:11pm

Link

Edit

Warrants of Execution

While Rand did indeed have a problem with the possibility of innocent men being executed by a fallible - and corruptible - legal system, I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that "Objectivism opposes the death penalty." Given that Rand never wrote a treatise on the matter or sanctioned an essay entitled "Objectivism and Capital Punishment" or the like, I think she intended that the matter be left open.

Certainly she sanctioned war and allowed for the chance that in a war innocent bystanders might be killed. Likewise, there is no indication that she thought that the police should be disarmed because they might occasionally shoot innocents and bystanders.

While we should take all due caution to ensure that neither corrupt officials nor faulty judgements lead to the execution of innocents accused of capital crimes, if high enough objective standards are met, the death penalty should remain a part of the legal system.

If, indeed, a murder is committed, and an innocent man is mistakenly executed under a system of proper standards, the guilt for the execution of the innocent man lies with the murderer himself, not with those who prosecuted the law. Indeed, the principle of rejecting moral blackmail requires us always to lay the blame for the death of an innocent at the feet of the person who initiated the use of criminal force. Likewise, the mere fact that a risk exists that an innocent person might be executed does not in itself mean that no such risk is tolerable. Part of living in society is bearing the burdens of maintaining that society. It is presumed that civilized people give up the right to enforce the law on their own through vigilante justice. This may mean that when a criminal gets off on a technicality the injured party is left without recourse to compensation. Even in murder cases, we understand that the law may not avenge the murdered victim in all cases. We properly try to minimize risk by requiring a proportional response by the police in the apprehension of criminals. We do not disarm the police and forbid police chases because innocent bystanders might be harmed. We measure the risks and we should make the parties involved bear the consequences of their actions whether this means charging fleeing drivers with felony murder if they kill a pedestrian while fleeing a traffic ticket or whether it means trying a police officer for negligence or brutality if he acts recklessly or abuses his office.

The consequence of living in a state which shuns capital punishment out of squeamishness is the ascendancy of those who are happy to kill knowing they shall at worst run the risk of some day being pardoned or having their sentences commuted. The risk of living in a state which allows capital punishment is the vanishingly small chance that a person who would have died a natural death in any case will die too soon because the state erred in its otherwise appropriate attempt to see that justice be done. The moral blame for that error lies not with the agents of the state acting in good faith. It lies solely with the actual murderer.

If one is truly concerned about putting the power of death in the hands of the state, there is a solution. Should a man be found guilty of a capital crime, a warrant for his sentence of death should be made available to any party or parties wishing to execute that sentence at the risk of their own lives. That is, should the killer of my wife be found guilty of her death, I should be able to post a bond in order to execute the sentence of death upon him myself. Should it later be proven that the man I executed was innocent, let my bond and my own life be forfeit for taking his. The issuing of such warrants of execution should, perhaps, be limited to persons who can show that they are interested parties or who otherwise have cause to pursue the warrant. Such warrants of execution would have to be issued only if certain legal requirements were met. Perhaps the jurors themselves might voluntarily shoulder the risk of executing such warrants, or perhaps the judge should decide. The question is open.

But if the choice is between the state of nature and a state which issues speeding tickets while imprisoning killers at my expense, I would rather take the law in my own hands, and let myself be charged for murdering a murderer, to which I should happily plea justifiable homicide.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 6/11, 6:14pm)

Post 3

Monday, June 11, 2007 - 10:11pm

Link

Edit

While Rand did indeed have a problem with the possibility of innocent men being executed by a fallible - and corruptible - legal system, I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that "Objectivism opposes the death penalty." Given that Rand never wrote a treatise on the matter or sanctioned an essay entitled "Objectivism and Capital Punishment" or the like, I think she intended that the matter be left open.

But she did sanction an essay entitled "What is the Objectivist stand on capital punishment?" in which Nathaniel Branden writes as follows:

If it were possible to be fully and irrevocably certain, beyond any possibility of error, that a man were guilty, then capital punishment for murder would be appropriate and just. But men are not infallible; juries make mistakes; that is the problem. There have been instances recorded where all the available evidence pointed overwhelmingly to a man's guilt, and the man was convicted, and then subsequently discovered to be innocent. It is the possibility of executing an innocent man that raises doubts about the legal advisability of capital punishment. It is preferable to sentence ten murderers to life imprisonment, rather than sentence on innocent man to death. If a man is unjustly imprisoned and subsequently proven to be innocent, some form of restitution is still possible; none is possible if he is dead. (The Objectivist Newsletter, January 1963)

- Bill

Post 4

Monday, June 11, 2007 - 10:26pm

Link

Edit

I stand happily corrected, and sanction you for the reference. I do wonder though, was this really a stand alone essay, or a Q&A? I am still, also, interested in your opinion of my argument and proposed solution. I certainly don't see Branden's piece here as definitive ("doubts") but as a perfectly reasonable starting position.

Ted

Post 5

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 3:06am

Link

Edit

I seem to have missed the part in the article where they discussed the particular methods used, so I will reserve final judgement, however I have some questions.

I am not a criminal justice expert, however it would seem that a common trait most criminals share is a lack of impulse control, that is, they do not think about the consequences of their actions, therefore the severity of the penalty will not affect their actions.

Also, among those that do, I find it a little hard to believe that life in prison is so much better than execution that the criminals who do weigh the consequences will be more likely to commit capital crimes. But that is just my opinion.

Post 6

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 6:38am

Link

Edit

There are some cases where it is so obvious that no one even argues the guilt of the crime itself - you all must know that. On top of that, there are some points I feel are neglected in the debate I have not heard people mention:

1 - The value of a bargaining chip. Often, the death penalty is used in order to gain a conviction by being waived, or to gain the cooperation of the murderer so he can for example help recover victims and that sort of thing.

2 - The cult of death - So many high profile killers become these cultish figures to people and create a great deal of harm by remaining alive and able to interact with people, infecting them with their sick and twisted ideas.

Post 7

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 8:36am

Link

Edit

I've posted this here before: I look at the issue personally. Do I, as a person subject to the same risk of erroneous conviction as anyone else, have better security from being murdered because of the deterrent effect? Depending on one's own risk/reward assessment one can come to a rational decision.

Sam

Post 8

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 9:10am

Link

Edit

I stand happily corrected, and sanction you for the reference. I do wonder though, was this really a stand alone essay, or a Q&A?

What difference does it make? It was a short essay in answer to a subscriber's question.

I am still, also, interested in your opinion of my argument and proposed solution.

It's an interesting proposal, and might cut down on the number of executions, but probably not by much, given the desire for revenge by the victim's family and the unlikelihood that new evidence would overturn the conviction.

I certainly don't see Branden's piece here as definitive ("doubts") but as a perfectly reasonable starting position.

As he states, "The problem involved is that of establishing criteria of proof so rationally stringent as to forbid the possibility of convicting an innocent man."

Certainly [Rand] sanctioned war and allowed for the chance that in a war innocent bystanders might be killed. Likewise, there is no indication that she thought that the police should be disarmed because they might occasionally shoot innocents and bystanders.

The difference is that in the case of the convict, he has already been disarmed and is the hands of the criminal justice system. Whether he is executed or spends life in prison is irrelevant from the standpoint of a threat posed to potential future victims. This is not the case when trying to stop an invading army or apprehend a criminal at large. Both the army and the criminal at large do pose such a threat, whose elimination is outweighed by the possibility of accidental harm to innocent people, although steps should obviously be taken to minimize the latter.

- Bill

Post 9

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 9:40am

Link

Edit

There are some cases where it is so obvious that no one even argues the guilt of the crime itself - you all must know that.
(Kurt E.)

Exactly. Did anyone think there was a chance that John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, or Jeffrey Dahmer was wrongly convicted?

I have never had a problem with the death penalty properly applied to the animals who deserve it. Here in Illinois, our former governor, George Ryan, instituted a moratorium in 2000 on the death penalty after 13 out of 25 death row inmates here were exonerated. I respected and supported his decision, because, to me, the only reason to suspend a specific execution is the uncertainty of the guilt of the accused, and the only reason to suspend executions altogether would be to address systemic flaws in the judicial system, and clearly, there was something terribly wrong with the criminal process in Illinois.

It should be noted, however, that Ryan's act was specifically one of executive clemency that extended to every single person currently on death row in Illinois at that time; their sentences were commuted to life in prison. Some people felt that a "blanket clemency" was nearly as inappropriate as a decision to continue to let the system run amuck and hope for the best; there were many people granted clemency that year whose guilt has never been questioned. (Among others, these include someone who murdered a woman in late term pregnancy in order to steal the fetus from her womb, and then murdered her 7-year-old son because he witnessed the atrocity, and a man who actually got on death row while in prison (for a lesser offense) for murdering a prison employee---a cafeteria cook, if memory serves me correctly.)

Ryan's decision so thrilled the "no-death-penalty-under-any-circumstances" advocates that his name was actually bandied about as a possible Nobel Peace Prize recipient, despite the fact that he was, at the same time, also being investigated for (unrelated) corruption charges (charges for which he was later convicted.)

Ideally, individual cases should stand on their own merit when granting clemency, but if time is of the essence (as in the case of Anthony Porter, who literally came within 48 hours of execution when he was exonerated by new evidence, and whose case was a big part of the reason for Ryan's decision), then blanket clemency will have to do. Better to err on the side of caution.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/01/31/illinois.executions.02/

Side note: Kurt is spot on with his point about the "cult of death"...women write to Scott Peterson everyday, professing their love for him. And Jeffrey Dahmer, a homosexual serial killer, had at least one female fan in love with him; her story actually made the news. (Wisconsin did not have the death penalty option, so while Dahmer did not receive that punishment from the state, he eventually did at the hands of a fellow inmate.) And of course, Charles Manson, who should have been put to death a loooong time ago, is practically a cultural icon!

As far as the deterrent issue...I've never believed in it myself. The people who commit the types of crimes that warrant a death sentence are not afraid of it. Seriously. What's there to fear? 15 years in a private cell, getting special treatment; gaining cult status and worship from your fellow degenerate losers of society; getting a last, "stuff-of-fantasies" meal; having your final words and execution covered by the mainstream press...and I'm speaking of those who actually do think about the consequences of the crimes they're going to commit. I'm with Jonathan...I don't believe most of them will (or can) even consider it, anyway. They simply act. And those subhuman creatures, at least those whose guilt is certain---the ones caught with severed penises in their cookie jars (Dahmer) and teenage boys buried under their houses (Gacy)---need to die. Period.

Erica

(Edited by Erica Schulz on 6/12, 9:51am)

Post 10

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 10:07am

Link

Edit

Erica observed in Post 9 of this thread:

And of course, Charles Manson, who should have been put to death a loooong time ago, is practically a cultural icon!

Back in the middle of the 1990s, I carpooled with a man who made friends with a man who collected a wide range of unusual publications based solely on their oddness. One, an Aryan racist magazine called Resistance, had a cover story entitled:

"CHARLES MANSON: Has He Been Misunderstood?"

I had the chance to flip through the periodical and one offered a full page, black and white photograph of Manson wearing reading spectacles and a big smile. He looked downright grandfatherly! Yes, that sort of garbage makes its way to print when convicted nutcase serial killers do not get their just deserts.

Post 11

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 10:18am

Link

Edit

I am against the death penalty because the current justice system cannot administer it effectively. The no innocent men executed is a canard. All you have to do is look at the number of death penalty convictions overturned and life in prison convictions overturned. Epistemology should lead you to the rest.

There's a simple reason why we cannot prove that an innocent man has been put to death: the evidence is destroyed after an execution.I would support a system in which people took responsibility for their verdicts. The epistemological standard for the death penalty should be: beyond any doubt. In a case such as this a judge should be willing to risk his life under punishment of execution if he imposed the punishment erroneously.

Jim

(Edited by James Heaps-Nelson on 6/12, 10:19am)

Post 12

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 10:33am

Link

Edit

I had the chance to flip through the periodical and one offered a full page, black and white photograph of Manson wearing reading spectacles and a big smile. He looked downright grandfatherly! (Luke)

Did he have the swastika on his forehead at the time?

Of course, in an Aryan racist magazine, that may have made him look downright...holy.

As a freshman in college, I remember Geraldo Rivera doing a very much hyped interview with him on TV (the obvious, begging question being "Why?") and I actually watched part of it, as (due to my age) I knew of him only through "legend".
Absolutely nothing he said made any sense, and I distinctly remember thinking, "OK, so he's still insane." Again...why?

Yes, that sort of garbage makes its way to print when convicted nutcase serial killers do not get their just deserts. (Luke)

Agreed. It actually annoys me that everytime he comes up for parole, it makes the news. Every time. And when he finally dies of old age, that will make the news in a huge way; there'll be special prime time introspectives and profiles done on him by every major channel. Unfortunately, it's not just the nutcases that make him "important", it's the mainstream media as well.

Erica

Post 13

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 10:56am

Link

Edit

Erica asked:

Did he have the swastika on his forehead at the time?

Of course, in an Aryan racist magazine, that may have made him look downright...holy.

Yes. Yes.

Post 14

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 11:08am

Link

Edit

I would support a system in which people took responsibility for their verdicts. The epistemological standard for the death penalty should be: beyond any doubt. In a case such as this a judge should be willing to risk his life under punishment of execution if he imposed the punishment erroneously. (James)

This is an interesting thought, James.

But how would it work? A judge imposes a death sentence. After years of the obligatory appeals, the convict is executed, but posthumously exonerated. Would the erroneous judge then face death? Or would he automatically face death even if the convict were exonerated in life, and set free? Do you propose a death for a death, or a death for an error? Just curious, I couldn't tell from your post when the judge's punishment should be applied.

Incidentally, I read an article in the newspaper about a man in Texas who was executed, proclaiming his innocence to the end, and the gist of the article was that this man may have been innocent. Not that he was officially exonerated, mind you, just that his version of the events that happened may have been possible. (Apparently, a fire killed his three children, and the authorities believed he committed arson. But the actual forensic science that helped convict him in the case was eventually disproved, and it is possible that the fire was entirely accidental.) I first read this in 2004, and it's bothered me ever since.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/na/chi-0412090169dec09,1,2000542.story?coll=chi-newsspecials-hed

If there is even a fraction of a doubt, then an execution shouldn't go forward.

But I absolutely stand by what I said about guys with penises in the cookie jar.

Erica

(Edited by Erica Schulz on 6/12, 11:15am)

Post 15

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 11:25am

Link

Edit

In a case such as this a judge should be willing to risk his life under punishment of execution if he imposed the punishment erroneously. (James)

Why would any judge ever impose the death penalty even if the general population approved of the death penalty in principle? If he didn't, he wouldn't be applying the norms of justice.

Sam

Post 16

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 11:34am

Link

Edit

He would face death if the defendant was executed and the defendant was exonerated in a posthumous legal procedure. He should only be responsible for actual harm done. In the case of wrongful conviction for lesser sentences we can offer compensatory damages.

Jim

Post 17

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 11:46am

Link

Edit

Sam,

The fact that the general population approves of the death penalty does not give it epistemological validity. We have hang 'em high states like Texas which have undoubtedly executed innocent people. If a judge wishes to impose the death penalty on a jury's recommendation, he should be willing to stake his life on it.

Jim

Post 18

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 11:52am

Link

Edit

"Kurt is spot on with his point about the "cult of death"...women write to Scott Peterson everyday, professing their love for him."

Though unlike Dahmer, Gacy and Bundy, I think there exists enough doubt in the Peterson case to rule out death penalty application there.

"A judge imposes a death sentence. After years of the obligatory appeals, the convict is executed, but posthumously exonerated. Would the erroneous judge then face death? Or would he automatically face death even if the convict were exonerated in life, and set free? Do you propose a death for a death, or a death for an error?"

I generally like the idea of agents of law decisions and enforcement bearing responsibility for their actions, and this variant of it is intriguing. I'd say the judge would only face such punishment in the case of an innocent man being executed, while in the case of exoneration while alive the judge may face monetary damages, being stripped of his position or some other punishment.

Post 19

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 12:03pm

Link

Edit

JH-N wrote:

In a case such as this a judge should be willing to risk his life under punishment of execution if he imposed the punishment erroneously.

That's a little drastic, don't you think? Wouldn't a less drastic penalty be enough? What if it were a jury instead of a judge? Kill them all? How many people do you think would be willing to serve as judge or juror on a potential death penalty case under such drastic conditions?