So, as noted below, Dzokhar Tsarnaev has been convicted on all thirty counts in the Boston Marathon Bombing and (closer still to home), the murder of MIT police officer Sean Collier.
Good.
Now for sentencing, in which the grotesquely termed “Death Qualified Jury”™ will decide between execution and life without parole.
Like an overwhelming majority of my Boston neighbors, I am opposed to the death penalty for Tsarnaev, as I am in all cases. Three reasons:
1. Error or malice. It is hardly news to anyone reading this that police and prosecutors f**k up. Death at the hands of the state renders those errors permanently uncorrectable. As a citizen in whose name the state kills, I can’t accept that moral burden.
That some cases, like Tsarnaev’s, are open and shut doesn’t alter the moral and practical force of the argument above, I think, basically because the moment you introduce discretion into death penalty jurisprudence, you re-open the possibility of error or malice. If the standard is overwhelming obviousness, then who decides; who processes the evidence in support of that definition, and so on. The only way to be certain you’re not killing innocents is not to kill anyone under the cover of state sanction.
If that makes me soft, so be it.
2. Soft or not, I’m vengeful, too. To my mind, LWOP is a fate worse than death. Because I do not believe in an afterlife, the only punishments that matter, like the only rewards, are those we receive in this life. Fifty years in a maximum or super-max prison is, to me, a much more thorough and exemplary penalty than oblivion.
3. I’m practical. See reason one. Cops and government lawyers f**k up. We kill their errors and the urgency of addressing particular patterns of incompetence, indifference, and outright viciousness diminishes. Patterns of bad behavior and unjust outcomes become much harder to discern. Any hope, slim as it may be, of creating a better, more justice-driven law-enforcement system, evaporates when the living reasons to address current injustices disappear. If we want to make things better, we need not to kill the people whom the system failed. Simple as that.
That’s a pretty good short-version of how I see it, probably in the order I’d weight them. I’m sure I could come up with more, and FSM knows, seeing as it’s me, I could go on a lot more on the three planks above. But that’s the gist.
ETA: One more thing: Just to be clear. I’m no Gandhi. I’m not non-violent. But I’m anti-violence. The fact that we (in theory) surrender to the state a monopoly on violence means that we need to hedge that power around with a mighty wall. Not killing those in our power, even the most evil, is part of that wall. Whether the more pragmatic arguments above carry greater weight some days than others, at bottom there is a moral imperative that I can’t find a way to avoid: when we, or I, don’t need to kill, choosing to do so anyway is wrong.
What do y’all think?
Image: Caravaggio, Salome with the head of John the Baptist, before 1610.
JPL
It’s unfortunate that they can’t amputate a limb before putting him in Super-Max. Call me vengeful, if you like.
Tom, Your arguments show reason and maturity, mine not so much.
Steve
Death penalty is wrong, as is abortion.
Joseph Nobles
For all the reasons you listed, I’m against the death penalty. Life without possibility of parole is the choice here.
catclub
good article in New Yorker on people exonerated after miscarriages of justice system
The kind of people who survive it — transcend.
Tom Levenson
@Steve: That’s a false equivalency, as I suspect you know. But I live in the perhaps forlorn hope that we might discuss the question I hope my post raises: is the death penalty for a convicted criminal ever appropriate?
Betty Cracker
I’m against the death penalty too, in all cases, but for slightly different reasons — or additional reasons. Error and malice, yes; it is undeniable that the death penalty is applied unevenly based on race and wealth, plus throw in incompetence.
But as Iowa Old Lady suggested in the thread below, applying the death penalty dehumanizes everyone involved. I’m all for removing the threat permanently — I say lock this Tsarnaev character up until his wispy little beard is white and 10 feet long and he draws his last breath. But I can’t get on board with killing him.
Regarding which is worse, death or LWOP, I’d say that depends on the offender’s personal preferences and the conditions of the imprisonment. I am in favor of humane — but not cushy — imprisonment. Under those conditions, personally, I think I’d rather live than die. But I don’t have the blood of innocent children on my conscience, and to the extent my country does, I’ve done what I could to oppose it.
Gin & Tonic
While “death qualified” may be lousy wording, if the death penalty is ever to be permitted and applied, the jury has to be, what, “open to the possibility”? Otherwise there’s no point in a penalty phase. If the verdict is to be unanimous, and if someone who is opposed to the death penalty under any circumstances is among the 12, then the verdict/penalty is decided before the trial. I think the balance here is that while there are presumably many reasonable people who are unalterably opposed, their opposite is not a similar number of nihilists who want to kill everyone under all circumstances. Many people, as here, are in the middle, presumably allowing for the death penalty under *some* circumstances. Since you need 12 to agree, the conclusion is far from foregone, and isn’t that what the system is supposed to provide?
Brendan in NC
Tom, I’m fully in agreement. One other thing. It costs less to incarcerate someone for life without parole than it does to execute them. Can’t remember where I saw that statistic, but I saw it.
Elizabelle
Well stated throughout, Tom.
No remedy for improperly applied death penalty.
Suzanne
@Joseph Nobles: Concur. 100%.
Gin & Tonic
@Tom Levenson: DNFTT.
trollhattan
A fine summary. I’ll never be seated on a capital jury because I am flatly against it in all cases. We should join the other western developed nations and abolish the death penalty.
bupalos
I agree strongly with this one, both in the way that it’s intended and an extended way too. In extended and myriad ways, “the system” failed Tsarnaev too. Keeping him alive (and treating him well) is a good idea practically, because he may be able to become someone who helps us understand, communicate, and correct the systemic failures that create Tsarnaevs. It doesn’t satisfy the understandable human thirst for blood here, but if we step back and are honest, the understandable human thirst for blood is the problem and really not any part of any solution.
To extend a weird, cold, and potentially creepy metaphor, I think the last thing that a cybersecurity expert would do is delete a piece of spyware before having a proper chance to study and understand it. In the effort to combat these kind of one-off terrorist events, there is no more useful asset than the terrorists themselves.
JPL
I erased my comment because it’s a waste of time to feed the trolls.
Tom Levenson
@Betty Cracker: Absolutely. You, me, and Iowa Old Lady are in vehement agreement. It should be horrifying to kill someone under any circumstances, even if it’s in unequivocal self defense/defense of others. Anything that diminishes the horror diminishes our humanity.
Major Major Major Major
I think I can put it simpler.
Nobody should kill anybody unless they really have to. Even if the person in question killed other people.
Now we can argue about that “unless…” clause until the bars burn down, but I see no compelling interest in killing this dude.
Tom Levenson
@Gin & Tonic: Roger that.
Major Major Major Major
@Steve: at least the troll, while repetitive, is consistent.
trollhattan
@Brendan in NC:
My hunch: depends on the state. IIUC execution costs are driven by the cost of the many levels of appeals and clearly, states such as Texas and California are at opposite ends of the cost scale based on how rigorous, or non-existent, the process is.
I distinctly recall the governor candidate debate between Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman when in response to a death penalty question Meg said she’s all for it and will crank it up to clear out death row and eliminate the need to spend all that money it was going to take to build a bigger one. Let a thousand accountants rain!
Mike in NC
I was sort of indifferent to the death penalty until I learned of this governor in Texas — George W. Bush was the name — whose favorite part of the job was to approve executions.
Major Major Major Major
@Tom Levenson: that’s a better way of saying what I meant. Oh majorx4, you’re so less eloquent than Tom
the Conster
I see that guy with the sign – Joe Kabertas – every day outside South Station – every single day – holding signs about getting out of Afghanistan. The guy is nothing if not consistent and committed in his beliefs.
Roger Moore
I’m not even sure that I believe in life without parole. I think the parole system serves an important function, and it’s not run by a bunch of idiots. Even if Tsarnaev, or any other infamous murderer, is eligible for parole, he’s unlikely to get it. I would rather accept the minuscule chance that some undeserving person would get parole than to undercut the whole system by declaring that it’s too incompetent to know that he should stay in prison.
Eric U.
I prefer not to be involved in killing anyone. I have trouble sticking to that in all cases. For example, Bin Laden. And as noted in the top post, lwop is a severe punishment. I was very unhappy that we killed Tim McVeigh. I wanted him to rat out his co-conspirators. Was that why he was executed so quickly?
wenchacha
It’s never a question of whether or not I am horrified by the acts of a convicted killer. I’m always horrified. And of course if it were one of my very own loved ones who was a victim, my first reaction would be to tear the killer from limb to limb. But that’s just me, and I wouldn’t be thinking very rationally in the moment.
I expect our laws and justice to be rational, not bloodthirsty. My hope would be that losing freedom forever would be a rational punishment.
greennotGreen
Another reason not to sentence Tsarnaev to death is to avoid creating a martyr. Remember that a lot of these terrorists are recruited with the promise of a wonderful afterlife. A wonderful afterlife after a long life of incarceration may be a bit less appealing.
Elizabelle
@bupalos: The forensic use of bombers and serial/mass murderers. That would be useful.
Am I alone in thinking this young man might repent and find redemption of some sort at some time? He was 19 when he did the crime, 21 now. He has a lot of changes and time to think ahead of him.
trollhattan
@Mike in NC:
He and Gonzo were a nice stand-in for Alex and his Droogies. Bush’s consideration of clemency for Karla Faye Tucker comes to mind.
Swellsman
I am the same, and very much for the same reasons. And I wholeheartedly agree that LWOP is a fate much, much worse than death. To my way of thinking, America’s insistence on keeping the death penalty reveals not merely a moral obtuseness, but a lack of imagination, as if a quick death were the worst we can think to do to people who have committed great crimes.
Remember Timothy McVeigh? We gave that guy everything he wanted. He committed a heinous, despicable crime, reveled in it, and then demanded to be given (in his mind) a martyr’s death, and we . . . gave it to him? I remember when he was executed family members of some of the people who died in the Oklahoma City bombing were there to witness his death; he said nothing, expressed no regret, lied down and was strapped in, and then killed via chemical.
This is punishment?
McVeigh should have been thrown into a hole and kept alive for years. Years of tedium. Day after day dragging out, the same monotonous way, for decades. And then, say, on the anniversary of his 50th year in his cell, he could have received a nice visit from whomever was warden at the time.
“Hey, Tim, remember, like, half a century ago you did something really terrible to make a point about how the federal government was enslaving everybody? Remember how you thought this might be the spark to start a revolution against the Godless state?
“Here’s the deal, Tim . . . nobody else remembers that. Except for the people you killed, everybody else just got on with their lives, fell in love, had adventures and children, and experienced way to much to ever think about you. Not once. You are a footnote in history, Tim, a footnote that nobody bothers to look down to read.
“You only get one shot at Life, Tim, that’s all you get. And you chose to get yourself looked up here, for decades. No hope, no companions, no family, no love, and nobody who even remembers you. You fucked up, Tim.
“You’ve got nothing to look forward to, and when you die nobody will notice, let alone care. You took the one life you were lucky enough to get and you turned yourself into nothing.
“I won’t be visiting you again.”
Major Major Major Major
If we actually thought we had a system capable of rehabilitation, rather than just punishment, we’d use it like that. We don’t, because we don’t. Norway has it right with the maximum (with option for recurring) sentences. Lets the rehabilitated out upon review, keeps Breivik in.
Vtr
We have a justice system, not a revenge system.
Is there any reliable evidence that putting to death a properly convicted murderer does anything at all to prevent anyone else from murdering? If not, the death penalty is utterly pointless.
Geeno
The only scenario I find the death penalty “appropriate” is a case where the person in question is so remorseless, and so personally dangerous as to present a significant danger to their jailors or fellow prisoners that I’m not willing to take that risk just to call myself enlightened. Timothy McVeigh is the last such I can recall. Tsarnaev isn’t even close.
But as Tom pointed out, if it’s allowed for, it will be used whether it’s “appropriate” or not. It’s not worth keeping if it’s going to be handed out haphazardly. Which, looking at the history of it, is a charitable way to describe the use of the death penalty in this country.
Major Major Major Major
@Vtr:
No. Full stop.
Major Major Major Major
@Vtr: well, I guess it enables the State kill one more person.
mai naem mobile
I’m against the death penalty but can see why people want the death penalty for Tsarnaev. I don’t live in Boston and really tuned out of it early and had kind of forgotten all the carnage until the prosecution started talking about it. Tsarnaev has this insolent manner about him that did not help his case. I think Tsarnaev will probably end up being killed in prison if he gets life. The only good Tsarnaev is good for is to study him and see if you can learn anything about radicalization.
Eric S.
On a personal note, it was the death penalty that really started my political progression to become a liberal. Specifically, it was Tom’s first point – error in the system. As I came to realize the system could not be made error free (I don’t know why I ever thought it could be) I became vehemently opposed to the death penalty. In a way it opened my eyes to many other flaws in many other systems and I stopped accepting the status quo. At this point I agree with all of Tom’s points but it was that first one that started me down the path.
trollhattan
Am relieved nobody’s advocating for the death penalty as crime deterrent. It’s a deterrent like armed school teachers are a deterrent to more Adam Lanzas.
JPL
What I don’t understand is why the Holmes case is going to trial. If it is about closure for the victims, the state of Colorado could establish a fund for the victims. It’s a better use of the money.
Cervantes
@Gin & Tonic:
Aren’t you just eliding the difference between verdict and penalty?
mai naem mobile
@Vtr: there is no deterrent effect. Really i think only little crimes’ punishment have a deterrent effect and, possibly, white collar. I don’t think somebody committing armed robbery is thinking “Well, I better not do this cuz I’m gonna get 15 years in the pen” but people don’t use the HOV lane on the freeway driving alone because its a $400 fine.
Gin & Tonic
@Cervantes: No, I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know what the decision in the penalty phase of the trial is called. But I’m referring to the second half of the proceeding.
moderateindy
I am always bewildered why conservatives, who tend to believe that the government never does anything correctly, support allowing that same gov’t to administer a punishment that has so much finality to it.
Some people deserve to die for their actions, but I don’t think our current justice system is set up to decide who those people are, and I’m not sure any justice system is capable of that decision.
srv
It’s unfortunate that state-sanctioned killing is so expensive, even when we do it with drones.
Domestic and international policing would be so much more practical if someone could solve that problem.
catclub
@JPL: well done.
No One of Consequence
Many of you are much better people than I.
As shameful as it is amongst you to admit: were I the father that lost a son in the bombing, I would not, could not forgive. I would not, could not forget. Every minute of every day of the rest of my life. Every single breath I took. They would all be used to find a way to even the scales and carry out my vengeance. Killing would not be nearly enough. I would find a way to systematically and satisfactorily inflict as much pain as I possibly could to the person(s) responsible. For as long as possible. I would not grant oblivion until their broken body could no longer sustain life, and I would have run out of options to extend that suffering.
I am not proud of this, but I know myself well enough to know I would not be noble in such circumstances as these. That if such tragedy became personal, I would become inhuman towards any remaining parties who had direct involvement.
Much admiration for the rest of you, for you are better people than I.
– NOoC
catclub
@srv:
I was reading about protecting rhinos with drones. Actually, monitoring rhinos and poachers with drones. I do not think they had armed drones. Seems like a good application.
Cervantes
@Gin & Tonic:
No problem, but what, then, are you arguing here?
If the death penalty is not an option to begin with, how is the trial compromised?
catclub
@moderateindy: Cognitive dissonance. The military is never wrong, and cost free.
So not really part of government. Likewise death penalty.
Major Major Major Major
@JPL: I don’t have my balloon juice snarkers list handy, so I *assume* you’re joking.
mdblanche
I would rather lock that shitstain up and throw away the key, but if he gets a death sentence instead I won’t be dropping everything to protest.
@Gin & Tonic:
This also makes who gets sentenced to death and who doesn’t contingent on the luck of who gets one of those jurors and who doesn’t. Capriciousness has already long been one of the biggest problems with the death penalty and this would only make it worse.
Betty Cracker
@Elizabelle:
I hope he repents so he can feel properly sorry for what he’s done some day, but to me, at least, that would have no bearing on whether or not he should remain in jail. The way I see it, the scale of his crime was such that he’s lost his right to ever draw breath as a free man again.
I’ve heard people make convincing arguments that incarceration should be reserved strictly for protecting the public and that therefore it is unjust to keep prisoners locked up when they’re no longer a threat. I can understand the logic but find it ultimately unconvincing.
NCSteve
I arrive at the same destination by a different route. I support it in theory. My problem is that I cannot support it in practice, simply because of the sheer number of people convicted under the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard who were later exonerated and, worse still, the frequency with which the wrongful convictions were the result of malfeasance and perjury by cops or forensic scientists, lack of resources for the defense and/or active wrongdoing by prosecutors.
I don’t believe LWOP is worse than death, if only because so many convicts are relieved to avoid the death penalty. I do believe there are certain mass murderers–serial killers and war criminals who deserve the death penalty. Ted Bundy? GFR. Ditto John Wayne Gacy. Ratko Mladic? Assuming he outlives his trial, he won’t get what he deserves. Joseph Kony? If he’s ever caught . . .
I can even articulate a standard of proof–“beyond all possibility of doubt,” that I think ought to apply to both the underlying crime and the aggravating factors(I envision the standard of appellate review being a de novo review to determine whether the conviction could be upheld beyond all possibility of doubt even in the absence of all eyewitness testimony).
But in practice I just don’t believe that prosecutors, judges and juries can be trusted to apply it correctly or honestly, which rather defeats the purpose. I just don’t. And so, I end up against the death penalty both as applied and as it possibly could be applied.
Eric S.
@No One of Consequence: I agree with this too. If it were my family, my loved ones, my friends, I would want revenge. I’m sure I would seethe with anger for a very long time. This is one of many reasons we do not allow victims to sit in judgement.
Gin & Tonic
@Cervantes: Again, I am referring only to the second half. The one that Tsarnaev will now be entering, which everyone here is discussing. Is it not called a trial?
scav
@No One of Consequence: But with that sort of obsessive mind, it’s not going to help your mental churning or find peace, let alone help the community or prevent things going forward.
Betty Cracker
@No One of Consequence: I’d feel the same way if it were my family. But you don’t generally believe the fate of criminals should be in the hands of the victims, do you?
JPL
@No One of Consequence: You certainly are more empathetic than I. Read comment 1.
Your comment might be a reason why victim impact statements should not be allowed during the penalty phase, though.
Mnemosyne (iPhone)
@Roger Moore:
I’m okay with LWOP for mass murderers (say, 3 or more people killed in a single incident, or 3 or more people killed serially in separate incidents). I don’t think it should be the standard punishment, though. We really need to do much better with rehabilitation, but it’s hard to do when our prisons are overcrowded and the general public seems to think punishment should take the place of rehabilitation.
Vtr
@Major Major Major Major: So apparently the only thing accomplished by putting someone to death is to allow some people to believe something is being done about serious crime.
Mnemosyne (iPhone)
@catclub:
Here in California, the Forest Service has started using drones to monitor forest fires and (I think) to help locate lost/injured hikers. They’re useful little machines for stuff like that.
Cermet
@Steve: The two have nothing in common and it is ignorant to post an abortion statement in this thread.
boatboy_srq
@trollhattan: There’s a (very misguided) presumption that DP is a cost savings to the justice/corrections system – on the grounds that a dead perp doesn’t need food, housing, or guarding. Totally wrong as it turns out (the appeals alone are ridiculously expensive, especially as they can drag out decades, and at least the first one is guaranteed). Dispensing with DP would be an immediate fiscal benefit for the state regardless of any other consideration (not that there aren’t many of those as has been mentioned in detail elsewhere here).
Major Major Major Major
@Vtr: that’s what putting people in jail is for, not putting them to death.
Waldo
@Eric S.: Yep
kc
Shit, why not just waterboard them to death? I mean, if your problem with the DP is that it’s not harsh enough . . .
Vtr
@efgoldman: Yeah, I know.
Botsplainer
@Gin & Tonic:
Penalty phase.
Epicurus
It’s the sheer hypocrisy of it that disgusts me. If murder is the most heinous crime that can be committed, how on earth is killing the perpetrator any better? The DP exists for one reason, in my mind; revenge. That is not the basis for a nation “of laws.” Also, too, I think it’s probably a greater punishment to keep a person alive for 30 or 40 years in prison, as opposed to the lengthy torture of trial, sentencing, appeals, etc. We really do need to join the civilized world and eliminate the death penalty. It’s the 21st century, folks, not the 5th.
feebog
I have been inside the Florence Colorado Super Max prison, which is where this young man will spend the rest of his life if he avoids the death penalty. Believe me, a more horrible place to do time does not exist. LWOP in that place may be the harsher of the two penalties.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
If I were Jesus Dumbledore, I would point my wand at the TeeVee and ban the word “closure” from any discussion of this. or any other trial or murder case.
God help me, Mike Barnacle and I are in agreement on this score.
Botsplainer
@mdblanche:
Here’s something I said in the last (now dead) thread to Bella. I’m of the opinion that we need to rid ourselves of peremptories and the death qualification. Probably way fewer death penalty sentences if we do, an if it results in an initial imbalance, sobeit.
Me: “I always hated jury trials. My longest was five weeks (complex federal criminal litigation involving economic adulteration of food products in furtherance of a massive fraud), and I’ve had some two week wrongful death trials in the mix as well. I’m good at them, but hate hearing my own mouth run that long.
Much simpler to do family law bench trials.
Anyway, I’ve always felt like the peremptory system created “too blank” a slate – you get people too vanilla to hold a strong opinion about anything, which makes them too malleable to presentation style. Further, you tend to wind up with an anodyne panel that reflects the people in job categories that don’t involve a lot of decisionmaking – industrial line workers, nurses, teachers, students. I’m all for the jury truly being of peers – and yes, that is going to include people who don’t trust police, it will include people who have had family members in similar circumstances, and will include people who will never vote to convict or to grant a death penalty. It would put stronger personalities on a jury that truly reflect peers, the way the community looks.
It would actually be a positive in a populist sense, so it will never happen.”
Cervantes
@Gin & Tonic:
I think you’re saying that allowing only “death-qualified” juries — that is, excluding all jurors who object to the death penalty — is the only way to preserve the option of a death sentence. I think this is true: one abolitionist juror can prevent a death sentence.
I think I alluded to your argument in the previous thread when I observed that various Supreme Courts have been protective of the death penalty.
Is there some other part of your argument I have missed? I think there may be. Let me know. (Thanks.)
Mnemosyne (iPhone)
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
IIRC, the whole “closure” concept was originally created for families who didn’t know what had happened to their loved one (MIA in a war, etc.) and was supposed to give them a way to accept that the person really was gone even though there was no corpse. It somehow metastastized way beyond the original purpose and the term is applied even to situations it was never meant to apply to. IOW, it’s become a synonym for “mourning.”
Steeplejack
@Botsplainer:
I agree with this. In my long-ago newspaper days I covered a bunch of trials, and I always cringed at the jury selection process and the panels it all too often created. I always thought, Why wouldn’t I want a potentially more skeptical but smarter, more analytical juror on my case? But I’m sure my attorney would say, “Give me the bland jury and I’ll wrap ’em around my finger with my mad legal skillz.”
No One of Consequence
@Eric S.: As is right and proper. Victims should not be allowed to sit in judgement nor sentencing. I do understand both the human condition in such cases and the idealism that must be maintained with jurisprudence. I am not in the least suggesting a change. Merely stating that I admire most of you here in this. I know I could not count myself among you were such tragedy to become personal.
– NOoC
Botsplainer
@Cervantes:
I’d say overprotective of the death penalty. Death qualification is a travesty of justice and makes a mockery of the notion of “jury of your peers” – it should reflect the chance that your community has members who won’t do it, or are unsure enough about it to be a hell of a lot more careful on the guilt phase.
I say that as somebody who is just fine with sticking this kid in the death chamber in Terre Haute.
I was greatly saddened when Eric Rudolph wasn’t presented with an option to give up his RWNJ co-conspirators and accessories after the fact to avoid the needle – I felt as though the Bush DOJ was actually soft on the prick for a reason.
Suzanne
@No One of Consequence: No, you’re not a worse person than anyone here. I would feel the same way.
This is why I don’t believe that victims should have any say in sentencing. There is no way to objectively (insofar as objectivity is even possible) weigh the public’s needs against the convicted person’s rights at that point.
Cervantes
@Botsplainer:
Well, I wanted to say “lovingly protective,” but I was trying to keep from insinuating my opinion into the summary as much as possible.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Mnemosyne (iPhone): Or the end of mourning, or… something.
In cases like these, it gives lex talionis types something to fling at TP opponents: Why are you denying closure to the moms and dads ! ? ! … etc
Botsplainer
@Steeplejack:
Exactly, it becomes a show.
Roger Moore
@efgoldman:
I don’t know about redemption or rehabilitation, but I have a hard time imagining a case where repentance is inappropriate.
No One of Consequence
@scav: Too right. In fact, you intuited the problems I would indeed face in such a situation. My mind is wired such that obsessing would be unavoidable short of termination. It would not assuage my sorrow. It would not return the dead to the living. It would not help my society.
And none of that would matter to me at such a point. Nothing would matter. As you stated, I would be churning, and I see only two possibilities from that: inhumanity, or I would find out what gun oil tastes like briefly. And frankly, I would be far more angry than sad, so I have my doubts about option B.
Doesn’t make me a good person. I know that. But I felt a similar pang of nearly unbearable sorrow after SandyHook. Those poor parents. The children victims ended their lives in tragedy, sorrow and pain. But those they left behind. The parents. How any of them can find the will to go on, I will never be able to comprehend.
Violence should be avoided wherever possible. I believe that as I have lived that most all of my days. But such a situation would put me outside of such considerations. Or rather, such a situation would have me put myself outside of that. Enough to convince myself I really was outside of that, anyway.
– NOoC
trollhattan
@feebog:
An attorney friend had to speak with an inmate at Pelican Bay in California and he says the experience utterly changed him, despite having been to many other prisons.
Steeplejack
@Botsplainer:
And it also becomes about money, i.e., how good/expensive a lawyer can you afford?
Betty Cracker
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: “Jesus Dumbledore,” ha! I am so stealing that!
Cervantes
@No One of Consequence:
If it helps, think of them as rising to the occasion.
Sometimes you don’t know beforehand that you are capable of such a thing.
No One of Consequence
@Betty Cracker: No, I do not believe that the fate of the criminal should lie in the hands of the wronged. It is an untenable premise. I am merely lamenting that if I take a long hard look at myself, and reflect with honesty, I know that I would not be Person enough to rise above it. Not only would I seek vengeance, it would consume me entirely and utterly.
One of the few reasons I am envious of the religious. Agnosticism lends no special comfort to the aggrieved.
– NOoC
Brendan in NC
@trollhattan: Yup – that makes sense. And the California debate you mention would, I hope, cause people to pause for a moment. It pits the “eye for an eye” crowd against the ‘fiscally minded. (I almost said Republicans, not people. But there are “eye for an eye” people of all political persuasions.)
dmbeaster
The death penalty can be justified when you think of any one particularly clear and egregious case. But in its general application, it just doesn’t work right. It is primarily about vengeance, which guarantees that it is used rashly on many occasions. Plus why is life without parole some sort of lesser punishment?
JPL
@Botsplainer: Years ago before the tea party movement, I had jury duty. There was a group of us just waiting to see if a judge needed a jury. One individual spoke about paying a jury pool and making it voluntary. I simply asked, who would volunteer and how would that a insure a jury of ones peers. He changed the subject to public vs charter education. He cited a school that I had heard about. When I pointed that our public elementary schools would have higher test scores, if they only had a maximum of fifteen students in each classroom. I might have added that your comparing apples to oranges before he walked away.
cmorenc
I agree that criminals guilty of particularly heinous acts, such as Dzokhar Tsarnaev, should be sentenced to a living de facto death for the rest of their natural lives, in spartan cells where they are effectively in solitary confinement, save for necessary interaction with prison guards, their lawyers, and perhaps witnesses essential to any appeals. But day to day, they should live years mostly in a small space with nothing but themselves and some books to keep them company and occupied. For years, upon years, upon years…
Betty Cracker
@No One of Consequence: I figured as much — thanks for clarifying. You may be giving some of the other commenters too much credit though. I’m pretty sure most of us who don’t want Tsarnaev put to death or imprisoned under exceedingly harsh conditions aren’t motivated by any sympathy for him. I know I’m not. I have more regard and sympathy for a cockroach than I do for Tsarnaev. I oppose the death penalty and brutal imprisonment for other reasons.
No One of Consequence
@JPL: The tale of sorrow is unending if you run down all the threads. People were hurt. People died. What about short degrees of separation between lives. The child’s parents. What about the child’s friends, teachers, peers? Once you start to tally the misery, it is nigh unto impossible to achieve a total accounting.
Sorrow heaped upon sorrow.
Again, I could not fathom it. I cannot expect rationality from victims no more than I could expect nobility from myself were our positions reversed. This is precisely why there should be no place for the aggrieved in sentencing.
– NOoC
Botsplainer
@Steeplejack:
Right, the poor get the guy who falls asleep at trial, or shows up drunk, is inexperienced, or is too old and simply doesn’t have those skills anymore.
If I practiced down south, I’d be in a system where they don’t always have a professional public defender staff, where generalists like me find themselves appointed to represent criminal defendants (sometimes on capital cases) with a pittance of a budget for expenses. A family lawyer like me (general practice over 25 years, former public defender, still young enough to pound through the energy-draining aspects of a trial, still close enough to the rules of evidence from younger years) would probably do an OK job on a regular criminal case, but I’d be utterly lost on a capital case in terms of the forensic science on most guilt phases and the psychological/psychiatric/pharmacological knowledge needed to be effective at sentencing.
And that’s even if there was enough money in whatever pittance budget I was allowed to hire a decent sentencing mitigation expert.
artem1s
Agreed with all of the reasons stated but also, I think allowing for penalty of death continues the idea that there is some way to obtain justice (or revenge if you wish) for a wrongful death. Nothing going on in any courtroom or any prison is going to put those families in Boston, or Oklahoma city, etc., back together again. If we want to make any sort of adjustment to our ‘justice’ system, I would have it be geared more toward providing financial, medical, and mental health services for the victims and their families rather than spend countless dollars on a national stage for some politically minded DA to preen on and give a false sense of security to the masses gaping at the train wreck. It’s just ghoulish and only gives more attention to people like McVeigh who are willing to commit horrific acts in order to get his cause celebrated.
Southern Goth
I believe the death penalty is counter-productive to the idea of public safety first.
Keith G
My only objection to the exercise of the death penalty is the existence of wrongful convictions, often because of willful conduct by officers of the court. If we could find a way to account for that, well…..I doubt that we ever will be able to.
p.a.
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: closure: when the media move on to the next story.
No to the DP. I think I would want vengeance if one close to me were murdered, but I also want to live in a culture that sees beyond base emotion. And we have so many examples of false prosecutions/convictions.
No One of Consequence
@Cervantes: Such ability is surely beyond me. As apparent as their grace, would be my lack thereof. My life is not the most precious thing I have. In their situation, that most precious of things would have been taken from me, and there would be no peace. Not even the promise or even premise of it.
– NOoC
Goblue72
I’m old school. I believe that just because we are surrounded by barbarians, does not mean we get to avoid the duty to act as civilized men (and women). Our restraint in spite of justifiable emotional grief and anger is what separates us from lesser societies.
Sadly, the U.S. teeters far too close to lesser society status.
Calouste
@Vtr:
The only related thing I can think of is that the putting to death of airplane hijackers might prevent follow-up hijackings with the demand to release the original hijackers. Of course, the original hijackers aren’t properly convicted, they are summarily executed by the special forces who storm the plane.
scav
@No One of Consequence: Depends a bit on the other people you also have obligations to, though. Some find living up to one’s obligations not to inflict further harm on the living, not making a bad situation worse, helpful in keeping moving. They are presumably, and should be made to feel, equally precious to you as the ones lost.
Cervantes
@Goblue72:
If you can find “lesser societies.”
In how many countries is capital punishment still a sacrament?
No more than 40 out of nearly 200.
Arclite
At this point, I’d argue the death penalty is unconstitutional. It’s been shown it can’t be administered in a non-cruel way. And it’s certainly unusual: there are over a million people in prison, but only a few hundred on death row. Even among murderers, it’s a tiny fraction.
cmorenc
@Calouste:
The hijackers we have the most to fear from will be those taking over the plane at 30,000 feet, intent on crashing it into the ground or some public landmark occupied by people. The cream of Seal Team 6 won’t be much help to storm the plane in that situation – the best we could hope for is exercising the terrible Hobson’s choice of deliberately shooting down the plane in a less populated area before the hijackers can crash it in a far more damaging location where it will kill far more people on the ground. But the passengers are toast either way, unless they can timely summon the force to overcome the hijackers before the hijackers can irrevocably doom the plane to crashing.
WaterGirl
@Arclite: What about equal protection under the law? Surely the fact that african americans are treated differently in our “justice system” would be relevant?
Whether you think some people deserve the death penalty or not, there are some things that cannot be undone, and killing someone is one of them. Mistakes will always be made, so to me that trumps everything else.
Mnemosyne (iPhone)
@Calouste:
Unfortunately, that problem was solved 14 years ago by having the hijackers go down with the plane themselves. Can’t execute the dead.
Seanly
No matter the crime, I oppose the death penalty. That doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t thirst for vengeance if someone hurt or killed a loved one of mine. I don’t think that the government should be in the business of executing people. The frequent racist application, biased or flat-out-wrong experts, and misconduct by prosecutors only add to the issues with the death penalty.
Douglas
The words “death qualified jury” and “jury of one’s peers” are direct contradiction – by filtering the jury for people that would approve a death penalty, you’re also filtering people for political allegiance… justice, my behind.
HR Progressive
There are a myriad of ways the criminal justice system in this country could, and should be reformed.
But if this particular brand of cesspool is executed by the state, I can’t say that would bother me.
Wouldn’t say I’d cheer it, or bemoan a life without parole sentence. But I’m not opposed to it, in theory, if not always in practice.
PaulW
the only case where I would accept the death penalty as an option is when you have a heartless sociopath – a serial killer – who is clearly beyond redemption and has the open desire to continue killing, which means we’ve got to think of preventing further death. I’m thinking along the likes of Ted Bundy.
In this guy’s case, I’ve got my doubts. Unless he’s proven to be without remorse, if he’s showing signs he wants to bomb and kill more, I don’t see the need to execute him. Just because he’s a murderer doesn’t mean we should be.
Linnaeus
“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”
ETA: A little hokey in this context, I know. But that doesn’t mean Tolkien was wrong here.
Cervantes
@Linnaeus:
I like it.
If there’s a problem it’s not that it’s hokey; but that the use of “deserve” is begging the question.
Linnaeus
@Cervantes:
Right. I actually don’t buy the “some that live deserve death” part, but I think the quote as a whole works to convey at least one of the problems with the death penalty.
Tehanu
@moderateindy:
Because killing and punishing and inflicting pain are far more attractive to our modern-day “conservatives” than the mere abstract belief that government should be restrained. (I think there used to be actual conservatives — people who wanted to keep things as they were because they really believed that change would make things worse — but the ones today are radical reactionaries).
Corner Stone
@Tom Levenson:
No. It never is. Period.
Corner Stone
@PaulW:
What circumstances do you think would produce this very precious outcome that makes you feel just fine with the application of the death penalty?
FlyingToaster
What still sucks, in my opinion, is that the Feds usurped a Massachusetts crime just so that they could go for the death penalty. Carmen Ortiz can go DIAF.
We (the Commonwealth) have charges pending against Tsarnaev for the murder of an MIT cop and a carjacking; we’ll never get to try him because of this circus. He should be spending the rest of his days in Walpole, not having his face printed onto posters in Afghanistan or Yemen or Dagestan.
Roger Moore
@No One of Consequence:
We never truly know how we would react to something until we face it. Sometimes we behave as badly as we fear, but we do better than that far more often than we expect. Don’t write yourself off until/unless you actually face that situation and fail to live up to your hopes.
sparrow
One of the only Catholic teachings I still hold as a sincere belief. Capital punishment is wrong, with the only exception some weird scenario where you are stuck on a deserted island with a homicidal maniac and no secure jail facilities. Then I guess you have no choice.
yodecat
Tom, I agree with your reasoning and I’ll add another: ‘legal’ killing is extremely expensive and I don’t want to pay for it.
Cervantes
@FlyingToaster:
A death sentence of your own devising there?
Ruckus
Tom
Just got home and reading this I agree 100%.
The only thing to be gained from the death penalty is revenge. And I say fuck “An eye for an eye.” The thing we lose is our humanity. Aren’t we supposed to be better than the people we murder with the death penalty? We have the means to accomplish LWOP, it’s cheaper, it’s more humane, it gives a chance to fix errors and it works in punishing the guilty.
FlyingToaster
@Cervantes: No. Rhetorical DIAF. Drink a jar of fresh habanero sauce.
Ms. Ortiz has caused at least one suicide (Aaron Swartz), she’s overprosecuted several high profile cases, and she grabbed the Tsarnaev prosecution — which is a Massachusetts crime, goddamn it — so that she could go for the death penalty.
Mind your, our AGs have not been saints, but we don’t allow the death penalty in Massachusetts for a reason. Depending upon which poll you read, between 60 and 80 percent of voters don’t believe in it. So I don’t think that Tsarnaev got a jury of his peers, I don’t think we should make this pissant into a martyr, and I would really like Ms. Ortiz to find another job. Somewhere a long, long, long way from Boston. And take Martha freaking Coakley with her.
Cervantes
@FlyingToaster:
I wouldn’t mind that, either!
burnspbesq
Long-term confinement in a Supermax, as they are currently administered (solitary confinement 23 hours a day), is every bit as barbaric as the death penalty.
John M. Burt
I think that political terrorists are the ones who most deserve the horror of life without parole.
I am glad that the members of the Order, for instance, are growing old in prison, seeing their ideology move further into the dustbin of history, and that they will die as old men who will know that it really and truly was all for nothing.
brantl
The hardest part in all of this, in death penalty cases is that the cops are supposed to be neutral in collection of evidence, and there is no good way to keep them that way. Once that happens their collection of evidence is sure to be biased, and some poor bastard can get railroaded into prison. (Read Grisham’s An Innocent Man, and see what I mean.) If you could be certain that the “incontrovertible evidence” type cases weren’t put-up jobs, those should be death penalty, 1-appeal and then gone cases. But you can’t. My mother convinced me of this, shortly before her death. Texas has had 200 cases overturned by the Innocence Project, all on DNA, much of the convictions from circumstantial evidence, much from jail-house snitches, who got sentence reductions.
Paul in KY
@Swellsman: If LWOP is so much worse, how come all the condemned have their lawyers argue for it so much?
Paul in KY
IMO, the only just punishment for what this man (and his deceased brother) did is death.
Matt McIrvin
Aside from any general objections to the death penalty (which I do have), I think Charles R. Pierce (citing Masha Gessen) raises a good point:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a34265/unanswered-questions/
Dead men tell no tales. If Tsarnaev dies now, what information are we destroying? Were there more accomplices? We may never know.