…and this is a 
The sentencing of a convicted murder, Khristian Oliver, should be an embarrassment to the state of Texas; the jurors consulted the Old Testament to see what should be done with him, found a bible verse they liked — "And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death" — and sentenced him to be executed.
Well, that was just fine with Governor Rick Perry. Oliver has been killed. Isn't it nice to have the importance of biblical morality affirmed for us once again?
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
November 10, 2009 12:57 PM
And if it was a glass bottle, it wouldn't count?
But see, it's not all bronze-age nonsense, some of it is iron-age nonsense.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: ken mac | November 10, 2009 12:59 PM
Isn't this a repeat? What's the update?
Posted by: Umilik | November 10, 2009 1:00 PM
The irony, of course, is that lots of soldiers die in Afghanistan to prevent people like this from regaining power.
Posted by: bojangles | November 10, 2009 1:04 PM
That poor, poor murderer.
Posted by: Kim Hosey (AZ Writer) | November 10, 2009 1:08 PM
Scary and irrelevant (the OT to our judicial process, that is), regardless of the guilt or nature of the crime.
Posted by: Islander | November 10, 2009 1:09 PM
Oliver never had a chance.
Posted by: stptrck75 | November 10, 2009 1:12 PM
I'm willing to bet that the good Christian folks in Texas have overlooked a few OT Bible verses in their own lives. The Bible is the inerrant word of God, right?
For example:
Lev. 19:19:
“Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.”
You can’t ignore this while supporting anti-homosexual biblical “laws” (Leviticus 18:22). That would be hypocrisy and ‘cherry-picking’ your moral code. Tisk-tisk.
Lev. 19:20
Condoning of slavery - pp. Don’t sleep with another man’s slave girl. Nice.
Lev. 19:26
“Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it” - Wow. Well done for life! Technically blood still is in there though.
Lev. 19:26
“Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip the edges of your beard”. - Enough said.
Lev. 10:20-23
Discusses which “four-legged insects” you may or may not eat. - This is the inspired word of god right? Infallible right? Hmmm.
Lev. 13, 14 & 15
Basically, if you get any skin condition or mildew, go to a priest. A bunch of wacky laws pertaining to infections, burns, mildew and ‘cleanliness’. - So, do not go to a physician. If you DO go to a doctor then you are in defiance of the Lord and therefore are rejecting the inerrant truth of the Holy Bible.
Lev. 19: 33 & 34
19:33
"When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the Lord your God." - Uh-oh. Looks like Lou Dobbs is on the express train to Hell.
The point is this: ALL or NOTHING. Get it?
Posted by: Darren Garrison | November 10, 2009 1:12 PM
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/oliverkhristian.htm
"Oliver and three juvenile co-defendants were in the process of burglarizing the residence of a 64-year old white male. Oliver and the co-defendants were in the house and Reed was in the vehicle. The victim surprised Oliver and Oliver shot the victim in the face with a 380-caliber handgun. The victim was beaten around the head with the butt of a rifle. Oliver and the co-defendants fled the scene. They were arrested in a motel in Waco, Texas."
Consult the Bible-- consult Hammurabi's stele-- consult whatever you want. The worthless piece of shit got what he deserved.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 10, 2009 1:13 PM
Way to miss the point
Posted by: Uncephalized | November 10, 2009 1:16 PM
Sympathy for the perpetrator is not really the point. The point is that in a time when we know that a) wrongful convictions happen in some non-zero proportion of court cases and b) the death penalty is, for obvious reasons, not subject to revision at a later date in light of exoneration, it is unworthy of those of us who claim to be civilized, rational human beings.That's not to mention the fact that by living in a state and under a government that sanctions non-defensive killing (both at home in the criminal "justice" system and abroad in preemptive wars), I and millions of others are forced parties to murder. It's much like how I would bet pro-lifers feel about their tax dollars funding abortions, except that these are adult, conscious people with thoughts, loves, hopes, and memories that we are snuffing out, not a mass of prehuman cells entirely dependent on a uterus for their physical survival.
I also object to jurors in the modern United States of America using the Goatherders' Guide to the Universe to make life and death decisions for other people.
So you'll excuse me for feeling something for the "poor, poor murderer", who may or may not be a murderer at all.
Posted by: BigHeathenMike | November 10, 2009 1:16 PM
@bojangles #4
It's not that the murderer was punished, (or even killed, really) it's that they used the fucking Old Testament to convict him. If you can't see that that's a problem, man are you reading the wrong blog.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 10, 2009 1:16 PM
Now if someone suggested brining back the death penalty for such abuse of the language then I might be persuaded it was a good idea.
What is wrong with the verb "To burgle" ?
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 10, 2009 1:23 PM
Disgusting.
Posted by: WLHutch | November 10, 2009 1:25 PM
Matt Penfold @ #12. Please use a dictionary
Posted by: akshelby | November 10, 2009 1:25 PM
Not to mention that all he was asking for was a 30 day reprieve so they could check the DNA on the murder weapon in an attempt to prove his innocence.
I'm not usually in favor of the death penalty, but one person that belongs on death row is Rick Perry.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 10, 2009 1:28 PM
I do.
There is a verb to burgle in it.
Please change your dictionary, as it is clearly wrong.
Posted by: not a gator | November 10, 2009 1:30 PM
DC sniper to be executed in VA today.
This whole thing is so sick that I want to vomit. Who could seriously contemplate killing another human being?
Headline "victim's dad feels no closure" ... yeah, killing people doesn't really provide "closure." Duh.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 10, 2009 1:34 PM
You know, there are a good many Americans here who I like, respect and trust, and this in way is a criticism aimed at them, but sometimes I wonder why we consider the US to be a civilised country.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 10, 2009 1:34 PM
LOL @Matt Penfold, from dictionary.com: "Burgle (1872) is a hideous back-formation" (emphasis added).
Posted by: WLHutch | November 10, 2009 1:36 PM
Sorry. I thought you were criticizing correct use of a verb.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 10, 2009 1:37 PM
Divided by a common language once again!
Posted by: KI | November 10, 2009 1:41 PM
Matt@18
I'm reminded of an old jest: The USA is the only society to go from barbarism to decadence without hitting civilization in between.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 10, 2009 1:41 PM
Hey, wasn't there someone talking about islam and how they are so barbaric for still following their original laws?
And wasn't there mention about how christians are better because they would never, ever do this...
oh yes, there was wasn't there Sarah Trachtenberg:
Yes it's a slightly different scenario, but my point on that stands from the previous thread. Christian fundies would follow biblical law if they thought they could get away with it.
Posted by: middlekk | November 10, 2009 1:46 PM
Whether or not the man was guilty of the crime for which he was convicted (and I have no evidence to suggest that he was anything other than the perpetrator of the act), that doesn't mean the death penalty is "getting what you deserve".
Nobody deserves the death penalty. It's immoral on its face. The US will never be able to consider itself a civilized country until it does away with it forever.
And I will never understand the christian obsession with "eye for an eye" when their OWN GUY said it was not an appropriate form of justice. Matthew 5:38-42.
Posted by: Alverant
|
November 10, 2009 1:46 PM
stptrck75, not to nitpick, but those are other liquids, not blood, coming out of my rare steak. I will concede that there is probably some blood that wasn't drained out remaining in the meat. Good old capillary action.
I agree that anyone who shoots another man in the face to take his stuff deserves to be punished harshly. My issue is why the jury punished him, not how. Actually I'm opposed to capital punishment entirely. While some fuckers need to be put down like a diseased animal, the justice system (while one of the best there ever was) can still make mistakes and an execution is one mistake you can't begin to rectify.
Posted by: Paul | November 10, 2009 1:47 PM
@18
American, and lacking the grounds to argue against your assertion. It is depressing. The only reason the US is considered a civilized (like how I spelled that?) country is that our economy and military are large and important enough on a world-wide scale to make other countries too timid to make pointed criticism.
It's sad, really. I got a little hopeful when Spain was talking about indicting US officials for torture, but nothing came of it. The US collectively needs their noses rubbed into the messes they've made, but it won't happen and things will just continue on with small reforms to keep the natives from getting too restless.
Posted by: MrFire
|
November 10, 2009 1:50 PM
First time I've heard that. Full of win.
Matt Penfold, please watch from 8:45 to 9:00 of this for the answers you seek. (Everything in life, I learned from Bottom.)
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 10, 2009 1:51 PM
Me too, and I live here, but it must not be said! There is a strong tradition here of calling people unpatriotic who actually care about the direction our country is heading. Remember the fuss they made over the current First Lady saying that she was really proud of America for the first time?Posted by: kopd | November 10, 2009 1:52 PM
sometimes I wonder why we consider the US to be a civilised country.
"We"? ;-)
We liberal Americans aren't even allowed to wish our country were more civilized, or point out good qualities of European nations, without being called a socialist (which the name-caller knows is apparently a very bad thing, though they will not be able to explain why) or several other fun epithets and scare-words.
Posted by: Matlock Bolton | November 10, 2009 1:54 PM
That's just great.
Well if the Christians are allowed to do that, I guess we can no longer question Islam for doing the EXACT same thing. Come on people... human rights must always come before religious rights. This is surely a blemish on what the great American is supposed to stand for.
Posted by: Acronym Jim | November 10, 2009 1:55 PM
And here I've always thought it meant breaking and entering.
So Quasimodo was burglarized?
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 10, 2009 1:57 PM
:) Good one, Acronym Jim
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | November 10, 2009 1:57 PM
Unfortunately, burglarize (1871)is of similar origin. There is some irony in the earliest reference quoted in the OED:
Burglar and burglary are both of much older provenance.
Posted by: harv
|
November 10, 2009 2:00 PM
Agreed, using the "Goatherders' Guide to the Universe"(thanks Uncephalized, good one), is no way to determine life and death decisions. It also seems as though the Gov. has once again allowed an execution to take place when there may have been some evidence forthcoming. Whats the hurry?
The problem I have with ridding ourselves of the death penalty is that it will take a bargaining chip away from prosecutors who could otherwise have taken the death penalty off the table for information leading to another culprit or locations of victims. Does this happen often/ever in real life or just in Law and Order reruns?
Posted by: George | November 10, 2009 2:01 PM
Imagine living next door to an executioner. What a way to 'earn' a living. Think of the table conversation. I wonder how they feel when it becomes clear that a mistake has been made? I expect they chat it over with their pastor and feel better after. Must be one of the consolations of religion.
Posted by: Paul | November 10, 2009 2:02 PM
Funny, but inaccurate. At the time the Old Testament was written and compiled, those involved were more of a city-dwelling sort. In fact, in my opinion the "bible writers were goat-herders" meme is counter-productive as it gives the impression that the stories therein are true, just written from a more rustic perspective. It detracts from the ability to argue that Moses was likely not a real person, or that there is no archaeological evidence that the Exodus ever happened.
I'll be holding out for a more historically accurate witticism.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | November 10, 2009 2:05 PM
On the other hand, the State won't be hypocritically slaughtering murderers along with the wrongfully convicted.
Posted by: Paul | November 10, 2009 2:11 PM
Can you explain how using the death penalty in this situation is any more ethical than using the prospect of torture? One could just as easily say torture should be legal so that the prosecutors have a bargaining chip to use for information of culprits or the location of victims. The ends don't justify the means.
Posted by: Mandrake | November 10, 2009 2:14 PM
B&E is a lesser-included offense of burglary. Generally, the elements of burglary are B&E with the intent to commit a crime. (Your state's laws may vary.)
I know--who cares?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 10, 2009 2:15 PM
I think the point here is not the good or evil of the death penalty, but that the people charged to decide this directly used bible verses as a seemingly large part of their justification for the sentence.
Not, say, using the law that he was convicted under.
Posted by: Desert Son
|
November 10, 2009 2:15 PM
George at #35,
There's a film that treats that very subject: Pierrepoint. It's about Albert Pierrepoint. Granted, the film is a fictionalized account of Pierrepoint's life.
[New complementary close under contruction],
Robert
Posted by: Souljacker | November 10, 2009 2:18 PM
#24
To quote the late great Bill Hicks,
"I don't find it ironic at all-Christians for the death penalty. 'Cause after all, if it weren't for capital punishment, we'd have no Easter."
Posted by: Martin | November 10, 2009 2:19 PM
It's a simple equation. If you believe in the death penalty you have to accept that innocent people will die because of mistrials and wrongful conviction. The innocence project (http://www.innocenceproject.org/) highlights this issue very well. Yes lots of guilty people die under the death penalty but innocent people will too. If you feel that this is a price worth paying you believe that innocent people should die for your beliefs. We can simply conclude that since you feel this is fair that you yourself are willing to be that innocent person.
My preferred solution to this is that we make it compulsory that if an innocent is executed EVERYONE who is in favor of the death penalty should be killed in the same manner. This is an excellent form of population control and since the majority of people in favor of the death penalty are fundamentalist scum (Christian, Muslim etc it's all a brand name for the same psychosis) nice people can have a guilt free cull of dangerous people.
The only people who deserve the death penalty are those who are in favor of it. Mainly because you're a moron who believes the justice system is infallible.
Posted by: Parrotlover77 | November 10, 2009 2:21 PM
Texas scares the hell out of me. I never want to travel there or through there.
Posted by: Ann | November 10, 2009 2:21 PM
Good one, AJ! Ahh, I miss the old FanApp days.
Posted by: Martin | November 10, 2009 2:23 PM
Oh and one point about Christians for the death penalty; if Jesus weren't some made up fantasy figure (and he IS) he'd hate you because he's a prime example of an innocent victim of the death penalty. If you're right, then you're wrong and you're going to hell (I'll see you there).
Posted by: Sili
|
November 10, 2009 3:02 PM
As I said elsewhere, if only someone had bothered to tell the politicos that the Superconducting Supercollider could double as an execution machine, they'd never have stopped the construction.
Posted by: CJO | November 10, 2009 3:03 PM
in my opinion the "bible writers were goat-herders" meme is counter-productive as it gives the impression that the stories therein are true, just written from a more rustic perspective.
And it carries about as much force with anyone who knows anything about the origin of the texts as it does when a creationist thinks he or she is the soul of wit for saying "goo to you."
Don't get me wrong please: using the Levitical code to justify any decision in a modern, ostensibly secular system of justice is deeply fucked up. But now and again I'd like to see an atheist criticism of the Bible and the disastrous uses to which it is put that didn't involve flippantly misrepresnting the origin of the texts.
Posted by: Xenithrys | November 10, 2009 3:07 PM
@12: Australians might recognize the origin of burglarizationing, but we kiwis prefer burglarizationating.
Posted by: Paul | November 10, 2009 3:13 PM
I go to Ebon Musings/Daylight Atheism for that sort of thing. It would be nice to see similar serious criticism more widely spread throughout the atheist communities, but not everyone is similarly inclined (and I can hardly blame them, I can sympathize with the "they're all fairy tales anyway" view).
Posted by: stptrck75 | November 10, 2009 3:21 PM
Alverant @ #25: I hear ya. However, no matter how well one cooks a piece of meat (unless of course you incinerate it) there is still going to be blood in the muscle tissue. RBCs, WBCs, plasma, etc... Not all blood components appear red to the naked eye.
My point was to highlight the absurdity of the Bible's laws.
Back then though I suppose it was a good rule for all to learn that, in order to not get sick, you should cook your meat thoroughly.
It's sorta the same thing with shellfish. I bet a bunch of people got sick eating shellfish (through allergic reactions or what have you) and the rabbis decreed "No shellfish. It's what God would want. Trust us, we have cool hats and beards."
Posted by: Stephen P | November 10, 2009 3:28 PM
Yes, by the time it was written down. But as far as we can tell the older stories had been handed down orally for a long time before that. Obviously, describing the bible as the goatherders guide is not appropriate to any serious discussion, but in any context where humour or mockery is appropriate it is an excellent coinage.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | November 10, 2009 3:29 PM
Matt Penfold:
We don't. We consider it a civilized country, and that's a horse of another colo
ur! 8^)Posted by: Richard Eis | November 10, 2009 3:30 PM
To kill a man for a crime he didn't commit means a felon has also escaped justice. It is doubly bad...lets face it when you have executed someone for a crime, you are hardly likely to reopen said case later.
In fact given human psychology, never, ever, ever dealing with that case again..shutupshutup...lalalala I cant't hear you is the most likely outcome.
Posted by: MadScientist | November 10, 2009 3:31 PM
OK, wake me up when there is news of those jurors murdering their eldest child and painting the door jambs with lamb's blood using a sprig of some bitter herb or other as a brush.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 10, 2009 3:33 PM
More to the point, if you believe in the death penalty as a just form of retaliation for murder, what do you do to a serial killer? Execute him several times in a row?
And what do you do to a rapist?
To a child rapist?
This whole line of argument behind the death penalty is wrong. And so is the deterrence argument (as far as I can see, crimes are only committed by 1) people who are sure they won't be caught in the first place, and 2) people who are so far gone emotionally they can't think of the consequences of their actions). What remains?
Posted by: tim Rowledge
|
November 10, 2009 3:34 PM
I think I'd want to nuance that a little. How about having it so that everyone involved in the prosecution and wrong conviction of a subsequently acquitted executee is themselves executed. Lawyers, judges, police, jurors that voted guilty, prison governor, state governor, attorney-general, journalists that wrote lurid 'kill the bastard!!!!!' headlines, etc.Posted by: Phoenix Woman | November 10, 2009 3:36 PM
Funny how people who are so alike could hate each other and everything else so much.
Posted by: Starbuck | November 10, 2009 3:38 PM
Posted by: not a gator | November 10, 2009 1:30 PM
DC sniper to be executed in VA today.
This whole thing is so sick that I want to vomit. Who could seriously contemplate killing another human being?
Headline "victim's dad feels no closure" ... yeah, killing people doesn't really provide "closure." Duh.
Why kill him? I bet he doesn't do THAT again...
Why not kill him? I am pretty sure I wouldn't want THAT job...
Why kill him? There is a thing called justice..
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 10, 2009 3:43 PM
Hell, that's nothing. You should hear some of the things that the State Board of Educaction says to justify its actions. Seriously. In a state that actually elected Cynthia Dunbar Nelson to the SOE, it wouldn't surprise me if the jury ruled that the blood of the victim was on the hands of seven generations of OLivers who will all bear the mark of Cain. There are many things I like about Texas (where I live) but it is a tad bronze-agey. If you are at all prone to outrage when reading local news (OK...as I am) this place could take ten years off your life, no OT-reference required. My panties have been in a bunch since I can't remember when.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 10, 2009 3:44 PM
Yeah. In this case in particular, is there no way to punish the jurors for what must be an illegal action – choosing verdict and sentence by using something other than the law under which Oliver was accused?
Posted by: https://certifi.ca/eean
|
November 10, 2009 3:49 PM
I'm against the death penalty. But I also believe in jury independence and even jury nullification. I wouldn't argue against the right of juries to let their religion inform their decision. Or voters. They're both fundamental democratic rights.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 10, 2009 3:49 PM
That sounds so crappy. So… appropriate. =8-)
The mark of Cain was supposed to protect Cain from revenge.
Posted by: IanW | November 10, 2009 3:50 PM
If any of those jurors worked or deliberated on the Sabbath, then they should be put to death along with the murderer. The punishment for working on the sabbath (a vile offense indeed) is death by stoning. Lethal injection's too good for 'em.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 10, 2009 3:56 PM
No, the entire idea of "the right to being judged by a jury of your peers" is an Anglo-American contraption that was invented to protect 13th-century aristocrats from being sentenced by the king of England, who had a vested interest in doing so. Elsewhere, most verdicts are reached by independent professionals. After all, feudalism is over; judges no longer depend on the king.
Similarly, judges are only elected in the USA. I remember when I saw an ad "[name] – Republican for Judge" on TV. I felt like puking on the floor while ramming my head through the nearest wall. I mean, there was a guy who tried to become a judge by promising he would not be impartial!
Posted by: wombat | November 10, 2009 3:58 PM
We had a particularly gruesome case here locally in which the jurors did the same thing. One of the jurors wrote a letter to a local radio station in which he boasted that the "followed both man's law and god's law" when deciding on the death penalty. This should be quite the fodder for his attorneys when his case is appealed. If I were a judge, I would make sure and give explicit instructions that the only materials that they may reference during deliberations are the evidence presented and the governing law. Taking bibles into the jury room is a recipe for disaster and betrays our enter system.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 10, 2009 4:00 PM
…and have the obvious advantage over lay juries of… like… actually knowing the law.
Posted by: davem
|
November 10, 2009 4:03 PM
I was thinking along similar sort of lines the other day - about gun crime. If the person (legally) selling the gun to the criminal also had to face the appropriate penalty, they might think harder about who they're selling them to.Posted by: maezeppa | November 10, 2009 4:08 PM
Consulting a Bible is juror misconduct and grounds for appeal. In every state but Texas, I guess.
Posted by: TomRiddle
|
November 10, 2009 4:18 PM
That has to be one of the most short-sighted arguments you can make. The death penalty should not be a viable option due to the fallibility of the justice system and modern society’s capacity to incarcerate criminals, not due to concern for the perpetrators themselves. I can think of dozens of individuals who clearly deserve to be permanently removed from society, and I wouldn’t have much trouble coming up with a realistic set of circumstances where any honest person on this blog would agree that the death penalty is warranted and necessary.
I have a massive amount of empathy for the friends/families of victims of the types of crimes that get the death penalty in the US. I know I am not above the desire for vengeance, and I am sure as hell not arrogant enough to chastise those people for desiring lethal justice. If you want to make progress on this issue, try understanding their viewpoint instead of attacking the victims.
As for the viewpoint that only Fundamentalist wackjobs support the death penalty, it is grossly inaccurate. You don’t need to invent additional reasons to attack Fundamentalist views, they are crazy enough on their own.
Posted by: Happy | November 10, 2009 4:23 PM
And what about when they have a disrespectful child come in front of the court? Does the jury consult their bible then too? I dearly hope not...
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | November 10, 2009 4:23 PM
Arrogant and untrue.
Posted by: Dianne | November 10, 2009 4:43 PM
Why kill him? I bet he doesn't do THAT again...
HE won't do that again, but the chances of someone doing that again won't go down.
Capital punishment doesn't provide deterence.
Posted by: Natalie | November 10, 2009 4:45 PM
You seem to be making a false equivalence here. "Remove from society" does not necessarily equal "execute". It can, and does, also encompass life in prison with no possibility of parole.
One can certainly understand why a victim or victim's family wants something, without condoning what they want. For example - I certainly understand why a poor person might start selling drugs or robbing other people. That doesn't mean I condone their actions. Explanation or understanding does not equal justification.
Not supporting the death penalty is not inherently attacking a victim's family. It's a disagreement, and the status as "victim's family" does not make someone automatically above criticism.Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 10, 2009 4:46 PM
"The mark of Cain was supposed to protect Cain from revenge."
OK. But you get the picture.
Posted by: TomRiddle
|
November 10, 2009 4:47 PM
@Bernard Bumner
You are in an impoverished tribal village in a remote region of Africa. One of the members of the tribe has been caught rape/murdering the children of the village. He is extremely powerful, and it takes multiple members of the tribe to subdue him. Due to the poverty, the village cannot build or staff a jail. If this man walks free, he will clearly pose mortal danger to each member of the village. He is now in possession of the villagers.
Please support the position that the death penalty is neither deserved nor warranted here.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 10, 2009 4:47 PM
-Arrogant and untrue.-
CHALLENGE !!!!
A serial murderer who killed during psychotic episodes due to brain chemical malfunction is sick. He wants to die rather than spend any more time in pain in a tiny cell. He will have more violent episodes and can not be released out of solitary.
Posted by: Natalie | November 10, 2009 4:52 PM
Wouldn't physician assisted suicide be more appropriate in that case? I know it's illegal, but since we're talking in hypotheticals...
Posted by: CJO | November 10, 2009 4:54 PM
A serial murderer who killed during psychotic episodes due to brain chemical malfunction is sick.
And being incompetent to stand trial, would not be subject to criminal justice at all. And last I checked, psychiatric institutions don't do euthanasia for chronic cases.
Execution is neither warranted nor necessary in the scenario.
Posted by: Caine
|
November 10, 2009 4:58 PM
I don't know why christians bother bringing up Jesus at all. When it comes to cases, they all run to the immorality of the old testament.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 10, 2009 4:59 PM
1)Mental hospital and lots of meds. 2)We don't allow assisted suicide for anyone except the terminally il. Why the fuck would we except the criminally insane from this?Posted by: TomRiddle
|
November 10, 2009 5:03 PM
@Natalie #74
You won’t get me to disagree with much you are saying here. The point to my earlier post was to go after the “all people who support the death penalty are ignorant… Christian… barbaric… etc” rhetoric that is being spewn around this post. There are reasons that even intelligent people support the death penalty. If you are going to get rid of it, you need to educate the opposition on why it does not work and why it does not belong in our society – not cause a needless divide by slinging childish insults at the opposition.
Posted by: TomRiddle
|
November 10, 2009 5:14 PM
@CJO #79 and @Jadehawk #81
I think the point Richard is making here is that there are punishments that are far worse than death, though it is more an argument for euthanasia than against the death penalty. I will point out that one can make a strong argument that death is more humane than solitary confinement and constant drugging.
Posted by: strangest brew | November 10, 2009 5:19 PM
This is not about the death penalty...which is a reprehensible and damning piece of legislation in itself...
But about the way the sentence was thought a jolly good idea on the basis of a couple of lines of ancient goat herder scriptural nonsensical rambling that was written translated and re-translated in a genocidal rather tawdry not to say inconsistent manner several centuries ago!
I hope the god fearing clones that arrived at that brilliant bit of judice prudence are well pleased with themselves.
Being presumably xian...I doubt they would feel any other way.
Even more so for a court that upheld the decision knowing full well that biblical passages was the source of the enlightenment for the so called jury of 12 good folks and true.
It should send shivers of embarrassment and despair down every criminal lawyers backbone.
As for the judge...hmm!...I thought that the principle of fair justice was a priority...and that fair and ethical sentencing was based on the Law and the evidence...not 16th century inquisitorial means to decide punishment.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 10, 2009 5:24 PM
it is also irreversible; and as long as we don't have a judicial system that workds perfectly and only sentences the guilty in 100% of all cases, all punishments need to be reversible.Also, euthanasia as part of the justice/penal system is abso-fucking-lutely out of the question. That just begs for abuse in the same way that a lot of confessions aren't real. You can get a person to sign all sorts of papers when you're in absolute control over them.
Posted by: Darren Garrison | November 10, 2009 5:30 PM
"Nobody deserves the death penalty."
I disagree 100% Every person who murders someone else does not deserve one more second of life. I wish everyone who committed premeditated murder-- especially in the process of committing a crime-- would be executed. And yes, rapists, too. My only concern about it would be the aforementioned chances of executing someone who wasn't guilty. But if there was a foolproof way of determining that someone convinced of murder actually did commit murder? They have forfeited their existence-- dispose of them.
Posted by: Natalie | November 10, 2009 5:35 PM
CJO @79 - I read "is sick" to mean ill in some physical manner...?
Tom Riddle @82 - I admit I didn't read the comments with a fine tooth come, but most of the anti-Christian sentiment I'm seeing here refers to these specific jurors, who consulted the Bible before they were comfortable executing this man.
Darren @ 86 - Why?
Posted by: Paul | November 10, 2009 5:37 PM
Jail time is not reversible, either. It is not as if we can give back the years a convict spends in prison.
I am very much against the death penalty, just so there is no confusion. I have even had family and friends wrongly convicted that served (and are serving) jail time. But unless you are of the opinion that the only just punishments are financial or material in nature, "reversability" as a prerequisite for acceptable punishments is a fatally flawed criterion.
Posted by: JediBear | November 10, 2009 5:48 PM
I can't say I really have a problem with just retribution -- the state killing or beating a man in punishment for crimes of sufficient severity. Despite the weaknesses of deterrence in preventing crime, capital and corporal punishments have a certain known effectiveness in preventing recidivism.
The problem of course is that judges and juries are not perfect. Too many men have been wrongly convicted for being in the wrong place at the right time or having the wrong color of skin or for the simple crime of being simple, and thus easily manipulated.
Until these problems can be rectified, a punishment as severe as death or maiming should not be in the power of men to seek or to grant.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 10, 2009 5:51 PM
Martin writes:
If you believe in the death penalty you have to accept that innocent people will die because of mistrials and wrongful conviction. The innocence project (http://www.innocenceproject.org/) highlights this issue very well. Yes lots of guilty people die under the death penalty but innocent people will too. If you feel that this is a price worth paying you believe that innocent people should die for your beliefs. We can simply conclude that since you feel this is fair that you yourself are willing to be that innocent person.
It's rarely that I read a comment on a blog and think "wow! I am adopting that into my world-view!" but you sum it up so nicely and concisely I want to thank you for sharing that with me.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 10, 2009 5:58 PM
JediBear writes:
I can't say I really have a problem with just retribution -- the state killing or beating a man in punishment for crimes of sufficient severity
But isn't the wrong usually committed against someone other than the state? So it's not literally "retribution" it's "...retribution on behalf of..." the party wronged. This ignores the will of the party wronged; they might not want "retribution." If one says, on the other hand, that the wrong was implicitly against the state, as well, and therefore the state is right to enact retribution, you have a problem if the state is at all concerned with achieving agreement regarding its actions from its citizens or their representatives.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 10, 2009 6:08 PM
Whether people "deserve" to die is irrelevent. The more important question is do we need to kill them. In case #76, its likely that the villagers will not be able to protect themselves without resorting to killing. However, if a criminal has been apprehended in Texas, we do not need to kill her to protect ourselves. In this case the death sentence is unwarranted unless you can make the case
1. Fulfilling our need for revenge is more important than the life of that person, or
2. We value the resources used to maintain the life of the inmate while incarcerated more than we do the life of that inmate.
Here we have something to discuss.
Posted by: FlameDuck | November 10, 2009 6:45 PM
To be fair the Old Testament is Jewish. Dead men don't have to be compensated for wrongful imprisonment? Probably cheaper to just kill him, rather than having to figure out if he was innocent. In the good old days of firing squads, one rifle was loaded with a blank, while the others weren't. That way each executioner could rationalize not being a murderer. In modern times, the process for capital punishment, at least in the US, is similarly designed, to absolve everyone involved of responsibility. It's much in the same way as none of the SS officers that stood trail at Nuremberg, didn't partake in the holocaust, they were just being good soldiers and following orders. And more importantly, what about the executioner? It seems like a perpetual supply of murderers unless you can somehow break it down so that you only have 2 left and they can somehow kill each other. People commit murder for 3 reasons: Passion - you come home and find you wife in bed with another man. Cannot be deterred because the person is not thinking rationally. Professionally - this is the Pablo Escobar's of this world. They commit murder because the reward by far outweighs the risk. Cannot be deterred because they don't think they'll ever get caught. Pathologically - your John Wayne Gacy's. They commit murder because they absolutely have to. Cannot be deterred, because murdering people is a compulsion. So you're saying that the DC sniper was an agent of justice. I sure as hell didn't see that coming. They do. Most guns used in crimes were stolen from homes who had legally purchased them. If you shoot someone with your own weapon, that you bought legally in a shop, it's going to be hard claim innocence. Good thing we have the bible then, because God would never make a mistake like that. "Commander, I believe in God, and in his son Jesus Christ, and because I do, I can say this: Private Santiago is dead and that's a tragedy. But he's dead because he had no code. He's dead because he had no honor. And God was watching."Anyway, my take on this whole issue is that the jury was indeed incompetent. They failed on practically every level they possibly could.
The accounts I've read suggest that Khristian Oliver, didn't "smite someone with an instrument of iron". My understanding is the victim was beaten with a rifle butt, and subsequently shot.
Now I haven't read anything about what kind of rifle, but the most common materials from making rifle butts are wood and polymer, none of which qualifies as iron, by a long shot.
Bullets typically consist of a lead core, with a brass (which is a copper/zinc alloy) jacket, and of course bullets are fired, not smitten.
So wood, polymer, lead, brass and zinc. Going by The Old Testament, Khristian Oliver is quite literally innocent of murder, even if he did shoot someone with a firearm.
So not only did the jurors fail in justice, they failing in highschool chemistry (aka. the periodic table), and they failed to interpret the bible correctly.
I think that's generally the problem with trials by jury, the only people you get in a jury, are those too stupid to get out of jury duty, or those who feel a religious obligation to play god. In either case you're pretty much shit out of luck, and jolly well fucked.
Posted by: amphiox | November 10, 2009 6:46 PM
Ludicrously extreme self-defense type scenario, like post #76, are not relevant to the question of capital punishment. They may be justification of killing, but NEVER for execution.
When a society kills for self-defense, that is an act of war, not an act of law. Killing as an act of war may be sometimes justified. Killing as an act of law is never justifiable.
Per the specifics of #76, the proper judicial solution, and one used quite often in tribal societies, is exile, with agreements with neighboring villages to help enforce the exile. If the perpetrator attempts to break the exile in the future, then potentially lethal force, if necessary, may be used to defend the village from his incursion, and the use of this force is an act of war - defense of the village from invasion, essentially, and may be ethically justified, depending on circumstances, but only if the perpetrator chooses to break the terms of exile.
But the judicial act - the initial sentencing of the individual judged guilty - who is in custody of the society and at present powerless and NOT A THREAT (irrespective of whether or not he had been a threat in the past or might become a threat in the future), can not ethically kill.
Posted by: Paul | November 10, 2009 6:54 PM
And smug comments about how the only people in a jury are those too stupid to get out of it just create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Treating jury duty as something stupid people do instead of a civic duty makes for an environment where it's acceptable or admirable to skip out of jury duty, rather than perform your civic duty and keep the system functioning. You're playing into a system that wants the stupid, easily convinced people to be the jurors. No wonder they stopped teaching civics in the US. Easier to ensure convictions when anyone with brain cells to rub together consider jury duty to be beneath them.
Posted by: Pacal | November 10, 2009 7:22 PM
To all of this discussion about whether or not anyone deserves to die. Well Although I oppose the death penalty, its because I view it as a salutory limit on state power and because of the unfairness in how it is enforced. All sorts of peole guilty of murder are walking about, politicians CEO's etc. However to me one of the problems is that compared to what someone deserves for murderous deeds, death seems sometimes like a truly pathetic punishment.
Adolf Eichmann for example; compared to the grotesquely horrid, icomprehensible level of his crimes to say that he deserves to die for them is hugely insulting to the millions of dead. What Eichmann deserved as punishment no human power has the ability to inflict. In the case of people like Eichmann I'm not prepared to say that death is a inhuman punishment it seems in cases like his almost patheticlly inconsequential.
Posted by: rawnaeris
|
November 10, 2009 7:42 PM
As a Texan, this saddens me.
Posted by: Acronym Jim | November 10, 2009 7:59 PM
Aratina Gage and Ann@45!!wOOt11!!
Thanks, I'm glad at least one pun hit the mark.
Ann, I too miss the conversation with the Fanapathesists. My stubborn streak won't let me sign up for Facebook.
Back on topic: I hope none of those jurors are ever in a situation where they might be hauled into a Sharia court for the crime of proselytizing.
Posted by: Acronym Jim | November 10, 2009 8:59 PM
Erm, correction: Cage.
My apologies mistress Aratina. 'Twon't happen again.
Posted by: Mack | November 10, 2009 9:41 PM
A few years ago, I met Ray Krone at a conference. He was the 100th man freed from death row, after additional evidence came to light exonerating him, in this case DNA evidence implicating a man already in prison.
100th man, and that was five years ago. I think the fallibility of the so called justice system, and the unevenness with which the death penalty is applied indicates that our current system is fucked.
I am philosophically opposed to the death penalty, personally, but also, I think rotting in a prison cell for 70 or so years is a much harsher punishment than getting strapped to a bed and going nighty-night.
Back to the topic at hand, though, if the jury used a religious tool to justify their punishment, I think that we should go through their homes and lives with a fine tooth comb, and make sure they're obeying all the rules and regulations set down in bibles, and, if they aren't (which I suspect is true), that they're punished appropriately.
Wearing blended fabrics, cutting their beards, masturbating? Tsk, tsk. Stoning, all around.
Posted by: Pygmy Loris | November 11, 2009 12:08 AM
I would. Jury decisions should be informed by the law and the evidence. Religion is irrelevant.
Posted by: Aquaria | November 11, 2009 1:07 AM
#95:
You have a point, but...
Jurors don't put themselves on juries, do they? The prosecution and the defense determine who sits in the box for a trial. Each side is given X number of privileges to remove a juror from consideration, until they exhaust them, and/or are in agreement on the composition of the jury (whichever comes first).
This process results in what one typically sees in American courtrooms: a jury full of people who are wishy-washy and, yes, mostly ignorant.
Back on topic:
Was there not even person on that jury who didn't think, "Wait a minute..."? Didn't even a single one of them ask to speak with the judge about this incident, to at least make sure it was right, legal--anything? Was there not one who would have hung the jury over that alone?
I find what this guy did reprehensible, but I still would have hung that jury in a heartbeat.
Must be why I'm never picked for jury duty. Not even once!
Posted by: Alan | November 11, 2009 1:31 AM
Wow. They were actually able to consult a legal source outside US law for deciding on sentence (from the bronze age, and another continent, in fact) and still have their verdict upheld? How long is this lunacy going to persist in the world?
Posted by: DrBuzz0 | November 11, 2009 2:16 AM
While the Bible should never be used in a legal context, the results in this case don't bother me in the least. The man was clearly factually guilty - he committed the crime for which he was convicted and there seems to be no reasonable leg to stand on that he isn't a murderer.
Thus, I really could care less that they killed the bastard, and I'm disgusted that so-called human rights groups like Aministy International give this low life any kind of sympathy. Aren't they supposed to be out there worrying about people being killed for no good reason: like because they're the wrong color or political party? Maybe they should focus on those people and not the ones being killed because they have committed a crime that effectively voids their right to be part of society.
If his death gives even the slightest ounce of comfort to the family of those he killed unjustly, it is worth it. If it is motivated by vindictiveness or revenge, then fine! They have every right to be angry and to savor in his death! He deserves whatever comes to him or worse. I don't judge people for how they feel, I don't care if it seems barbaric or shallow.. they have the right to feel however they do having lost their loved ones. This bastard, however, I will judge, because I do judge people by their actions, and murder crosses a line where you no longer have any right to be treated as anything other than a piece of garbage.
Don't give me any bull about how we can't condemn killing if we kill the killers. That's the most bogus logic I've ever heard. A society always maintains the right to impose punishment beyond the rights of any individual to do so. You know what we do to people who kidnap and imprison others? We put them in prison! Yeah, go figure. How on earth can we say that it's wrong to unlawfully imprison someone when we turn around and imprison the offender ourselves? It's no different.
Posted by: Aquaria | November 11, 2009 4:08 AM
So I take it that you won't mind if the police come to your door tomorrow to arrest you, the courts would try you, convict you, and sentence you and then the state execute you, even though you are perfectly innocent? You'll be okay with that, I take it?
Don't say it won't happen to you.
It can happen to you. It's happened to plenty of people. It's happened to scores of people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Over 100 death row inmates have been cleared of wrongdoing based on DNA tests, revealing the massive, glaring, appalling failure of our so-called justice system to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.
Amnesty (correct spelling) International is a humanitarian group that has many missions, only one of them being to support humane treatment of prisoners, with a special focus on standing up for the falsely imprisoned, especially those who are being murdered by the state. It takes courage and compassion to stand up and say that no, not everyone in prison belongs there, and to fight for them. If you were in jail, you'd be crying like a diaper boy for them to come help you. Sort of like how Rush Limbaugh used to rag on the ACLU, until they went to bat for his sorry ass. Hypocrites are funny that way.
Finally, I don't know about you, but my mama taught me that two wrongs don't make a right. Likewise, two deaths don't equal a life. It actually costs more (by some estimates 10 X more) to execute people than it does to jail them for life. More data here.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 11, 2009 4:43 AM
When I first watched "12 angry men" as a 12year-old or so, back in Germany, I was totally appalled that a justice system could be built like this, with some random people who have no legal knowledge and might have all sorts of motives to want to be back home rather then on jury duty getting to decide someone's fate.
I still think it's ludicruous.That's not even talking about the abomination that is the death penalty.But especially when 12 doofuses get to decide someone's fate, capital punishment should not be an option.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 11, 2009 5:02 AM
testPosted by: Martin Brock | November 11, 2009 5:05 AM
The secular state of Texas, through its secular, "democratic" processes, executed Khristian Oliver. Attributing the executions to three thousand year old, nomadic shepherds with similar jurisprudence only illustrates one's attitude toward ancient, nomadic shepherds. This attitude seems no cleverer when P.Z. Myers expresses it. Never mind that the world's largest, officially atheistic state is still the world leader in capital punishment. The U.S. is only the world leader in mock piety, atheistic and otherwise.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 11, 2009 5:09 AM
Brock,
So are you claiming that some of the jurors in the trial did not use the bible to make the point that Oliver should be executed ?
Maybe you could explain what business any juror had in using the bible to make any point. The bible was not relevant to their discussions.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 11, 2009 5:14 AM
You have seen what the bible says about "people who don't follow the bible" don't you. That person would probably be joining the condemned.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | November 11, 2009 6:12 AM
The death penalty is not deserved because there can be no justification for killing the person. None whatsoever. I'm not merely pragmatically against the death penalty (it is not an effective deterent, and cannot be applied with absolute certainty of guilt). I'm also against it ideologically; I simply do not accept that killing criminals is the right thing to do. One cannot live by the axiom that killing (in the absence of immediate mortal danger) is wrong, and then kill people who are already under control.
Now, I accept that you won't be persuaded by my personal ideals, but let us instead examine the practicalities of you scenario.
1) Show me that this person can be said, without doubt to have committed the crimes - you may further hypothesise that they were caught in the act by every member of the village, or at least that this is the story. Well, prove it to me because I wasn't there, and hence there can be no certainty. The system is still open to abuse, as any ssytem is, but without the possibilty of taking any steps to set right that wrong.
2) You same to think so, but is this the only alternative? Clearly not, firstly the offender could be driven into exile. The price to the village is some continued risk, and that they must give vigilance. A second alternative would be that the villagers watch the person until outside authorities can be summoned or fetched. Again, there is a price, in terms of risk and viligance to the village. These are the price of what is the best approximation of true justice.
I will not accept that there is a pragmatic or practical case to be made for execution. If so, then why should we not simply execute criminals because we want to?
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 11, 2009 6:18 AM
A jury is part of the legal procedure of the secular state of Texas. Jurors may revere the Bible or the Koran or The God Delusion or any other book they like. They may not simply impose Mosaic law, because judges would overrule it, but they may describe their motivations however they like, just as you could as a juror. They may impose a death penalty only because the Texas legislature permits it, just as Chinese lawmakers permit it for their own secular, even atheistic, reasons.
They apparently disagree with you.
Posted by: SEF | November 11, 2009 8:27 AM
As well as people using Christianity as an excuse to legally kill people (ie via death sentences in courts of law), there's the reverse situation of people using Christianity as an excuse to let bad people get off to commit further crimes.
In reporting the update to this story on TV, the BBC quoted the previous victim's family as declaring themselves to be "committed Christians" and that that was why the rapist should be released - something which, ludicrously from the point of view of the safety of the rest of the public, apparently really did contribute to the rapist not being locked up anywhere by the previous judge! (The next young victim of that same rapist now has the threat of HIV/AIDS hanging over him as well as the trauma of the attack itself to deal with.)
It's about time that claiming to be a "committed Christian" was widely regarded as synonymous with the person declaring themselves to be a committed moron and that anything else they say should be treated with the contempt it deserves.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 11, 2009 8:31 AM
There is only one person in a court of law charged with providing guidance to the jury, and that is the judge.
It is a pity you refuse to accept that fact. Even the US appeals court accepted that the jury acted wrongly.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 11, 2009 10:14 AM
USA! USA! USA!
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 11, 2009 10:46 AM
There are two entirely separated issues being addressed here.
1. Does a state have the right to kill criminals?
2. Does a jury have the right to justify any decision (capital punishment or other) based on an ideology not codified in the law?
Ideologically, I am also against the death penalty, but this is a personal conviction. States kill criminals and get away with it (for now), and de facto have the right to do so until such practices are determined to be unconstitutional in federal court. In deciding this issue, I don't find someone else's conviction (eg "killing is morally reprehensible" or "those who kill deserve death") to be compelling. These are not reasoned arguments. The reasoned argument will take the form "Killing criminals is right/wrong for us in (the State of Texas/Communist China/the Tegui Village) because...". This is where the discussion needs to take place.
Regarding the second question, there are recommendations that the court makes in deciding sentence, but to my knowledge, these are imprecise. The jury in Texas may be empowered by the court to recommend capital punishment...how they decide if a crime is heinous enough to actually make the recommendation once empowered is not well defined...it could as easily be made by reading tea leaves, consulting the bible, interpreting dreams, etc.
As a citizen of Texas, I'm not concerned with collectively answering the question "Is it wrong to take a life", but the questions "Does taking a life serve the citizens of Texas?" and "Is such a sentence permissable by federal law?"...my answer to thie first question (which could be an expanded post echoing what many here have said) would be "no". The answer to the second question is clearly "yes".
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 11, 2009 10:55 AM
Where do I assert any authority over guidance to the jury other than the judicial authority? Do you realize that attributing thoughts to me is an assertion you can't possibly defend?
I haven't read any appellate decision, but according to "Strangest brew" above, a judge described the jury's use of some Biblical verse in their written declaration of a verdict (or notes or something) "over the line" without actually striking down the verdict, so this "over the line" ruling has no legal effect.
Consider this appellate judge's position for a minute. If he had struck down the verdict on these grounds, what would happen? Jurors would cease to be influenced by Bible verses? How is a judge supposed to enforce this requirement? Dismiss jurors who read the Bible? Admit only jurors who say that they won't be influenced by Bible verses? Wouldn't that just be a test for lying Bible readers?
Jurors influenced by Bible verses would only be prohibited from citing the influence in their written notes or declarations, so that no appellate court judge could ever again see a record of these influences. What exactly would that accomplish? The bliss of ignorance?
Posted by: Paul | November 11, 2009 11:09 AM
@102
Of course not. But potential jurors can do everything in their power to excuse themselves from jury duty, hence the "only people too stupid to get out of jury duty sit on juries" quip you hear so often. That was the point I was making. I consider this shirking one's civic duty. I didn't mean to imply it was the only factor in jury selection.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | November 11, 2009 11:35 AM
Davem (@68):
This would effectively be a ban on all gun sales, since no matter how diligent one is, nobody could be certain &emdash; surely not certain enough to bet one's life — that no gun you sold would ever be used in a capital crime.
I'm all for holding gun sellers to a higher, stricter standard of liability for negligent sales, and I'd be willing to listen to arguments for some form of gun ban, if that's what you're really about, but I hate these sorts of backdoor bans. At some point, sellers of tools cannot be held responsible for how those tools are used. If there's an axe murder in tomorrow's news, should all hardware store managers fear the needle?
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 11, 2009 11:51 AM
Furthermore, "banning" jurors influenced by the Bible can only ban jurors stupid enough not to conceal this influence, so this "ban" is actually a test for smart, strategically dishonest jurors influenced by the Bible. Banning a record of Biblical influence on jury decisions only deprives appellate court judges of this information.
So we should instead encourage jurors to declare any "external" influence on their verdict, so judges have this information in extreme cases. This case wasn't extreme, because the Biblical dictum didn't contradict a statutory standard anyway.
Free speech really is a good idea.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | November 11, 2009 12:28 PM
Paul (@88):
Financial and material punishments aren't reversible, either, given that there's always some time-value of money. Absent a time machine, we can never truly "make it didn't happen" when there's been an erroneous conviction... but that's not really the point: While not reversible, every non-capital form of punishment is at least remediable. That is, you can always make some form of compensation or restitution to the unjustly convicted person... unless you've already executed the person before the injustice is discovered/proven.
In this case, of course, it wasn't the conviction that was unjust — AFAIK nobody disputes that this guy was a murderer — but the sentencing, which was apparently based at least in part on religious law, rather than wholly on secular law, as should have been the case. I think it's inarguable that the death penalty is distinct from all other penalties in the degree to which an error is uncorrectable.
I used to support the death penalty, on the grounds that there are some people whose acts are sufficiently heinous, or whose likelihood of committing future heinous acts is sufficiently well demonstrated, that they cannot be permitted to live among us... but over time I've become persuaded that the harm to the community attendant on carrying out the death penalty far outweighs the cost of keeping these people in prison for life, or the risk that they might escape.
In fact, I've begun to think the best argument against the death penalty is the psychic1 damage I think it does to the bereaved families of victims, and, somewhat less obviously, to the whole community. TomRiddle (@70) says...
...and I substantially agree, but understanding the viewpoint of the bereaved is not necessarily the same thing as thinking, from an external point of view, that their feelings are healthy, either for them or for the community. It seems to me that the presence of execution as an option encourages something very like bloodlust — intensely for the direct victims and in a more diffuse sense for the larger community that has also been victimized by the crime — and the lengthy process of actually carrying out the dealth penalty causes that bloodlust to be sustained over years or decades during which the victims really should be healing and getting on with their lives, rather than nursing unhealthy obsessions. This issue was brought home to me yet again with some of the quotes I read in the run-up to the DC sniper execution.
Between the high risk of irremediable and ultimate injustice and the deleterious personal and societal effects of inflaming and indulging our basest emotional responses, I've come to see the death penalty as finally insupportable.
1 I do not mean that word in any supernatural sense, but instead in the first adjective sense listed here.
Posted by: Paul | November 11, 2009 1:22 PM
Well played, Bill. I didn't note the financial or material "opportunity cost" that would be an issue until after posting, but since in principle even that could be overcome (say, by restoring back their property with interest) I did not think it significant enough to repost to correct. Since we have not yet figured out how to "de-age" people, I still consider jail time to be fundamentally un-reversable in a manner that financial/material penalties are not.
I find your point about remediable punishments to be much stronger a criterion than reversability. I think I will adopt it.
Posted by: Col | November 11, 2009 4:12 PM
Murderers are the result of the society they live in. Texas is a murderous breeding ground. Murdering fellow murderers only makes for a more murderous society. "I love the bible, it condones murder"
Posted by: astrounit | November 12, 2009 7:42 AM
Execution that happens to be sanctioned by law isn't the issue here. (Even though I can think of many reasons why such capitol punishment does absolutely NOTHING to deter murderers from carrying out their deranged plans, and even enhances the prospect that deranged people will be motivated to pursue a chance on death row: insanity isn't reasonable, after all).
The ISSUE that PZ is making here is that some jury consulted a deranged set of scriptural gobbledegook in order to arrive at a decision of WHETHER some person is guilty or culpable and HOW to put that person down.
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the fucking law. Even in Texas.
"Law??? WHAT LAW???"
Then they just make it up.
Too many Texans live in literally hundreds of Hollywood movies that have portrayed what they regard as their history. And it's all justified in their minds by appeals to their religion of choice, as if that confounded nonsense has any say in the matter under examination.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | November 12, 2009 7:57 AM
No. The issue here was only about sentencing. They consulted the Bible to decide whether he should die, not to decide his guilt. Although there seems to be clear misconduct by the jury in this case, the issue of whether the sentence passed down by law is itself just is entirely relevant.
Would I be more glad that somebody is put to death on the basis of some non-religious whim? The need for revenge? Not really. Capital punishment is a useless abhorrence, and there is no good rationale for sentencing someone to die.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 12, 2009 8:43 AM
Texas permits a capital murder conviction under particular circumstances, X. Suppose I, as a juror, decide that the circumstances X exist and that other circumstances, Y, also exist. If I then elect capital punishment only because both X and Y exist, what is the misconduct? Where have I exceeded my authority as a juror under Texas law?
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | November 12, 2009 9:00 AM
Specifically, Texan law? No idea. But their actions were found to be unconstitutional. I'd say that is misconduct, even if not specifically so under Texas law.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | November 12, 2009 9:03 AM
Shit, I forgot! Click on the blockquoted text for the link...
Posted by: TomRiddle
|
November 12, 2009 5:03 PM
I’ll let you personally witness the crime to any degree of certainty you require. This is not a question of whether or not the “system” there can justify capital punishment, but whether or not this particular situation can justify it.
In many situations, and likely in this one, exile is a death sentence. Just because you didn’t pull a trigger, does not absolve you from the responsibility of issuing a virtual death sentence. I am realistically able to assume away help from outside authorities here; this village is on their own.
Interestingly enough, you reached for the two reasons I claimed capital punishment does not belong in the US; uncertainty (including corruption) and an adequate alternative. Take away those factors, and your argument comes down to “I don’t like the idea of killing.” That idea does nothing to forward the position that no criminal deserves to die for their crime.
Justice for who? Certainly not the villagers that must constantly worry about who will be the next to die at the hands of this lunatic. Would you ask them to live in peril and terror to ease your conscience?
It’s unfortunate that you won’t accept it, because it did, and in some places, still does exist. Execution is the ultimate preventative measure for repeat offenses, and does provide a measure of justice and closure for victims. Whereas you are entitled to your own personal views on killing, they are no more valid or relevant than the next person’s. If you are going to attack capital punishment, stick to the items that are indisputable: uncertainty and adequate alternatives, but don’t tell me that some scumbag serial murderer doesn’t deserve execution.
Because that makes for a crappy and unsustainable society. Why are people around here so enthralled with the slippery slope?