The USA has prisons that lock people up in a 8 by 10 cell in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day, then tacks more time on them when they go crazy and lash out at the prison guards. Some states have the 3 strike law. Prisons do not solve a society's problems.
17
The editorial makes the argument that were the court to rule that Miller should be applied retroactively it would result in fairness and justice for the people in question because it would give them the chance to show they deserve a 2nd chance.
However any basic knowledge of supreme court decisions in regard to questions over the death penalty or serious prison sentences will show that the court cares not a wit about whether the decision provdies for justice and fairness or for an indisputably outrageous miscarriage of justice.
A perefct example of this is the court's decision in District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009)
The case was whether a prisoner doing hard time for rape has the right to demand that the DNA evidence of the crime be tested so that he can prove that he is innocent. The state in that case refused his request to make the DNA available for testing without even providing a reason.
The court ruled, based on the most absurd reasoning, that there is no right to demand the DNA test so that he can prove his innocence and that the state can simply refuse to allow him to prove it, not for any good reason, but because the matter of punishing an innocent man is of total irrelevance in the eyes of the court, and of the law.
This is but a single example of how the court holds that justice or gross injustice, right or wrong, is not even a factor in how the decide upon how to rule. And these types of decisions are typical.
However any basic knowledge of supreme court decisions in regard to questions over the death penalty or serious prison sentences will show that the court cares not a wit about whether the decision provdies for justice and fairness or for an indisputably outrageous miscarriage of justice.
A perefct example of this is the court's decision in District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009)
The case was whether a prisoner doing hard time for rape has the right to demand that the DNA evidence of the crime be tested so that he can prove that he is innocent. The state in that case refused his request to make the DNA available for testing without even providing a reason.
The court ruled, based on the most absurd reasoning, that there is no right to demand the DNA test so that he can prove his innocence and that the state can simply refuse to allow him to prove it, not for any good reason, but because the matter of punishing an innocent man is of total irrelevance in the eyes of the court, and of the law.
This is but a single example of how the court holds that justice or gross injustice, right or wrong, is not even a factor in how the decide upon how to rule. And these types of decisions are typical.
12
"...who was 17 when he was convicted of killing a Louisiana sheriff’s deputy in 1963 — a crime that carried an automatic sentence of life without the possibility of parole."
If they remove the "life without the possibility of parole" will they be able to bring the Louisiana sheriff’s deputy back from the dead? If they can, then and only then would justice be served.
If they remove the "life without the possibility of parole" will they be able to bring the Louisiana sheriff’s deputy back from the dead? If they can, then and only then would justice be served.
4
Considering the American Prison system for what it is, getting sentenced is, in and of itself "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" We need to A: make sure that the punishment fits the crime. B: That the accused is ACTUALLY guilty of the crime, and C: Fix our prison system so that it works.
2
I think what we forget is imprisonment is punishment. The death penalty is a penalty for taking a life. I have an an adult relative who has spent most of his adult life in the prison system and he will tell you that about 98% of the convicts are right where they belong, himself included. According to him, some even belong in a zoo, because they are incorrigible. It really is that simple.
3
The death penalty is cruel and unusual. When we torture for decades and then "execute" a human being, we are announcing to the world that we are primitive and uncivilized-that our mindset is equal to those we abhor. We are engaging in brutal torture and murders like common criminals--only for different reasons and justifications. What distinguishes us? We should not be torturing anyone with our draconian and barbaric systems-and particularly innocent American citizens. We need comprehensive criminal justice reform including the release of the wrongfully prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned American citizens trapped in dungeons and ensnared in legal and judicial webs of deception throughout the U.S. Many have already been released, including some who spent decades on Death Row. The persecution and torture imposed via the United States legal, judicial, and penal systems must be acknowledged and remedied. Thousands upon thousands of innocent and excessively and harshly sentenced Americans (and their families) think THIS issue is a matter of National and international urgent concern. Federal, state, and United Nations Human Rights Committee investigations must be immediately initiated and claims of innocence must be investigated promptly. Innocent American prisoners must be exonerated and released immediately. And relentless, independent oversight, investigation, and correction of the corruption of the U.S. legal system must be a top priority.
3
If the measure is people can change, I’d guess that most people will have changed, or at least learned their lesson, after no more than about five years’ imprisonment.
Cruel and unusual in the days of our Founding Fathers was nothing like we see it today. Back then, it was really cruel. Today, you just go to sleep. Or, they never let you out again. That's OK all around.
1
We don’t need Supreme Court Justices to decide. Imprisonment in the U.S., in and of itself is cruel and unusual punishment, violating, of course, both the 8th amendment and international principles of human rights.
Our prisons are oubliettes where the convicted are exposed to rape, beatings and even enslavement, perpetrated by both other inmates and union-protected corrections officers. The injuries from this brutalization can result in death or permanent injuries both to body and mind, as can the exposure in prison to diseases such as life-threatening HIV/AIDS, hepatitis B, hepatitis B and tuberculosis.
Even those convicted who are returned to society are sentenced for life -- to never leading a normal and healthy one – for life.
Our prisons are oubliettes where the convicted are exposed to rape, beatings and even enslavement, perpetrated by both other inmates and union-protected corrections officers. The injuries from this brutalization can result in death or permanent injuries both to body and mind, as can the exposure in prison to diseases such as life-threatening HIV/AIDS, hepatitis B, hepatitis B and tuberculosis.
Even those convicted who are returned to society are sentenced for life -- to never leading a normal and healthy one – for life.
6
As it should be. What's next? Sending criminals to a consciousness raising workshop on the West Coast for a week and then turning them loose again on the rest of us?
1
Hey D.R. Prison is suppose to be scary not a club house. It is something to be avoided at all cost but to some, crime is worth the cost. There are a few convicts who are victims of circumstances but they amount to about 2%. Yea, our prison system is so bad that about 99% of the worlds prisoners would jump at the chance to do their time here. Whether you know it or not there are professional criminals just like professionals on the outside.
1
If a court or legislature were to increase the penalty for a specific crime, or determine that a particular punishment once ruled unconstitutional was allowable, would there be a call to resentence those convicted under the old laws to the new harsher punishments? I doubt it.
A person commits a crime at a specific point in time and, if convicted, should receive the punishment set for that crime at the time it occurred. Ex post facto laws are specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and ex post facto sentencing should come under the same prohibition.
A person commits a crime at a specific point in time and, if convicted, should receive the punishment set for that crime at the time it occurred. Ex post facto laws are specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and ex post facto sentencing should come under the same prohibition.
3
The difference here is that liberty would be expanded rather than restricted.
3
The Supreme Court has a job and that is to interpret the laws and constitution as written. If capital punishment is to be abandoned, it must be done in Congress with an amendment.
Congress creates laws, not the Supreme Court. This is one of the strongest parts about the US - there are 3 branches of government, and 2 can overcome 1 if there is a majority.
As far as 'cruel and unusual' is concerned, I would ask people to consider that we are talking about horrendous crimes. Every day I read about a murder or rape or torture/robbery where the victims and their family's lives are destroyed, along with the security of their neighbors. The perpetrators, once caught, are almost ALWAYS repeat offenders that spent some time in jail, but were let out because of 'good behavior.' Until I see the recidivism rate go down significantly, I have little faith in the parole board's ability to determine whether one is actually behaving behind bars and feels any kind of remorse other than being sorry they were caught.
Congress creates laws, not the Supreme Court. This is one of the strongest parts about the US - there are 3 branches of government, and 2 can overcome 1 if there is a majority.
As far as 'cruel and unusual' is concerned, I would ask people to consider that we are talking about horrendous crimes. Every day I read about a murder or rape or torture/robbery where the victims and their family's lives are destroyed, along with the security of their neighbors. The perpetrators, once caught, are almost ALWAYS repeat offenders that spent some time in jail, but were let out because of 'good behavior.' Until I see the recidivism rate go down significantly, I have little faith in the parole board's ability to determine whether one is actually behaving behind bars and feels any kind of remorse other than being sorry they were caught.
9
Looks like no one at The Times Editorial Board's ever lost a loved one to a violent crime. I'd imagine that "retribution" brings an awful lot of solace to an awful lot of families that'll never get their husband, wife, brother, sister, child or other family member back.
6
If you read the literature, you'd know that the jury is still out--pardon the phrase--on whether executing a murderer makes the victim's loved ones feel better. Stories of those who witnessed executions indicate that they were either horrified by the reality of execution or disappointed and angry that the condemned didn't suffer more. Neither response indicates solace.
6
It is hard to know what, if anything, the New York Times Editorial Board feels for victims of murder and their families. They seem to be willing to write about every aspect of capital crimes, but the impact that the crimes and trials have on family members. You see it in the comments here, too. There are plenty of comments about racial disparities in Justice and crime deterrence. There's even a comment about the history of the free will versus determinism debate. But there are too few comments about the impact of capital crimes on victims and their families.
3
To me, it goes without saying that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment. What can be crueler than killing someone short of torturing him first, and that, too, is very likely when people are put to death with certain intravenous drugs. The death penalty is more expensive to administer (especially given out system of appeals) than a life sentence, and has not been proven to be a deterrent to violent crime.
As for giving juveniles life sentences, when study after neurological study has indicated that the brain is not fully formed and able to make mature judgments until ages 23-25, it seems to me equally unconscionable. How many readers over thirty are the same people they were when they were 17 years old? How many of us haven't learned (as our brains have developed to maturity) to control our impulses, postpone gratification to achieve our goals, or become less self-involved , so that we have developed more empathy and compassion? Perhaps when we look at the efficacy of life sentences and the death penalty, rather than just take our model from most developed countries (who disbanded these practices long ago), we should look at ourselves and remember what it was like to be young and impulsive. And when condemning a person to death, perhaps we should look into our darkest selves and ask if we too, don't have lurking within us some of the darkest deeds we have seen committed by others.
As for giving juveniles life sentences, when study after neurological study has indicated that the brain is not fully formed and able to make mature judgments until ages 23-25, it seems to me equally unconscionable. How many readers over thirty are the same people they were when they were 17 years old? How many of us haven't learned (as our brains have developed to maturity) to control our impulses, postpone gratification to achieve our goals, or become less self-involved , so that we have developed more empathy and compassion? Perhaps when we look at the efficacy of life sentences and the death penalty, rather than just take our model from most developed countries (who disbanded these practices long ago), we should look at ourselves and remember what it was like to be young and impulsive. And when condemning a person to death, perhaps we should look into our darkest selves and ask if we too, don't have lurking within us some of the darkest deeds we have seen committed by others.
7
"Free Will" while a somewhat archaic term, when accepted as reality underlies imposing painful punishment. The concept was recently subjected to the expertise of theoretical cosmology at a lecture at UCSD, entitled "The Physics of Free Will." This was my commentary on it:
"Professor Brian Keating began his lecture by asking for a show of hands of "believing" or "rejecting" Free Will, thus reducing this profound question into a binary set of opinions.
The concept of Free Will has been productively explored since ancient times, expressed in various metaphors and paradigms. Psychology, Sociology, History, Political Science.....all provide a context for understanding and expanding on this concept. Physics, after listening to this lecture, does not.
Keating showed a slide of an MRI of a human brain, and then took us on an extended speculative tour of the multi-verse fad, as if, but never articulating how, this would provide insight into Free Will. He said something about how meeting ourselves in a different universe would influence our thinking on this subject.
There is a direct line through Free Will to norms of penology, from excruciating executions of our country to sympathetic rehabilitation in Norway. This is not trivial subject. "
In the U.S, "It's the murderers fault so he must suffer", in Norway, "it's our society's fault that we allowed him to live a life that led to this aberration." This defines who we are as a people.
AlRodbell.com
"Professor Brian Keating began his lecture by asking for a show of hands of "believing" or "rejecting" Free Will, thus reducing this profound question into a binary set of opinions.
The concept of Free Will has been productively explored since ancient times, expressed in various metaphors and paradigms. Psychology, Sociology, History, Political Science.....all provide a context for understanding and expanding on this concept. Physics, after listening to this lecture, does not.
Keating showed a slide of an MRI of a human brain, and then took us on an extended speculative tour of the multi-verse fad, as if, but never articulating how, this would provide insight into Free Will. He said something about how meeting ourselves in a different universe would influence our thinking on this subject.
There is a direct line through Free Will to norms of penology, from excruciating executions of our country to sympathetic rehabilitation in Norway. This is not trivial subject. "
In the U.S, "It's the murderers fault so he must suffer", in Norway, "it's our society's fault that we allowed him to live a life that led to this aberration." This defines who we are as a people.
AlRodbell.com
1
These cases and many others illustrate the many and extremely troubling issues surrounding capital punishment. Juries exclude racial minorities, prosecutors pick and choose which defendants qualify for death--often snitches skate free, even if they are primary perpetrators--states have varying laws and rules. Some judges maintain that juries should have less discretion, others that they should have more. Then there is the issue of drugs used to execute inmates, and there is a gender disparity. End it already. Life in prison is a death sentence in reality.
4
This piece exemplifies the left's perspective on the constitution and jurisprudence: policy and results over the law.
The 8A does not constitute a roving warrant for 5 geriatric lawyers to impose their whim on the populace. The terms of the Amendment are fairly clear and were well understood, until "evolving notions of societal decency" (a concept akin to "penumbras and emanations") entered the scene.
If the people, acting through their elected representatives, choose to eliminate punishments which have existed essentially forever, that's fine. If "societal decency" changes legislators minds, great. (One can only hope that simple decency -- not executing innocent children -- receives the same consideration.) But constitutional standards are fixed and immutable. The constitution hasn't changed since 1972; in the absence of some demonstration that the SCOTUS misread the document (see, e.g. Roe), that ruling should remain intact.
The 8A does not constitute a roving warrant for 5 geriatric lawyers to impose their whim on the populace. The terms of the Amendment are fairly clear and were well understood, until "evolving notions of societal decency" (a concept akin to "penumbras and emanations") entered the scene.
If the people, acting through their elected representatives, choose to eliminate punishments which have existed essentially forever, that's fine. If "societal decency" changes legislators minds, great. (One can only hope that simple decency -- not executing innocent children -- receives the same consideration.) But constitutional standards are fixed and immutable. The constitution hasn't changed since 1972; in the absence of some demonstration that the SCOTUS misread the document (see, e.g. Roe), that ruling should remain intact.
1
By that reasoning we should just abolish the Supreme Court completely. Oh, wait, it was established by that same immutable Comstitution.
5
Capital punishment certainly reduces recidivism among those criminals subject to it. Let's compare recidivism rates in the US with those in Europe for the same capital crimes. The US result is better.
3
The words "cruel and unusual" should be reserved for the victim, and ONLY the victim.
In the case of Henry Montgomery, who gunned down a sheriff's deputy at age 17...yes, he has spent over 50 years in prison, and by all accounts appears to have changed, and is now considered to be a "well-behaved prisoner." In other words he's changed. Sadly, however, the person who has absolutely NO chance of changing, is the sheriff's deputy...he's dead.
Let's NEVER forget the victims!
In the case of Henry Montgomery, who gunned down a sheriff's deputy at age 17...yes, he has spent over 50 years in prison, and by all accounts appears to have changed, and is now considered to be a "well-behaved prisoner." In other words he's changed. Sadly, however, the person who has absolutely NO chance of changing, is the sheriff's deputy...he's dead.
Let's NEVER forget the victims!
11
Forgiveness and mercy. After spending 50 years in prison, forgiving the murderer for his crime and showing him mercy by letting him out of prison (especially if he is a changed man) is something to consider. He will answer for his sins before God soon enough. Romans 12:19 says it all.
Can you please explain how utterly destroying another human being honors the victim, more than imposing punishment but also allowing for his rehabilitation would?
4
How does keeping Henry Montgomery in prison help the victim?
5
Capital punishment does not act as deterrent to crime (compare crime rates in the US with those in Europe). In fact, it probably contributes to high crime rates by coarsening the public sentiment and making violence into an acceptable solution to a problem (this was one of the arguments of death-penalty opponents as far back as the 19th century). Executing somebody who does not have the intellectual capacity to understand what they have done wrong is an obscenity. But the strangest argument I hear from the proponents of death penalty is "think about the victims". Will killing somebody else restore the victim to life? Even if the execution provides some satisfaction to the victim's family, why does bereavement give you the power of life and death over other people? By this logic, if I lose my money in a robbery, I am justified in robbing others.
12
"By this logic, if I lose my money in a robbery, I am justified in robbing others."
No. By this logic, if you lose your money in a robbery, you're justified to receive restitution if the robber's caught.
No. By this logic, if you lose your money in a robbery, you're justified to receive restitution if the robber's caught.
2
I haven't tried a death penalty case in years and never would again but I seem to recall a series of Supreme Court cases holding that the major steps along the road to a death sentence be decided by a jury. Florida law would seem to minimize the role of the jury in death penalty vases. This article states that five jurors voted against the death penalty in the Hurst case. That implies that he was sentenced to death by the authority of a bare majority of the jurors. The Florida law apparently goes a step beyond that and allows the judge to overrule the jury in imposing the sentence. If I am reading this correctly, Florida law seems designed to allow easy imposition of a death sentence. Anyway, all this supports my opinion that the criminal justice system is not competent to decide who lives and who dies.
27
Do we really expect the current Supreme Court that recently created GOP Death Panel states championing healthcare abandonment of the working poor to suddenly rise up for a handful of prisoners ?
Do we really expect the current Supreme Court that in 2000 arbitrarily awarded America the Bush-Cheney murderous Iraq streak to suddenly display some actual 'compassionate conservatism' ?
Do we really expect that the current Citizens United Supreme Court which completely murdered democracy with 0.1% legalized bribery to suddenly care about regular human beings ?
The current right-wing Supreme Court is an ongoing national jurisprudential death penalty that is cruel and unusual to American justice.
Do we really expect the current Supreme Court that in 2000 arbitrarily awarded America the Bush-Cheney murderous Iraq streak to suddenly display some actual 'compassionate conservatism' ?
Do we really expect that the current Citizens United Supreme Court which completely murdered democracy with 0.1% legalized bribery to suddenly care about regular human beings ?
The current right-wing Supreme Court is an ongoing national jurisprudential death penalty that is cruel and unusual to American justice.
57
Despite the extreme difficulty the Supreme Court faces in deciding these sentencing issues, this is their job and they need to do it fairly (if there is such a thing as fair). It is time that Florida was brought to heel and I am sure that can be said about sentencing laws in many other states.
As I see the SCOTUS, they have been responsible for some terrible decisions regarding campaign financing and I wonder if they are really capable of deciding anything meaningful.
As I see the SCOTUS, they have been responsible for some terrible decisions regarding campaign financing and I wonder if they are really capable of deciding anything meaningful.
26
It is utterly astounding how little "equal protection of law" figures in Supreme Court jurisprudence. It is as if the whole concept is a chimera.
23
Some commenters state that, since capital punishment existed when the the Bills of Rights came into being, the Constitution cannot now be interpreted to deem capital punishment as cruel and unusual punishment. Would those same commenters who demand a "static" Constitution and Bill of Rights argue that the Second Amendment applies only to people in well-regulated militias and protects only muskets and other firearms in existence at that time? Perhaps, but I doubt it. The Constitution and Bill of Rights must necessarily be viewed as a living document that takes into account advances in scientific knowledge (e.g. juveniles' brains are neurologically different from adult brains which should logically makes culpability standards different), technology, and evolving societal values. Otherwise, we would have to go back to a long dead, archaic past.
19
The real question is when and how we decide what is "cruel and unusual." I suspect that in 1800 the overwhelming majority of Americans did not see the death penalty as cruel and it certainly wasn't unusual.
Anything based on evolving societal values is almost by definition something to be decided by the democratic process, not by judges. If the majority of Americans want to outlaw capital punishment, it will be outlawed. If a majority want to keep capital punishment, there is no place for judges to override those societal standards.
Anything based on evolving societal values is almost by definition something to be decided by the democratic process, not by judges. If the majority of Americans want to outlaw capital punishment, it will be outlawed. If a majority want to keep capital punishment, there is no place for judges to override those societal standards.
7
Could the word, "unusual" be a way of examining the unfairness in the manner the death penalty is applied? If the usual application of a death sentence is found to be disproportionately applied to one ethnic group and not another, I would think that it fails that test.
2
To my mind, the death penalty and life without parole reflect how we are much too cavalier about other people's lives. We talk about people convicted of crimes lacking sufficient empathy, but I think these punishments suggest that we could turn that criticism on ourselves.
30
Let's listen to the victims and their families before we start turning our criticisms elsewhere.
3
Mark Rogow,
I thought we had developed our system of justice to try to balance many different factors, that we try not to give victims' point of view undue weight, because while very understandable, their point of view may not lead to the greatest good for the community as a whole.
I thought we had developed our system of justice to try to balance many different factors, that we try not to give victims' point of view undue weight, because while very understandable, their point of view may not lead to the greatest good for the community as a whole.
5
Diana, I'd argue it the other way. I think we're extremely concerned for the lives of the innocent affected by those that caused them harm.
Watching a crime show on TV last night, I was incredibly moved by the relief expressed by the daughter of a murdered woman when she was asked about the harsh sentence handed down to the killer. When asked how she would've felt had a lighter sentence been handed down, she began shaking & sobbing & basically couldn't continue the interview.
If it's cavalier to want to see this 20-something year old girl be able to go on with her life at the expense of her mom's murderer, then so be it. He made a choice that had beyond far reaching consequences for her, none of which she asked for.
Watching a crime show on TV last night, I was incredibly moved by the relief expressed by the daughter of a murdered woman when she was asked about the harsh sentence handed down to the killer. When asked how she would've felt had a lighter sentence been handed down, she began shaking & sobbing & basically couldn't continue the interview.
If it's cavalier to want to see this 20-something year old girl be able to go on with her life at the expense of her mom's murderer, then so be it. He made a choice that had beyond far reaching consequences for her, none of which she asked for.
3
The people who wrote and ratified the Eighth Amendment forbidding cruel or unusual punishment practiced capital punishment, so to say their words forbid criminal executions is absurd. Now, we are not bound by their ethics, and perhaps we now feel that such punishments are indeed too extreme to impose. But then we are bound to modify their work through the legislative process. A judge, whose duty is to interpret the Constitution, cannot use the words through which he derives his power to say our foundational document requires that which those writing and ratifying it did not intend and would even have opposed.
5
"Thou shalt not kill" has no qualifiers. The very death of Christ was suppose to show us how unfair and cruel we can be in meeting out "justice" to others and how the innocent can be hurt along with the guilty because of our prejudices and our ignorance. No one should be killed by the state and children should be given the benefit of the doubt that they can be rehabilitated when being sentenced. We should always err on the side of compassion.
12
Please don't impose your religious beliefs on me or anyone else.
7
I would rather you keep your religious beliefs private and I will do the same with mine. We are talking about the law. However, the commandment is not 'thou shalt not kill', but 'thou shalt not murder', in the original language, Hebrew. It was translated incorrectly.
5
It's worth noting that even Christ, while hanging on the cross, did not say that the criminals executed beside Him were being executed unjustly.
Not only do youths have a greater capacity for transformation, but brain studies also show that the area of the brain responsible for impulse control is not fully matured until the age of 25 years. It is a crime to take a youth who at 16 or 17 or even 18 impulsively shoots another, lock him up, and simply throw away the key. We rightly ought to take some of the money we now spend on keeping them locked up for 60 years or so and begin some good, regional rehabilitation programs so that we can eventually return a functional adult to society.
30
With the 2.3 million Americans in prison comprising 25% of the worlds incarcerated and 40% of them being black African American, America is a land of cowardly white supremacist slavery and involuntary servitude. Americans are only 5% of the world's people and 13.2% of them are black. Blacks also make up 40% of those Americans on death row. Most of the blacks in prison are poor non-violent and/or in possession of or users of illegal drugs.
For decades more than twice as many whites have been arrested for all categories of crime as compared to blacks. More whites are arrested each year for each specific type of crime as compared to blacks except for robbery and gambling. Arrests, while not convictions, are not random events. They are supposed to mark the beginning of the prosecution process. But blacks are persecuted by being arrested for "crimes" where whites get a pass. And after being arrested for the same types of crimes and with similar histories blacks are punished more frequently with harsher sentences than whites.
Although only 5% of murders are interracial with the numbers about evenly distributed between the races of the blacks on death row 80% of them are there for killing a white person. But for the likes of China, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and North Korea America could add # 1 in executions to it's premier role in mass incarceration.
America should imprison the violent organized and career criminals who do the most damage to America and are beyond rehab.
For decades more than twice as many whites have been arrested for all categories of crime as compared to blacks. More whites are arrested each year for each specific type of crime as compared to blacks except for robbery and gambling. Arrests, while not convictions, are not random events. They are supposed to mark the beginning of the prosecution process. But blacks are persecuted by being arrested for "crimes" where whites get a pass. And after being arrested for the same types of crimes and with similar histories blacks are punished more frequently with harsher sentences than whites.
Although only 5% of murders are interracial with the numbers about evenly distributed between the races of the blacks on death row 80% of them are there for killing a white person. But for the likes of China, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and North Korea America could add # 1 in executions to it's premier role in mass incarceration.
America should imprison the violent organized and career criminals who do the most damage to America and are beyond rehab.
4
Contrary to your assertion, over two times as many whites are killed by blacks compared to the number of blacks killed by whites. But as you note, interracial homicides are relatively rare, so I suspect those tend to associated with other crimes and may be premeditated, such as the case of Mr. Hurst. Thus we shouldn't be surprised that these are punished more harshly.
But since blacks commit over half of all homicides, and presumably a similar proportion of other crimes, I also don't think we should be surprised that blacks comprise 40% of prison inmates.
But since blacks commit over half of all homicides, and presumably a similar proportion of other crimes, I also don't think we should be surprised that blacks comprise 40% of prison inmates.
1
The unanimity a jury decision, or the lack thereof, is utterly unrelated to the nature of the punishment. No punishment becomes, becomes less cruel or more usual with support from a unanimous jury. If the death penalty is cruel and unusual make the case. However, the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution explicitly envisions capital punishment, making any argument that the Constitution prohibits the death penalty is per se "cruel and unusual" problematic. Even today, the death penalty is not unusual in the United States. Nor is it unusual worldwide. You can make a case, if you choose, that we now better understand the "cruelty" of the death penalty, though I think your case is weak. The death penalty is no crueler than it was in 1791 when the Fifth and Eighth Amendments were adopted.
5
From the standpoint of the legal system, I suppose, the law itself defines justice. But laymen can adhere to a different conception of justice and hope that eventually the legal system will catch up. Within the industrialized world, we are virtually the only nation that has not legally redefined justice to exclude capital punishment. We still officially identify with the biblical concept of an eye for an eye, justice as revenge.
American exceptionalism is also preserved in the savage sentence of life without possibility of parole. In this case, through the law we deny that human beings can change over time. Whether this sentence, like capital punishment, stems from a thirst for revenge, or is simply a product of our ignorance about the potential for human development, the result is a narrow conception of justice unsuited to a people who believe in the value of every human life.
This sentence, in effect, decrees that no redemption is possible. Our society's commitment to the ideal that failure is only a temporary setback yields to an angry and fearful determination to cast the convicted felon into outer darkness, allowed to live but excluded from the community. In some cases, experience may support the wisdom of the sentence, but to deny in advance the possibility of rehabilitation is an act of folly.
The court has the opportunity to move the legal definition of justice away from an emphasis on revenge, toward one on redemption.
American exceptionalism is also preserved in the savage sentence of life without possibility of parole. In this case, through the law we deny that human beings can change over time. Whether this sentence, like capital punishment, stems from a thirst for revenge, or is simply a product of our ignorance about the potential for human development, the result is a narrow conception of justice unsuited to a people who believe in the value of every human life.
This sentence, in effect, decrees that no redemption is possible. Our society's commitment to the ideal that failure is only a temporary setback yields to an angry and fearful determination to cast the convicted felon into outer darkness, allowed to live but excluded from the community. In some cases, experience may support the wisdom of the sentence, but to deny in advance the possibility of rehabilitation is an act of folly.
The court has the opportunity to move the legal definition of justice away from an emphasis on revenge, toward one on redemption.
9
"...the result is a narrow conception of justice unsuited to a people who believe in the value of every human life."
Or suited perfectly for those who believe in the value of every "innocent" life.
Or suited perfectly for those who believe in the value of every "innocent" life.
REVISED. Use this one, not the previous one pls.
***********
The fact that a few jurors can decide whether a person lives or die when the rest of the jurors disagree about such a conviction, is pretty sickening. What is the deal w Florida? The State's politicians all sound corrupt including JEB who wouldn't take that woman off life support even tho she had been dead for several years. And then there is Trayvon Martin. OMG, what a tragedy it was that George Zimmerman got by w murder.....he sure is anything but a responsible citizen....way to go Florida on that one! These incidents, and others, make Florida look selfish, white, arrogant and idiotic.
***********
The fact that a few jurors can decide whether a person lives or die when the rest of the jurors disagree about such a conviction, is pretty sickening. What is the deal w Florida? The State's politicians all sound corrupt including JEB who wouldn't take that woman off life support even tho she had been dead for several years. And then there is Trayvon Martin. OMG, what a tragedy it was that George Zimmerman got by w murder.....he sure is anything but a responsible citizen....way to go Florida on that one! These incidents, and others, make Florida look selfish, white, arrogant and idiotic.
12
the fact that a few jurors can decide whether a person lives or die when the rest of the jurors disagree about such a conviction, is pretty sickening.
What is the deal w Florida? The State's politicians all sound corrupt including JEB who wouldn't take that woman off life support even tho she had been dead for several years.
And then there is Trayvon Martin. OMG, what a tragedy it was that he got by w murder.
These incidents, and others, make Florida look selfish, white, arrogant and idiotic.
What is the deal w Florida? The State's politicians all sound corrupt including JEB who wouldn't take that woman off life support even tho she had been dead for several years.
And then there is Trayvon Martin. OMG, what a tragedy it was that he got by w murder.
These incidents, and others, make Florida look selfish, white, arrogant and idiotic.
2
I agree. Recent studies of the brain have pretty clearly demonstrated that the prefrontal cortex of the brain involving judgement may not mature until as late as 22 or 23. What are we to make of a "justice" system that refuses to recognize what science purports? It is somewhat like climate change deniers.
16
The murdered victim is just as dead whether the killer has a mature prefrontal cortex of the brain or not. And if the killer is killing at 13, 15, 17, the chances of his giving up the solution of murder to his problems is not likely. Premeditated murder should equal life in prison with no chance of parole. We need to protect society from these murderous predators. I am tired of all the mewling about the "poor prisoners" with not a thought going to the victim or victim's families at their loss.
7
No thought for redemption, for salvation? Are you the same person you were at 13, I wonder? And what of compassion? And please don't tell me that compassion is a limited resource, that having compassion for a child who has committed a horrible crime takes away from the victim and his/her survivors. Compassion is not a teeter-totter, it is a fountain. We've all done the worst thing in our lives, many have even committed crimes whether they were caught or not. Which of us wants to be judged on that and that alone? No? If one wants to believe in redemption, in salvation (the human kind, not the religious kind) for one's self, then s/he must believe in it for all. Anything else is hypocrisy.
2
If it is the "prefrontal cortex" that determines whether someone commits a murder, then maybe we should just put the prefrontal cortex on trial.
Really what you are saying is that there is no such thing as being responsible for an action. It is just a physical activity.
You may be right.
Really what you are saying is that there is no such thing as being responsible for an action. It is just a physical activity.
You may be right.
When one considers the language of prison--corrections, penitentiary, reformatory--the implication is that a person who has done wrong can be made right. Automatic life without parole for juveniles contradicts the implications of our language, so perhaps every prison should just simply be called a prison. It would be more honest.
9
"Does life without parole for juveniles violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments? The only just and humane response is yes."
The NY Times editors are emulating the reasoning of a series of liberal judges who take a straightforward statement in the Constitution and revise the definitions of the words to create a totally new meaning to the Eighth Amendment.
The amendment as written, clearly aims to prevent applying the brutal ancient and Medieval punishments such as mutilation, torturing prisoners on the rack, burning their eyes out and other brutal practices. The application of capital punishment and life-in-imprisonment were clearly sanctioned at the time of the amendment's passing. If the citizens of this country want to eliminate those punishments, they have the power to do so by exercising the amendment process again.
In effect, the NY Times is asking that the Constitution be declared unconstitutional.
The NY Times editors are emulating the reasoning of a series of liberal judges who take a straightforward statement in the Constitution and revise the definitions of the words to create a totally new meaning to the Eighth Amendment.
The amendment as written, clearly aims to prevent applying the brutal ancient and Medieval punishments such as mutilation, torturing prisoners on the rack, burning their eyes out and other brutal practices. The application of capital punishment and life-in-imprisonment were clearly sanctioned at the time of the amendment's passing. If the citizens of this country want to eliminate those punishments, they have the power to do so by exercising the amendment process again.
In effect, the NY Times is asking that the Constitution be declared unconstitutional.
4
Also ironic, isn't it, that the solution that the NY Times Editorial Board recommends to correct the problem is both illegal and unconstitutional.
I know that the NY Times Editorial Board favors the legislative route when the winds are blowing in their favor, but their penchant for recommending ignoring it when no longer convenient is becoming tiresome.
I know that the NY Times Editorial Board favors the legislative route when the winds are blowing in their favor, but their penchant for recommending ignoring it when no longer convenient is becoming tiresome.
5
Anyone who will take the time to personally acquaint themselves with the realities of American criminal justice will discover a flawed system run by flawed people who collectively meet out irrevocable "justice" that takes a horrendous toll upon the lives of the poor, the young, the disadvantaged, the naive, hapless, and innocent for PROFIT.
In Texas, where I live, the right to an attorney is a sick joke.
Effective representation is hard to come by even if you have the the means to pay for it. In Denton County, Texas court appointed attorneys cannot afford to meaningfully represent defendants for what is ordered as pay and thus routinely cooperate with the prosecution to convince indigent clients to accept plea bargains in the face of the threat of harsh treatment because they can't afford to go to trial. Move them through the system!
It is a racket.
The payoff for the system is that the poor and the young then are the source of fees for probation, courses, and fines exacted at enormous human cost.
It is not just capital cases that are the issue when it comes to systematic cruelty. It is the entire militarized, criminal justice culture. In Denton, there are no fewer than seven police jurisdictions overlaying the same territory.
And they all collect money as a business.
Executions and police shootings are the visible manifestations of a dysfunction that is endemic to the laws, police, courts, and prisons.
Case in point, people are still in prison for smoking pot!
In Texas, where I live, the right to an attorney is a sick joke.
Effective representation is hard to come by even if you have the the means to pay for it. In Denton County, Texas court appointed attorneys cannot afford to meaningfully represent defendants for what is ordered as pay and thus routinely cooperate with the prosecution to convince indigent clients to accept plea bargains in the face of the threat of harsh treatment because they can't afford to go to trial. Move them through the system!
It is a racket.
The payoff for the system is that the poor and the young then are the source of fees for probation, courses, and fines exacted at enormous human cost.
It is not just capital cases that are the issue when it comes to systematic cruelty. It is the entire militarized, criminal justice culture. In Denton, there are no fewer than seven police jurisdictions overlaying the same territory.
And they all collect money as a business.
Executions and police shootings are the visible manifestations of a dysfunction that is endemic to the laws, police, courts, and prisons.
Case in point, people are still in prison for smoking pot!
51
As a lawyer in the criminal system, I question the argument that non-unanimous jury verdicts are inappropriate. Our criminal justice system is basically a plea agreement system. If most cases went to trial, it would take years to get a judge to hear your case. As I learned in law school, the goal of criminal justice is not to mete out justice to everyone charged. Rather, it is to convince the public that it does the job so that they will remain confident in the system. With this in mind, legal resources need to be reasonably available to all. And if an 11-1 verdict is an acquittal, which the government will likely retry and will likely win, a second bite at the apple is given to a single defendant. This may give him or her more justice, but it deprives others who also want their voices heard. In short, non-unanimous verdicts help to allot scarce judicial resources more fairly.
2
That's a very cold & cynical view of the justice system. I thought the idea behind unanimous verdicts was that it was better for a hundred guilty to go free than an innocent be convicted - surely the gold standard of jurisprudence.
5
In today's America, public confidence is breaking down. There are too many innocent convicted to believe in your abstract view. Abstract notions are aspirational. I speak of reality. Doing the best you can is not cold and cynical. It is the American way.
4
It may be both cold and cynical...
But without the ice water and cynicism there would be not justice to either society or the victims.
Yours, Thos, is another veiled argument for allowing the inmates to run the asylum and the victimizers to claim themselves to be the victims.
This is a question of assuring the perpetrators of crimes against person and community are held accountable for their actions. And without accountability, what sort of justice to you mete out to the real victims for the crime?
But without the ice water and cynicism there would be not justice to either society or the victims.
Yours, Thos, is another veiled argument for allowing the inmates to run the asylum and the victimizers to claim themselves to be the victims.
This is a question of assuring the perpetrators of crimes against person and community are held accountable for their actions. And without accountability, what sort of justice to you mete out to the real victims for the crime?
3
Whether a state can execute a defendant based on a 7-5 jury vote sounds like a straightforward question. But from a legal standpoint, the question is complicated. On the one hand, the Court will consider whether the Sixth Amendment requires a unanimous jury verdict in criminal cases and, if so, whether this guarantee is incorporated by the 14th Amendment and therefore fully applicable to the states. On the other hand, the Court may decide that capital cases are distinct and that under the 8th Amendment, an execution on a 7-5 vote constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
The Justices seldom decide broad issues when a narrow rule can dispose of a case. They certainly are not going to take this opportunity to ban capital punishment. Nor is there any reason to overturn the 1972 precedent referenced here. Reversing that precedent would alter the meaning of either the 6th or the 14th Amendment, which just isn't done when very often. Here, the reasonable alternative lies in the 8th Amendment. The Court can refrain from a broad ruling by simply holding that life or death cannot turn on a 7-5 vote. I suspect that few out there disagree with this view. In legal lingo, 7-5 "shocks the conscience". It effectively gives the decision of life and death to a single juror. That strikes me as the definition of "cruel and unusual."
The Justices seldom decide broad issues when a narrow rule can dispose of a case. They certainly are not going to take this opportunity to ban capital punishment. Nor is there any reason to overturn the 1972 precedent referenced here. Reversing that precedent would alter the meaning of either the 6th or the 14th Amendment, which just isn't done when very often. Here, the reasonable alternative lies in the 8th Amendment. The Court can refrain from a broad ruling by simply holding that life or death cannot turn on a 7-5 vote. I suspect that few out there disagree with this view. In legal lingo, 7-5 "shocks the conscience". It effectively gives the decision of life and death to a single juror. That strikes me as the definition of "cruel and unusual."
2
Ah, but you are not giving the collective wisdom of the jury its full due, michjas,
The juries in our legal system mirror the ethics, and yes, prejudices of our communities. And while the argument that a 7=5 decision hinges on the change of one vote to become "hung", the 7-5 decision IS the collective view of the community and deserves the same level of respect as does a 6-6 or 5-7 decision.
A far better argument to get rid of the death penalty is economic. And if the court system was really as cold and cynical as Thos alleges, above, it would eliminate the death penalty to save the extraordinary costs of the litigation in the myriad of go-nowhere appeals that assure that punishment for crimes is both swift and sure.
The juries in our legal system mirror the ethics, and yes, prejudices of our communities. And while the argument that a 7=5 decision hinges on the change of one vote to become "hung", the 7-5 decision IS the collective view of the community and deserves the same level of respect as does a 6-6 or 5-7 decision.
A far better argument to get rid of the death penalty is economic. And if the court system was really as cold and cynical as Thos alleges, above, it would eliminate the death penalty to save the extraordinary costs of the litigation in the myriad of go-nowhere appeals that assure that punishment for crimes is both swift and sure.
1
If you can imprison someone who, without any doubt, killed someone
in such a manner that they never can kill again then putting them in
prison makes sense.
Whether some juveniles deserve to be set free from prison depends
on whether they can ever be a productive member of society again.
Having the wisdom to make the correct decision in each case
lies far, far beyond the capability and capacity of the Editorial
Board of the New York Times.
in such a manner that they never can kill again then putting them in
prison makes sense.
Whether some juveniles deserve to be set free from prison depends
on whether they can ever be a productive member of society again.
Having the wisdom to make the correct decision in each case
lies far, far beyond the capability and capacity of the Editorial
Board of the New York Times.
2
Unless, skanik, the proven murderer devotes his life to assure that others do not go down the same route as he, then I see little reason to grant such person the right to even try to be a productive member of society.
After all, the now-dead victim has little chance of ever achieving productivity in society, nor does he ever have the chance of experiencing the joys of life or community.
One needs to keep things in perspective in these sorts of decisions.
After all, the now-dead victim has little chance of ever achieving productivity in society, nor does he ever have the chance of experiencing the joys of life or community.
One needs to keep things in perspective in these sorts of decisions.
TheOwl,
I agree, it is rare that in the NY Times, when you are reading about an appeal an obviously guilty murderer is making, that you hear
the awful details of the crime.
The man in Oklahoma who died from a "Botched" execution
made the young women dig her own grave and forced her
to lie in it, after he shot the poor girl his gun jammed
and as she laid there pleading for her life he and his partner
ignored her please and finally buried her alive.
Juveniles may be more impulsive but their capability to show
no mercy whatsoever is beyond cruelty.
Yes, the murdered are usually quickly forgotten by the
lack of Justice system in this country.
I agree, it is rare that in the NY Times, when you are reading about an appeal an obviously guilty murderer is making, that you hear
the awful details of the crime.
The man in Oklahoma who died from a "Botched" execution
made the young women dig her own grave and forced her
to lie in it, after he shot the poor girl his gun jammed
and as she laid there pleading for her life he and his partner
ignored her please and finally buried her alive.
Juveniles may be more impulsive but their capability to show
no mercy whatsoever is beyond cruelty.
Yes, the murdered are usually quickly forgotten by the
lack of Justice system in this country.
But you're totally comfortable granting "the wisdom to make the correct decision" over life and death to fallible judges and jurors, even given the enormous evidence of how frequently people have been wrongly condemned?
1
Ah, Florida. Not only the state with the most punitive laws and the greatest percentage of people behind bars, and the only state where you don't even need a unanimous jury vote to impose the death penalty, but one which has specifically banned all use of the common-law defense in any and all drug cases. Translation? They can plant drugs on you, and you're done. Guilty of a serious felony - possession or, depending on the quantity, trafficking.
Still thinking of moving here, boys and girls?
Still thinking of moving here, boys and girls?
22
Never. Instead of publishing a best place to live/retire guide, we should start publishing abguide to living in states that don't have as many punitive and frankly unchristian laws such as these states.
1
I had the dubious honor of testifying in a capital case in Florida back in July. The man I was testifying on behalf of was falsely accused of a crime he did not commit, sexual abuse of a child under 12 years old supposedly over 30 years ago. The first thing the judge did during jury selection was ask potential jurors who among them needed facts in the case in order to convict. Those who raised their hands were summarily dismissed. Four people came to the accused's defense with provable evidence that he did not commit the crime of which he had been accused. Nearly ALL testimony was given after the judge sequestered the jury so that they could not hear it. The jury was comprised of SIX not twelve persons. The defendant, due to the judge's dismissal of much evidence, was judged guilty by the 6 men and women on the jury. He is now serving a life sentence with no parole. The judge showed clear prejudice in this case. The defendant, after two years of paying lawyers and having this case hang over his head (he is now 65 years old), exhausted financially and physically from the stress of this charge, brought forth by this now middle aged woman, with her word being held sacrosanct and as fact, while former employers and relatives were called liars by the prosecution and judge, sits in prison. In Florida, anyone can be accused of a sex crime without proof of any kind. This is not justice, it is travesty. The state becomes a hammer for those who have a nail they want hit.
1
This is a tough and emotional subject matter. I'm hoping the death penalty will be ruled unconstitutional. Maybe if someone I loved or knew were murdered, I admittedly may have a different and realistic point of view.
But the bottom line is our judicial system is corrupt and broken. I would hate to see or even think of an innocent man being put to death. Life without the possibility of parole is a plausible alternative.
But the bottom line is our judicial system is corrupt and broken. I would hate to see or even think of an innocent man being put to death. Life without the possibility of parole is a plausible alternative.
3
It is far less broken, Shilee, than the parts of society that allow murder to be seen as a badge of manhood and power,
This issue is neither black not white, no matter how you wish to paint it. And, since in this day and age the issue IS far more black than white, isn't it appropriate to shine some light on the ethics of the inner-city communities that allow this tendency of black-on-black violence to continue unabated?
This issue is neither black not white, no matter how you wish to paint it. And, since in this day and age the issue IS far more black than white, isn't it appropriate to shine some light on the ethics of the inner-city communities that allow this tendency of black-on-black violence to continue unabated?
When it comes to the death penalty, especially in heinous cases, I think most about the grieving survivors. Would they be in favor of it to get even a small amount of closure? If so, I'm for it. And they don't have to be unanimous.
To me, this applies only to cases where there is 100% proof of guilt. This is often the situation, and I'd be willing for a commission of leading jurists to set the parameters. If so, the punishment could be carried out quickly, so there's a better chance it would have a deterrent effect.
To me, this applies only to cases where there is 100% proof of guilt. This is often the situation, and I'd be willing for a commission of leading jurists to set the parameters. If so, the punishment could be carried out quickly, so there's a better chance it would have a deterrent effect.
2
I am not.
Why?
Because our Constitution has clauses in it that state that such matters are the sole and exclusive province of the legislatures.
And what if the legislatures are unable to provide a resolution to the problem you see?
Try this on:
The Legislature DOESN'T WANT a resolution because they either don't see the issue as pressing or a consensus as to a solution cannot be achieved.
Just because YOU want a resolution does not necessarily mean that other, particularly the Legislative Branch of government sees the question as one that needs to be resolved.
If you truly want the change that you seek, isn't it far more productive, and far less disruptive, to seek to achieve legislative consensus through the political process than to rely on executive fiat be it through Supreme Court decision of unilateral implementation by the Executive Branch?
I favor the stability of the political process to dictatorial rule any day of the week.
Why?
Because our Constitution has clauses in it that state that such matters are the sole and exclusive province of the legislatures.
And what if the legislatures are unable to provide a resolution to the problem you see?
Try this on:
The Legislature DOESN'T WANT a resolution because they either don't see the issue as pressing or a consensus as to a solution cannot be achieved.
Just because YOU want a resolution does not necessarily mean that other, particularly the Legislative Branch of government sees the question as one that needs to be resolved.
If you truly want the change that you seek, isn't it far more productive, and far less disruptive, to seek to achieve legislative consensus through the political process than to rely on executive fiat be it through Supreme Court decision of unilateral implementation by the Executive Branch?
I favor the stability of the political process to dictatorial rule any day of the week.
First, "closure" is a myth. There is no closure after such heartbreaking loss. I've heard this time and time again from people who have lost loved ones to murder (and illness, and accident, and so on). Second, unfortunately, our system of laws was not designed to inflict retribution on perpetrators in accordance with the victims' survivors. The whole point of our system is to take personal emotion out of the equation, to instead hold the criminal responsible for the harm done to society as a whole. Public "justice" is not personal justice, nor should it be. There are countries like that. This is not one of them.
2
The issues being looked at by the SCOTUS are complex and academic. I have a simple solution for those these decisions affect: THOU SHALT NOT KILL. If you do not murder, you do not have to be concerned with this. Even juveniles (ie age 15 and above) have capacity to know right from wrong. My young children understand that they should not kill people. Punishment should fit the crime. End someone's life, your life should be (functionally) ended. Technicalities should not affect this. If you know the punishment, think twice about doing the crime. It is entirely the criminal's responsibility and they effectively chose their own punishment. Discussing this is a waste of time for the courts.
3
Surgeon, I'm gonna have to ask you to stop making so much sense. This is The Times, you know..
These so-called "technicalities" can be more correctly referred to as legal rights.
Clearly, the reasoning heretofore has been that the meting out of sentences is a chore shared by the federal government and the states. While the federal courts may pronounce on a uniform standard that affects federal trials, it must be the states that govern such standards within broad boundaries that affect state trials. And that, within those boundaries, latitude must be given to different values within the states.
Just as clearly, though, we're seeing a tendency to federally universalize such standards and tighten the boundaries of permissible court conduct at the state level. Could be why they agreed to hear the case, and could be a seismic decision coming, at least as regards Florida.
Just as clearly, though, we're seeing a tendency to federally universalize such standards and tighten the boundaries of permissible court conduct at the state level. Could be why they agreed to hear the case, and could be a seismic decision coming, at least as regards Florida.
1
It is tough to realize at this day in age what the people actually agreed to when they voted against cruel and unusual punishments. They voted against punishments that added terror, pain and/or disgrace to an otherwise permissible capital punishment. They voted against the horrible torturous punishments (the rack, the iron maiden, etc.) that had been pervasive throughout medieval Europe. All of the other stuff mentioned in this article is very controversial and tough to decide and the people left it to be decided through the democratic process. The lawyers on the court have no basis to take away the Peoples' right to decide these deeply divisive and controversial issues that continue to evolve and it's time for us to have a serious conversation on everything ranging from capital punishments to the role of the court in deciding some of these controversial matters instead of us.
1
The death penalty serves one and only usual purpose: It convinces me beyond a shadow of doubt that we humans are just one more soul-less animal species living in a godless universe.
Death penalty and no parole boil down to a penal system underpinned by the thinking that (1) the loss of a life can be replaced by the life of another and that (2) a guilty man is incapable of rehabilitation and reform and will permanently be a danger to society.
On the latter point, that's why the penal system has parole hearings to gauge that as the years go by - why damn a man to death or eternal punishment very early on the penal process.
On the 1st point, the loss of a life has to be replaced by another is inexplicably dumb.
On the latter point, that's why the penal system has parole hearings to gauge that as the years go by - why damn a man to death or eternal punishment very early on the penal process.
On the 1st point, the loss of a life has to be replaced by another is inexplicably dumb.
8
Your reply, Anon, is incomplete.
There is a third element in which Society has a truly vested interest:
The crime is sufficiently heinous as to warrant a departure from either of the two elements that you illustrate. A sterling example of this is the crime of the Tsnarev brothers detonating pressure-cooker bombs in the middle of the crows at the Boston Marathon and the gratuitous murder of a campus policeman at MIT during their flight.
Society DOES have a right to suggest that the ones whose fingers were all over the bombs and their triggers have forfeited all right to the opportunity of rehabilitation and release back into the society of law-abiders.
There is a third element in which Society has a truly vested interest:
The crime is sufficiently heinous as to warrant a departure from either of the two elements that you illustrate. A sterling example of this is the crime of the Tsnarev brothers detonating pressure-cooker bombs in the middle of the crows at the Boston Marathon and the gratuitous murder of a campus policeman at MIT during their flight.
Society DOES have a right to suggest that the ones whose fingers were all over the bombs and their triggers have forfeited all right to the opportunity of rehabilitation and release back into the society of law-abiders.
I'm Wondering if I will ever read any opinion in The New York Times that supports law abiding citizens. Everything this publication ever writes speaks on behalf of criminals.
7
What sort of people are we that would believe that a juvenile, some as young as 11 or 12, have the competence to understand "right from wrong" when they have been found to have committed acts of violence? Can society really believe that, collectively, we do not bear some responsibility for these CHILDREN who have learned to behave in violent ways? Can we really call ourselves CIVIL when we throw children into adult prisons for their entire lives and discount any possibility of them UNLEARNING destructive behaviors and learning positive ones? It's utterly inconceivable to me that treating children in such brutal ways can happen in a civilized society. I will never believe that a child who commits an act of terrible violence hasn't done so because of some adult who has driven them (or taught them!) to behave in such a way.
3
Please tell me ManhattanWilliam, how I, a resident of rural New England and an occasional visitor to either Boston or New York, have ANY responsibility for the gratuitous violence of the streets of your inner city?
Be specific, if you will, as the generalities that you might present will fail to give us any guidance as to what, if anything, WE need to do to help correct the problems that you have allowed to fester withing the boundaries of your community.
Be specific, if you will, as the generalities that you might present will fail to give us any guidance as to what, if anything, WE need to do to help correct the problems that you have allowed to fester withing the boundaries of your community.
1
Fascinating (and not a little sad) that a person actually believes that the problems facing our country's youth are "inner city" and that rural New England or any other part of rural America doesn't face the same or even greater problems of poverty and abuse and violence towards juveniles. Even sadder that, were it true that this were an "inner city problem" that a person living in rural New England wouldn't be the slightest concerned in doing something to change it. THAT is what I mean by "collective responsibility", or in this case, the lack of it.
1
The Sunshine State, where votes in presidential elections go uncounted. The Sunshine State, where intellectually disabled people might be sentenced to death. The Sunshine State, the only place in this land (even Texas doesn't go this far) which doesn't require a unanimous jury to sentence to death. The Sunshine State seems VERY OVERCAST to me.
32
ManhattanWilliam, if it bothers you so, move there & affect change. Or even more constructively, pivot your concern your own state's imperfections. You've plenty to choose from.
"America, love it or leave it" is not the way I choose to think or live my life, thank you very much but never fear, if there's one place on god's earth where I would never lay down roots it's the "Lone Star State". How I wish it were a "lone star" and didn't drag the rest of the land down to it's low standards of social justice.
1
I wish the NYT would show as much compassion for the victims of these crimes as it does for the perpetrators. Hurst was convicted (on solid evidence) of stabbing to death the assistant manager of the Popeye's restaurant where he worked as part of a robbery.
It already requires unanimity to convict a criminal. Why should one person's objection to the death penalty counteract what the majority thinks is appropriate? What the NYT fails to mention is that the vote was 11-1 in favor of the death penalty in Hurst's first trial (in 2000.) Only after the FL supreme court tossed out that verdict (because evidence regarding Hurst's mental capacity wasn't presented to the jury) was he retried and again sentenced to death, albeit by a smaller majority.
But if we're going to give those with diminished mental capacity a pass, we should also expect those same people to be discriminated against. If they can kill and not be held fully responsible for their actions, I wouldn't hire someone like that, nor would I want to be around them.
It already requires unanimity to convict a criminal. Why should one person's objection to the death penalty counteract what the majority thinks is appropriate? What the NYT fails to mention is that the vote was 11-1 in favor of the death penalty in Hurst's first trial (in 2000.) Only after the FL supreme court tossed out that verdict (because evidence regarding Hurst's mental capacity wasn't presented to the jury) was he retried and again sentenced to death, albeit by a smaller majority.
But if we're going to give those with diminished mental capacity a pass, we should also expect those same people to be discriminated against. If they can kill and not be held fully responsible for their actions, I wouldn't hire someone like that, nor would I want to be around them.
7
The suggestion here, then, is that we are doing them a favor by enforcing the death penalty.
I agree with that wholeheartedly.
We are giving them benefits of the doubt that these depraved youth failed to give those that for whom the knife wound or bullet removed all chance forever of receiving any benefits of the doubt.
I agree with that wholeheartedly.
We are giving them benefits of the doubt that these depraved youth failed to give those that for whom the knife wound or bullet removed all chance forever of receiving any benefits of the doubt.
Jim, one of the issues listed in the article is that Florida does NOT require a unanimous jury for conviction.
The times' agenda of freeing sympathetic murderers to undermine the death and life without parole sentences is becoming increasingly obviously. Now, sentences are only for so long as until the witnesses die off or move away, and the perp's mouthpiece can find a sympathetic judge, which isn't too hard given the fact that most of the judges Obama has put on the bench have been from the far left.
2
I bet the 15 states that did away with such sentences are the most liberal in America. The inmates are vile and dangerous people who have no place in society.
2
People who get murdered are usually handed their death sentence by a single individual. Accused murderers often are entitled to unanimous verdicts by juries of twelve. Life isn't fair.
9
One of these days the New York Times editorial board might actually surprise its readers by showing as much concern for the victims of crime as for the perpetrators.
I guess we really need the likes of John Wayne Gacy, Sirhan Sirhan, Charles Manson, and Ted Kaczynski to get that second chance the Times advocates.
Perhaps Andrew Rosenthal has a spare bedroom they could use?
I guess we really need the likes of John Wayne Gacy, Sirhan Sirhan, Charles Manson, and Ted Kaczynski to get that second chance the Times advocates.
Perhaps Andrew Rosenthal has a spare bedroom they could use?
5
Reform and social rehabilitation not retribution ought to be central while punishing the offender of law. Accordingly, the theory of criminal jurisprudence should be inspired by this broader humanitarian perspective rather than the narrow techno-legal considerations.
13
That the U.S. is mindlessly committed to retribution—vengeance— is appalling and clearly shows that America is a second-class nation in the world. What ever happened to Rehabilitation? Numerous cases, particularly those involving a juvenile, show that the prisoner is rehabilitated or is capable of rehabilitation.
One dirty little secret is that America's prison system makes little or no effort to rehabilitate prisoners. Like Norway, the U.S. must treat its prisoners as humans. capable
One dirty little secret is that America's prison system makes little or no effort to rehabilitate prisoners. Like Norway, the U.S. must treat its prisoners as humans. capable
47
Rehabilitation assumes habilitation.
My eleven years as a volunteer in a maximum security women's prison reinforce dbsweden's contention. There are not only too few rehabilitation programs -- both in prison and following release -- but the behavior of too many in positions of power indicate punishment rather than rehabilitation is the goal of corrections in this country. Look to our puritan foundation for answers to these and other social questions that bedevil us. By the way in my limited experience those women convicted of violent crime (usually one-off events) are probably the safest to release early. However sad the plight of victims' families, their influence on parole boards is way out of proportion and, as someone has correctly pointed out, likely unconstitutional.
Who needs that unanimity?
With five to four SCOTUS is free
Let Florida do
What others would rue
Mainly to its Minority!
With five to four SCOTUS is free
Let Florida do
What others would rue
Mainly to its Minority!
1