We have to accept the reality that death penalties don’t contribute to the deterrence of other murders. Why do some countries and states keep the system of death penalty? If they maintain the system in revenge for victims or the bereaved families, they should find another way to console the bereaved. Justifying the idea of retaliation makes the society bloody and hollow.
3
A sat on all 3-phases of a 4-month death penalty trial. We found the defendant guilty; we reviewed the mitigating circumstances of his life; we sentenced him to the death penalty. I ultimately found the process pure human folly. I really did not want to assign the death penalty. It was a brutal experience; not just in the presentation of evidence. The fellow jurors seemed intent on assigning the death penalty once the first phase of the trial was determined (guilty/not guilty). I tried to vote my conscience, however, one of the other jurors went after me online towards the end of the trial (he was dismissed) and my resolve was broken more by the attitude of the other jurors rather than the mitigating evidence. No one should be put in the position of judging others on life/death matters. It would be better to let higher intelligence determine the course of a defendant's life.
Even retired Supreme court judge, John Paul Stevens, has reversed his view of the death penalty after supporting it for 35 years: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/04/now-he-tells-us-john...
Even retired Supreme court judge, John Paul Stevens, has reversed his view of the death penalty after supporting it for 35 years: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/04/now-he-tells-us-john...
1
I sat as a juror on all three phases of a 4-month death penalty trial. We found the defendant guilty; we reviewed the aggravating/mitigating circumstances of his life; we sentenced him to the death penalty. I ultimately found the process pure human folly. I really did not want to assign the death penalty. It was a brutal experience; not just in the presentation of evidence. The fellow jurors seemed intent on assigning the death penalty once the first phase of the trial was determined (guilty/not guilty). I tried to vote my conscience, however, one of the other jurors went after me online towards the end of the trial (he was dismissed) and my resolve was broken more by the attitude of the other jurors rather than the mitigating evidence. No one should be put in the position of judging others on life/death matters. It would be better to let higher intelligence determine the course of a defendant's life.
Even retired Supreme court judge, John Paul Stevens, has reversed his view of the death penalty after supporting it for 35 years: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/04/now-he-tells-us-john...
Even retired Supreme court judge, John Paul Stevens, has reversed his view of the death penalty after supporting it for 35 years: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/04/now-he-tells-us-john...
6
The question that I ask is why do we terminate a life? What are we trying to achieve as a society? All societies have had to deal with this question,and have come to different answers and standards on what constitutes a reason for the taking of a person,s life. What muddies the waters for each country,is when they peek over the fence at their neighbours standards for killing a human as punishment ,and promptly cry ,Human rights violation. I fear that this alone can be an insurmountable mountain to climb
1
The only really compelling case that I have heard for the death penalty comes in a particular situation. When you have a serial killer who you can never let out onto the street but you don't know all his victims or the locations of the bodies, avoidance of the death penalty can be used to induce him to disclose the information about his crimes, giving closure to the victims. You can never let him out so he is going to get life with no chance of parole anyway so he has no incentive to disclose the details of his crimes. The death penalty provides that incentive.
3
I'll support ending the death penalty when humans stop putting dogs down for biting, or when we allow assisted death for everyone, or when we stop acting like we are anything but animals.
Will ending the death penalty save lives? Sure, but death is inevitable... And most of us won't have the luxury of passing in our sleep.
Will ending the death penalty save lives? Sure, but death is inevitable... And most of us won't have the luxury of passing in our sleep.
3
It is a perplexing irony that the same people who are paranoid about the state's encroachment into their lives, and fight for gun rights to defend against a government-gone-rogue, are often the same people who have no qualms about giving that same state apparatus the right to take a citizen into a hidden white room with a viewing window, forcibly restrain him with leather straps, and end his life.
8
We should be opposed to the death penalty because of the great fallibility of our justice system and the resulting wrongful convictions of the innocent that occur. Not because some people are made queasy or because of the too-easily papeddled and sanctimonious moral claim that that every life is worth keeping around.
9
Sorry, it ain't my fault. Not in no way. I have been opposed to capital punishment from the day I could spell it. Some kind of argument that I am part of a society? Really? I reject that part. With what we spend on nonsense, a convicted killer can live out his/her days. It is not that innocent persons might be killed. It is that a person should not be killed.
7
I just read this article and some of the comments regarding it. I agree whole-heartedly with the response of Sanjay Gupta. When I lived in Arizona, an eight-year-old little girl riding her bicycle to mail a card at the neighborhood mail box - the first time she had been allowed to do so by herself - was abducted and murdered by a grown man. Her murderer was sentenced to death in 1987. Twenty-nine years later, he is still on death row, but has married and has obtained numerous college degrees at the expense of taxpayers. Of course, the little girl he murdered will never have such opportunities.
The only thing that disgusts me more than what he did to that child is the fact that he is still alive.
I truly wish that all people were good and that these horrible murders did not take place, but for the likes of those who do kill innocent people, any mercy I feel is for the victim, certainly not for the perpetrator.
The only thing that disgusts me more than what he did to that child is the fact that he is still alive.
I truly wish that all people were good and that these horrible murders did not take place, but for the likes of those who do kill innocent people, any mercy I feel is for the victim, certainly not for the perpetrator.
15
Western Europe, State Formation, and Genetic Pacification
Peter Frost, c/o Bernard Saladin d’Anglure, Department of Anthropology, Université Laval, Quebec City, Canada.
Henry C. Harpending, Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Courts [after the year 1100] imposed the death penalty more and more often and, by the late Middle Ages, were condemning to death between 0.5 and 1.0% of all men of each generation, with perhaps just as many offenders dying at the scene of the crime or in prison while awaiting trial.
Meanwhile, the homicide rate plummeted from the 14th century to the 20th. The pool of [genetically inclined] violent men dried up.
http://evp.sagepub.com/content/13/1/147470491501300114.full.pdf
Peter Frost, c/o Bernard Saladin d’Anglure, Department of Anthropology, Université Laval, Quebec City, Canada.
Henry C. Harpending, Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Courts [after the year 1100] imposed the death penalty more and more often and, by the late Middle Ages, were condemning to death between 0.5 and 1.0% of all men of each generation, with perhaps just as many offenders dying at the scene of the crime or in prison while awaiting trial.
Meanwhile, the homicide rate plummeted from the 14th century to the 20th. The pool of [genetically inclined] violent men dried up.
http://evp.sagepub.com/content/13/1/147470491501300114.full.pdf
Not only is this piece a hallmark of excellent writing, but it also raises the bar for what an opinion piece should strive to be. Thoughtful, empathetic, and factual. Perhaps what I admire most is your understanding and acknowledgement of the 'other side of the story' (pro death penalty).
5
I was at an outdoor concert and in a area off to the side, a young man was sitting at a table giving out literature and advocating against the death penalty.
I was mostly in favor.
We talked. I listened to his calm, human reasoning.
This is what he said that got me:
A society and its people have to make a decision.
Does it want to be a place where killing another is acceptable or not. Choose one of those two things and make that the guide to every decision and policy.
Any policy, any public or private utterance, any use of our time or money - collectively or personally - that moves us toward a country where killing is abhorrent and minimized is the proper path. Eventually, over time, the society and its people will change and a new, accepted and practiced reality will be the norm. It will infuse all of us. We will be living in a different place. Where killing is rare.
It's simple and it's hard.
It's correct.
This us what I learned from the earnest young man at the table.
I changed and so can you.
I was mostly in favor.
We talked. I listened to his calm, human reasoning.
This is what he said that got me:
A society and its people have to make a decision.
Does it want to be a place where killing another is acceptable or not. Choose one of those two things and make that the guide to every decision and policy.
Any policy, any public or private utterance, any use of our time or money - collectively or personally - that moves us toward a country where killing is abhorrent and minimized is the proper path. Eventually, over time, the society and its people will change and a new, accepted and practiced reality will be the norm. It will infuse all of us. We will be living in a different place. Where killing is rare.
It's simple and it's hard.
It's correct.
This us what I learned from the earnest young man at the table.
I changed and so can you.
9
I don't know and can't say whether the Death Penalty deters crime or not. I do understand the human desire for retribution. I also have a sense, instilled during my Catholic school upbringing, that justice must always need be dispassionate, and is for society's sake, and never the individual's. And I firmly believe, as does Warden Thompson, that life is hallowed. All life, even the most wretched life.
If there is to be capital punishment -- if a state has determined that it is important to take the life from some criminals -- then the act of executing that sentence of death should and must be performed by the governor her/himself, by the governor's own hand. The mechanics of the death penalty should be arranged to require a constant physical manual effort on the governor's part, from the start until the condemned is pronounced dead. There should be no delegation of this awesome responsibility to a nameless, faceless, shameless executioner. It should be the governor's sole responsibility.
And to insure that the entire process is carried out in strict accordance with the law, it should be supervised by the personal attendance of the chief justice of the state, standing shoulder to shoulder with the governor, during the entire affair.
If it's important for the state to take a person's life, then it's so important that the process should and must be conducted by the most important political officers of the state. If it's NOT that important, it shouldn't be done.
If there is to be capital punishment -- if a state has determined that it is important to take the life from some criminals -- then the act of executing that sentence of death should and must be performed by the governor her/himself, by the governor's own hand. The mechanics of the death penalty should be arranged to require a constant physical manual effort on the governor's part, from the start until the condemned is pronounced dead. There should be no delegation of this awesome responsibility to a nameless, faceless, shameless executioner. It should be the governor's sole responsibility.
And to insure that the entire process is carried out in strict accordance with the law, it should be supervised by the personal attendance of the chief justice of the state, standing shoulder to shoulder with the governor, during the entire affair.
If it's important for the state to take a person's life, then it's so important that the process should and must be conducted by the most important political officers of the state. If it's NOT that important, it shouldn't be done.
3
Ever since I read this poem in school I have thought about the damaging effects the death penalty has on those who must carry it out, and that alone was enough reason to ban it.
https://allpoetry.com/The-Hangman-At-Home
The Hangman At Home
by Carl Sandburg
What does a hangman think about
When he goes home at night from work?
When he sits down with his wife and
Children for a cup of coffee and a
Plate of ham and eggs, do they ask
Him if it was a good day's work
And everything went well or do they
Stay off some topics and talk about
The weather, baseball, politics
And the comic strips in the papers
And the movies? Do they look at his
Hands when he reaches for the coffee
Or the ham and eggs? If the little
Ones say, Daddy, play horse, here's
A rope—does he answer like a joke:
I seen enough rope for today?
Or does his face light up like a
Bonfire of joy and does he say:
It's a good and dandy world we live
'In. And if a white face moon looks
In through a window where a baby girl
Sleeps and the moon-gleams mix with
Baby ears and baby hair—the hangman—
How does he act then? It must be easy
For him. Anything is easy for a hangman,
I guess.
https://allpoetry.com/The-Hangman-At-Home
The Hangman At Home
by Carl Sandburg
What does a hangman think about
When he goes home at night from work?
When he sits down with his wife and
Children for a cup of coffee and a
Plate of ham and eggs, do they ask
Him if it was a good day's work
And everything went well or do they
Stay off some topics and talk about
The weather, baseball, politics
And the comic strips in the papers
And the movies? Do they look at his
Hands when he reaches for the coffee
Or the ham and eggs? If the little
Ones say, Daddy, play horse, here's
A rope—does he answer like a joke:
I seen enough rope for today?
Or does his face light up like a
Bonfire of joy and does he say:
It's a good and dandy world we live
'In. And if a white face moon looks
In through a window where a baby girl
Sleeps and the moon-gleams mix with
Baby ears and baby hair—the hangman—
How does he act then? It must be easy
For him. Anything is easy for a hangman,
I guess.
3
There should be input here from victims families. Perhaps the parents of the murdered ten year old would feel differently. I bet they would.
My take is this guy needs to find a new job.
Fact is, you can't prove the negative, and we'll never know how many people where NOT murdered because of the deterrence factor.
Maybe we should be focusing on donations to the Clinton Foundation from countries that execute people for homosexually, or advocate stoning women for perceived sins.
My take is this guy needs to find a new job.
Fact is, you can't prove the negative, and we'll never know how many people where NOT murdered because of the deterrence factor.
Maybe we should be focusing on donations to the Clinton Foundation from countries that execute people for homosexually, or advocate stoning women for perceived sins.
6
"My take is this guy needs to find a new job. "
At the end of the article, he stated that he has been retired since 2010.
At the end of the article, he stated that he has been retired since 2010.
4
But for the existence of murderous execution regimes like Russia, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Viet Nam and Pakistan, America could add world #1 in executions to world #1 in incarceration. For centuries America has reserved legal execution and illegal lynching primarily for black perpetrators with white victims.
State sponsored killings are immoral, unfair and unjust but tolerarated for American colored faces and bodies.
"Thou shalt not kill". Or not?
See "Just Mercy" Bryan Stephenson
State sponsored killings are immoral, unfair and unjust but tolerarated for American colored faces and bodies.
"Thou shalt not kill". Or not?
See "Just Mercy" Bryan Stephenson
5
Such a contrast between this profound, moving, and thought-provoking piece and the many comments generated here in favor of the death penalty. The essay won't do anything to assuage those on the right that the Times isn't liberal but the responses will certainly hearten them.
7
Is it a fair assessment of this article to say that capital punishment should be banned because of the toll it takes on corrections officers?
One wonders if the people who lynched Emmett Till faced such misgivings, or the butchers of ISIS who commit unspeakable acts daily.
One appreciates the thought that went behind this article and the authors humanity. However a complex society needs a complex set of rules and certain people do deserve death but the application of capital punishment should be reserved for the rarest of the rare. It is welcome news that society is gradually moving in that direction with the number of executions declining.
One should also spare a thought - in this context - to our soldiers and the trauma they face killing others. These days the fashion is to use special forces to do the killing with the public comforting itself that "no boots are on the ground". These forces endure the same horrors as anyone else.
Meaningful policy both military and civilian is the need of the hour. However in the current political climate, nothing will change.
One wonders if the people who lynched Emmett Till faced such misgivings, or the butchers of ISIS who commit unspeakable acts daily.
One appreciates the thought that went behind this article and the authors humanity. However a complex society needs a complex set of rules and certain people do deserve death but the application of capital punishment should be reserved for the rarest of the rare. It is welcome news that society is gradually moving in that direction with the number of executions declining.
One should also spare a thought - in this context - to our soldiers and the trauma they face killing others. These days the fashion is to use special forces to do the killing with the public comforting itself that "no boots are on the ground". These forces endure the same horrors as anyone else.
Meaningful policy both military and civilian is the need of the hour. However in the current political climate, nothing will change.
4
No person should die at the hand of man . Ever .
3
How do you feel about the Allies invading Normady? Or was this justified and you are wrong?
4
The key word is should, but if there is evil and must be stopped by war, then so be it.
Sanctioned state murder is just that = murder.
It is morally wrong.
Sanctioned state murder is just that = murder.
It is morally wrong.
1
Sadly the USA whilst claiming to 'lead the free civilised world' is not within the norm of this 'world' vis a vis killing prisoners.
2
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Peace be with you.
7
Beyond any 'pro-and-con' arguments, there is one, and only one question to be asked.
Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that at LEAST ONE innocent person was executed?
Now, put yourself in HIS shoes, then opine on Capital Punishment.
Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that at LEAST ONE innocent person was executed?
Now, put yourself in HIS shoes, then opine on Capital Punishment.
10
Do you trust deathbed conversions?
It all is reminiscent of Augustine's prayer, "Oh Lord, give me chastity and continence -- but not yet."
Thompson's article is part of a genre at the New York Times. That consists in the confessions of prodigal sons who have (belatedly) seen the (liberal) light and have renounced their past to follow the straight and narrow path of rectitude.
A recent case was Sam Polk, ex-hedge fund manager and self-described "wealth addict" who abused alcohol, pot, cocaine, Ritalin, and ecstasy. Having made his pile, Polk started a charity. Now he has it both ways -- a cushy lifestyle and the plaudits of Times readers for his denunciations of, wait for it, America's "vast and toxic income disparity".
Earlier there was Greg Smith who announced his resignation from Goldman Sachs in the New York Times and "spilled the beans" on his fellow banksters. Smith seems to have gotten a book advance worth more than his Goldman compensation package.
I have heard of sinners paying the Church for indulgences, but sinners enriching themselves by renouncing their sins....
Now Mr. Thompson. True enough, the average citizen will never find himself looking a death row prisoner in the eye. But, before Thompson came out of the closet as a death penalty opponent, he should have looked the mother of a murdered child in the eye.
It all is reminiscent of Augustine's prayer, "Oh Lord, give me chastity and continence -- but not yet."
Thompson's article is part of a genre at the New York Times. That consists in the confessions of prodigal sons who have (belatedly) seen the (liberal) light and have renounced their past to follow the straight and narrow path of rectitude.
A recent case was Sam Polk, ex-hedge fund manager and self-described "wealth addict" who abused alcohol, pot, cocaine, Ritalin, and ecstasy. Having made his pile, Polk started a charity. Now he has it both ways -- a cushy lifestyle and the plaudits of Times readers for his denunciations of, wait for it, America's "vast and toxic income disparity".
Earlier there was Greg Smith who announced his resignation from Goldman Sachs in the New York Times and "spilled the beans" on his fellow banksters. Smith seems to have gotten a book advance worth more than his Goldman compensation package.
I have heard of sinners paying the Church for indulgences, but sinners enriching themselves by renouncing their sins....
Now Mr. Thompson. True enough, the average citizen will never find himself looking a death row prisoner in the eye. But, before Thompson came out of the closet as a death penalty opponent, he should have looked the mother of a murdered child in the eye.
9
But, are all your examples qualitatively the same? While most can agree with the disingenuousness of the first two, Mr. Thompson seems to have rational and earnestly heartfelt arguments for his change in conviction. I think we can assume from his career as a soldier and cop that he most likely did look mothers of murdered children in the eye. You, however, have most likely never pulled the lever on a death row inmate. I'll take his viewpoint over yours.
14
Very powerful!
1
I guess I think about the spry, happy eighty-year-old woman pushed to the sidewalk when someone steals her handbag -- and who then must spend the rest of her life in a nursing home because her hip was broken during the robbery.
What's the guy's life worth?
Put the vicious animal to sleep.
What's the guy's life worth?
Put the vicious animal to sleep.
3
Thank you Mr. Thompson for touching our humanity. That, above all else, is what we must cherish and preserve.
3
What an informative, illuminating account of the effects of the death penalty, written clearly and cogently!
Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
2
Death carried out by the state is just another form of murder.
3
Death Penalty will be abolished in the US, just like slavery was in 1864.
Yes, I compare.
No need for endless philosophical debates: just mere political courage rooted in clear conviction.
François Mitterand was elected in 1981 after clearly announcing he would work to put an end to it.
He was against 60% of French electors at the time.
He won, and abolished.
Yes, I compare.
No need for endless philosophical debates: just mere political courage rooted in clear conviction.
François Mitterand was elected in 1981 after clearly announcing he would work to put an end to it.
He was against 60% of French electors at the time.
He won, and abolished.
2
What they (Obama and all his helpers) do to Pfc. Bradley Manning is much worse. They slowly torture him to death and at the same time claim it is "for his own good".
They deprived him of sleep first, now they keep him in isolation "because he tried to kill himself".
A firing squad would be more humane than what they do to this unfortunate boy.
They deprived him of sleep first, now they keep him in isolation "because he tried to kill himself".
A firing squad would be more humane than what they do to this unfortunate boy.
1
What is the purpose of executing people? We know it's not a deterrent. Murders continue to happen. It can't be to teach a lesson to the murderer--he is dead and can't benefit or learn anything from his punishment. Is it just to provide revenge for the family of the victim? Many victim's relatives have spoken about how it made no difference in their grief and suffering to know that the perpetrator was dead. If it's just to remove a dangerous person from society so he can't hurt someone else, then life in prison would do just as well. Capital punishment really serves no purpose at all, when you think about it. Who benefits from it? Over 1400 people have been executed in the US since 1976, and it has made no difference to any of us. We're no safer than we were before that. Victim's families still carry their grief and loss, society has not been improved in any way and murders continue to occur. So, again I have to ask, what's the purpose of capital punishment?
2
If anything it is to protect fellow prison inmates and guards. When someone is in prison for life they have no disincentive, besides solitary confinement which is limited on human rights concerns, to kill again. Could you imagine being in prison on a lesser charge with prisoners who do not fear more years in jail because they will be there for life anyways? They have killed before and they can kill again. It is grossly inhumanity for the civilian prison guards and fellow inmates that have to be there with them.
1
Orchestrated murder by the State is an obscenity,it is an affront to human decency, if there remains such a thing.Killing is nothing new to the human animal , Capital punishment is mild compared to modern weapons that can kill millions at a time. Humans have become immune to wholesale slaughter.Still it’s the hypocrisy of Capital punishment that is most upsetting.It is nothing more than an eye for an eye, an archaic religious law that governs this barbarity.We cannot represent civility & carry out this heinous act.
2
Powerful, plain speaking, and honest. Thank you for writing this, and for your ongoing mission against Capital Punishment. Your unique role in the past ensures that your voice will always be a rare and necessary perspective. I wish this article could get a very wide distribution. People everywhere in this country need to see it.
There is something messed up about how we apply capital punishment. Sadly, even in states that have the death penalty, results from serious prosecutions are highly varied. In some states, it's only a county or two that drive the considerable majority of executions. Yet, even there, race and poverty play grossly outsized roles in the calculations that ultimately result in a man being strapped to a gurney. In most cases, the crime and conviction occurred decades ago. Once young men are now tired, middle aged, or outright old. They have already served the virtual equivalent of a life sentence in many states. Now, punishment of a different kind finally gets it's day...
Whether it be a crime of passion, or a drug/revenge/gang shooting, there's no way that any rational person can say that execution of an old man 27 years after he committed the crime, usually in secret, late at night or early in the morning, has the power to "deter" anything. As for "justice for the victim's families... that's just Revenge. A grossly constrained life without parole in a metal and concrete universe is an ugly thing. Shouldn't that be enough?
There is something messed up about how we apply capital punishment. Sadly, even in states that have the death penalty, results from serious prosecutions are highly varied. In some states, it's only a county or two that drive the considerable majority of executions. Yet, even there, race and poverty play grossly outsized roles in the calculations that ultimately result in a man being strapped to a gurney. In most cases, the crime and conviction occurred decades ago. Once young men are now tired, middle aged, or outright old. They have already served the virtual equivalent of a life sentence in many states. Now, punishment of a different kind finally gets it's day...
Whether it be a crime of passion, or a drug/revenge/gang shooting, there's no way that any rational person can say that execution of an old man 27 years after he committed the crime, usually in secret, late at night or early in the morning, has the power to "deter" anything. As for "justice for the victim's families... that's just Revenge. A grossly constrained life without parole in a metal and concrete universe is an ugly thing. Shouldn't that be enough?
4
This editorial is among the best I have read, but does not move my belief in the moral necessity of capital punishment. There are certain crimes for which there is no sentence short of death.
Not far from my home, the brutal rape and murder of the Petit family took place in Cheshire in 2007 - a crime that was judged to be so heinous as to merit the death sentence. The governor at the time, Jodi Rell, faced the abolition of the death penalty within the state legislature and ultimately vetoed the measure, citing the horrific circumstances of that crime. Dannel Malloy, the governor who succeeded her, repealed the death penalty - and the murderers now have their sentences commuted to life in prison.
How arbitrary.
The survivors are left not with closure, but rather the misery of a system that cares more about the violent offenders that took the lives of their loved ones. The executioners hand is their last chance at justice. There are no appeals from death.
Thompson’s humanity reveals that people killing others is hard - no matter the reason. That doesn't make it wrong. What is wrong is the perverse sanitization of the act - there is nothing "clean" about the deliberate taking of life, be it via a needle or via firing squad. It is this need to "cleanse" the act of capital punishment that makes it harder on the actor - the death sentence, I would argue, is still just.
Not far from my home, the brutal rape and murder of the Petit family took place in Cheshire in 2007 - a crime that was judged to be so heinous as to merit the death sentence. The governor at the time, Jodi Rell, faced the abolition of the death penalty within the state legislature and ultimately vetoed the measure, citing the horrific circumstances of that crime. Dannel Malloy, the governor who succeeded her, repealed the death penalty - and the murderers now have their sentences commuted to life in prison.
How arbitrary.
The survivors are left not with closure, but rather the misery of a system that cares more about the violent offenders that took the lives of their loved ones. The executioners hand is their last chance at justice. There are no appeals from death.
Thompson’s humanity reveals that people killing others is hard - no matter the reason. That doesn't make it wrong. What is wrong is the perverse sanitization of the act - there is nothing "clean" about the deliberate taking of life, be it via a needle or via firing squad. It is this need to "cleanse" the act of capital punishment that makes it harder on the actor - the death sentence, I would argue, is still just.
13
Mr. Gupta, the argument you present is emotional rather than logical. Closure is preceptive rather than actual. We have
1
Mr. Gupta, the argument you present is emotional rather than logical. Closure is preceptive and is culturally different. For example Jews mourn the dead for seven days after burial which must take place as soon as possible. Alternatively, Catholics may embalm the body and hold a wake prior to burial. In the U.S. we have trained ourselves to believe that closure arises from the termination of those who committed heinous acts such as the murder of the Petit family. Yet, other civilized nations, created more logical and realistic models that protect communities both physically and morally.
Your statements reflect the truth; the taking of a life is difficult and morally reprehensible. The impact upon those who must commit the act consciously is everlasting and devastating. The death penalty impacts all those involved in the act negatively for life as Mr. Thompson clearly presents. Imposing such sorrow and pain upon those who we trust to protect us is selfish and counterproductive.
As a nation we must alter our perception of what true Justice is to reflect our moral and humane nature and religious beliefs. "Power is of two kinds. One is obtained by the fear of punishment and the other by acts of love. Power based on love is a thousand times more effective and permanent then the one derived from fear of punishment" (Mahatma Gandhi).
Your statements reflect the truth; the taking of a life is difficult and morally reprehensible. The impact upon those who must commit the act consciously is everlasting and devastating. The death penalty impacts all those involved in the act negatively for life as Mr. Thompson clearly presents. Imposing such sorrow and pain upon those who we trust to protect us is selfish and counterproductive.
As a nation we must alter our perception of what true Justice is to reflect our moral and humane nature and religious beliefs. "Power is of two kinds. One is obtained by the fear of punishment and the other by acts of love. Power based on love is a thousand times more effective and permanent then the one derived from fear of punishment" (Mahatma Gandhi).
Sometimes there are just no good answers.
2
My only concern is that we execute those who actually did the crime. Fact is, though, our justice system is flawed so the wrong person could easily be executed, and it’s on that basis that I oppose capital punishment.
4
The man has empathy. Good for him.
But some don't.
We are all "manufactured" by biological and experiential forces -- whose interactions -- are completely beyond our control. There are sufficient reasons for all actions.
The vaunted "free will" notion is nonsense on stilts.
Thus, killing is the same as killing an animal for being what it is.
But some don't.
We are all "manufactured" by biological and experiential forces -- whose interactions -- are completely beyond our control. There are sufficient reasons for all actions.
The vaunted "free will" notion is nonsense on stilts.
Thus, killing is the same as killing an animal for being what it is.
1
If the NYT Opinion pages had a piece about an ex-executioner who actually enjoyed his work and relished in retelling the grisly details, then we would be appalled. The fact that Thompson found the entire experience a negative one is reassuring and in no way diminishes the importance of having capital punishment in place for certain horrific crimes.
3
Dear Mr. Thompson,
Thank you so much for your editorial. It was moving, and thoughtful. It summed up all the issues we confront with state-sponsored, pre-meditated homicide.
Opposition to the death penalty does not imply soft-heartedness or leniency or a lack of respect for the perpetrator's victims. It simply validates the principle that killing people is wrong, unless you're defending your life or unless you're opposing an existential threat to your community.
Tuck Donnelly
Thank you so much for your editorial. It was moving, and thoughtful. It summed up all the issues we confront with state-sponsored, pre-meditated homicide.
Opposition to the death penalty does not imply soft-heartedness or leniency or a lack of respect for the perpetrator's victims. It simply validates the principle that killing people is wrong, unless you're defending your life or unless you're opposing an existential threat to your community.
Tuck Donnelly
Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.
I used to eat meat. I don't anymore, but if I had had to do the slaughtering I couldn't have done it. I get no enjoyment out of causing death. Hunting and capital punishment creep me out. But I have never known a victim who was murdered. Maybe if I had, I would feel differently, but I am not sure that would make me the proper person to decide. As it is, capital punishment does not touch my life. Many of today's hot button issues simply don't affect me. Many more issues are far more important to me. If all you folks want to execute people, have at it. If you want an AK47 so you can kill a deer, you have nothing to fear from me. But I wouldn't do it. I understand the revulsion that anyone who has had to do it feels. Public safety can be served by life imprisonment. Deterrence has never been proven. The only motivation I can see for capital punishment is revenge. Most hunting is unnecessary and must involve some enjoyment of causing death. These are things I simply can't relate to. But if death is your thing, enjoy.
There was a day when hangings were public entertainment. Have we made progress?
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. The death penalty makes me shudder. For one thing, it's not Christian to take the life of a helpless person, no matter how guilty, not that I'm saying you have to been Christian or Jewish or anything else to oppose it. Self defense is one thing, strapping someone to a table and ending his (or rarely her) life diminishes our own humanity. By your advocacy you have made some steps in ending this barbaric practice which has been abolished in most of western civilization.
Why should the state, which derives its power from the citizenry, be allowed to do what the individual cannot? Murder is murder.
Call capital punishment what it is: vengeance.
Call capital punishment what it is: vengeance.
Murder is not murder under the law. Private people can kill if it is justified, and the law views execution as justified. The first question is, therefore, what is justice? The next question is whether something can be justified if it is not just?
The most important point in the article is the effect of premeditated killing on the prison staff. Ones parents tell you that thou shall not kill, but orders are orders and a job is job. This conflict is the heart of PTSD.
A successful and happy killer must view their subject as something other than a living being, but an object of skin, bone, and blood. Most of us can not make that jump though many of our ancestors could and did. The solution is to hire prison personnel who enjoy dong the work or dropping capital punishment. I favor the later.
A successful and happy killer must view their subject as something other than a living being, but an object of skin, bone, and blood. Most of us can not make that jump though many of our ancestors could and did. The solution is to hire prison personnel who enjoy dong the work or dropping capital punishment. I favor the later.
1
Thanks for sharing your message and being proactive in trying to change laws. Although there exist people who commit horrible crimes and even some who may be criminally insane, it does justify a state sanctioning premeditated murder. A just society can do better than stoop to the level of a criminal.
1
Such a thoughtful and sad article. Humans killing humans is just plain wrong. Expecting a person to violate such basic ethical behavior as part of their job is sickening. What don't we get about "Thou shalt not kill?"
2
Thinking breeds more thinking. It's not just executing a convict that brings sleeplessness and depression. Life imposes heavy burdens on us every which way. Jesus himself was put to death by the capital punishment, but he never said anything against it. Rather he said anyone following him should be willing to take up his cross. Aside from that, one shouldn't think too much about these things. If the criminal justice system calls for the capital punishment, so be it. Go and do it. Let God be the ultimate judge of humanity.
1
Previously in New Jersey, the death penalty meant at best life in solitary confinement. Since it was eliminated, the worst of the worst are in the general population living out their lives among others. How accommodating should society be of people clearly guilty and convicted of multiple rapes and homicides?
1
Victim's survivors who want the death penalty expect a "feel good" resolution upon witnessing the execution but that rarely happens. While completely understanding the very human emotion of vengeance, I shudder thinking that I live in a country that thinks it is okay for the system to kill another under any circumstance.
2
It's justice, take a life, lose a life. No more than you should let a rat live in your house with your family and pay for it. Funds are needed for valuable endeavors. Victims need sympathy, not murderer's.
6
I guess with this logic we can dispense of the judicial system. It's that simple: Kill, get killed. Also at the risk of pedantry: It'd not a bad idea to check grammar before submitting a comment. We don't want bad grammar to leave a certain impression about the author...
All this sturm und drang over killing two vicious, guilty men. I kill many innocent people every day when I don’t give money to charities that can save a life for about $10. Don’t you?
6
I used to support the death penalty. My reason for changing my opinion was also an emotional one. I found a website where you could read the last words of everyone put to death in some state, I think it was Texas. I just started crying. I started reading about some of their crimes.
Almost everyone was black. A lot of the murders came out of drug feuds. It didn't strike me that these were always the cold blooded killers who did it for sport. It seemed like people who grew up in tough lives in poor neighborhoods in crime-ridden environments. That doesn't make the crimes forgivable or mean that families of the victims aren't devastated. But somehow I don't feel like it's the worst of the worst that's being punished. Because often multiple crimes have to be taking place for the death penalty to be an option, it seems like the drug dealer killing another drug dealer is more likely to face the death penalty than the guy who murders some innocent kid for no reason. Somehow I'm not sure that makes sense, or that it's a fair application of the law.
Almost everyone was black. A lot of the murders came out of drug feuds. It didn't strike me that these were always the cold blooded killers who did it for sport. It seemed like people who grew up in tough lives in poor neighborhoods in crime-ridden environments. That doesn't make the crimes forgivable or mean that families of the victims aren't devastated. But somehow I don't feel like it's the worst of the worst that's being punished. Because often multiple crimes have to be taking place for the death penalty to be an option, it seems like the drug dealer killing another drug dealer is more likely to face the death penalty than the guy who murders some innocent kid for no reason. Somehow I'm not sure that makes sense, or that it's a fair application of the law.
1
To me the point of this insightful article is that when an community carries out the death penalty, the cost is paid in part by those we pay to carry it out. They pay the cost in emotional and psychological stress and in the trauma involved in the killing. We pay the corrections officers to lose a part of their humanity so that they can become professional killers. We do this, of course, so that we don't have to do it ourselves. This is on top of all the other costs: the financial cost of appeals and the procedure itself and the risk cost of executing innocent or undeserving suspects, a cost that goes up as we try to push the other costs down. And from this article, it seems that the less often we execute prisoners, the greater the psychic costs paid by those who do it.
1
Capital punishment isn't about justice, it's about revenge. Leave the decision to the affected families.
In 1988, CNN's Bernard Shaw helped destroy Michael Dukakis's run for the Presidency when asking about the death penalty, asked how Dukakis would feel if his wife, Kitty, was raped and murdered. Dukakis could have saved the day had he answered: "Bernie, of course, like any man I'd want to strangle the guy with my bare hands, slowly, so he'd suffer as he died. But that's why our justice system puts the decisions of guilt and innocence, and what the penalty should be in the hands of disinterested parties. So that it is justice that is served and not just vengeance. Study after study shows that the best deterrence to murder is the assurance of being caught and punished, and that the death penalty never enters killers' minds because they assume they won't get caught."
Something like that would have been better than his weasel answer. Of course, it wouldn't have helped the "Willie Horton" disinformation campaign (Reagan was guilty of the same thing in Cal.) or riding around in the tank....
Something like that would have been better than his weasel answer. Of course, it wouldn't have helped the "Willie Horton" disinformation campaign (Reagan was guilty of the same thing in Cal.) or riding around in the tank....
Of course some people deserve to die for things they do; we all get that. But who should take care of it and how? At least two things will always haunt capital punishment: 1) the state is known to be, how should we say, error prone, and execution is irreversible; so do we really want the state to have that power? And 2) if, in our system of justice, we rank killing from accidental up to premeditated, isn't scheduled killing the worst?
I have often thought about the stress these individuals must face when fulfilling an execution. Its easy to armchair qb and say "I could do it" but it's another to be actually responsible.
Executions are not preventing crime. They are not about vengeance. They are about cost effectively removing a threat to us all.
it's hard to believe in 2016, we are still executing citizens. Much evidence has been presented showing racial and economic bias in this "final" method of punishment. When will we join the Wes
Thank you for showing us what the real consequences are of execution--on the whole society. I hope that America will relinquish this terrible practice and investigate the far better alternatives in European prisons.
http://www.thecriticalmom.blogspot.com
http://www.thecriticalmom.blogspot.com
How do we deal with the really heinous criminals, the ones who lack even an atom of conscience or remorse, who would repeat their crimes in a heartbeat and with a smile on their faces? Let us not kid ourselves, such beasts do exist from time to time. Mitigating factors such as childhood abuse do not excuse everything.
Lifelong torture? Obviously not. Unconstitutional is only the least of the reasons this is not the prescribed punishment. Those administering it are not an iota better than the recipient of their favors.
Life in prison. No parole. No books or magazines. No TV. No radio. No verbal communication, even with the guards. Bland, uniformly gray food. A small plastic bucket for waste. Hardly any better or enforceable than the above. The cost factor is hardly negligible, as well.
Death, then. But what is there to fear from death itself? Fear the dying process, yeah. But death? Fearing death is to fear absolutely nothing. Many, criminal minded or not, devoutly religious or ardent atheist, look forward to death. Mark Twain famously did, and wrote often of it. The problem with death is it ends the punishment that vengeance needs. And usually at a cost equal to or greater than life with no hope of parole.
What we have is the perfect conundrum. A problem so horrible there is no true solution, only compromises, and we know how palatable compromise is in this country, in this day and time.
Lifelong torture? Obviously not. Unconstitutional is only the least of the reasons this is not the prescribed punishment. Those administering it are not an iota better than the recipient of their favors.
Life in prison. No parole. No books or magazines. No TV. No radio. No verbal communication, even with the guards. Bland, uniformly gray food. A small plastic bucket for waste. Hardly any better or enforceable than the above. The cost factor is hardly negligible, as well.
Death, then. But what is there to fear from death itself? Fear the dying process, yeah. But death? Fearing death is to fear absolutely nothing. Many, criminal minded or not, devoutly religious or ardent atheist, look forward to death. Mark Twain famously did, and wrote often of it. The problem with death is it ends the punishment that vengeance needs. And usually at a cost equal to or greater than life with no hope of parole.
What we have is the perfect conundrum. A problem so horrible there is no true solution, only compromises, and we know how palatable compromise is in this country, in this day and time.
1
The death penalty is not a deterrent to violent crime nor does it make society safer.
It is a fit punishment for heinous acts committed by violently depraved people upon other people.
The conundrum is that some of the psychopaths who commit these crimes suffer from chronic mental disorders stimulated by the unknowns of brain chemistry. Are these persons accountable for the consequences of their actions if those actions are compounded by schizophrenic illusions?
How can society distinguish between psychopaths driven by brain chemistry disorders from the otherwise rationale actions of assassins who have chosen to kill because its part of the job? What about those violent offenders who choose to kill or violate because not to do so may risk retaliation, either by the victim, society, or a rival organization?
In its final analysis, the death penalty is the vengeance of the victim executed upon the perpetrator. For many victims and their families, the vengeance brings needed closure of a sorts. Just the thought of a murderer peacefully living out his life in a cell torments the victims' families; a never ending reminder that the psychopath lives while their loved ones do not and died horribly.
We cannot cure flawed brain chemistry today, and maybe never.
We cannot tolerate psychopaths in our midst.
We cannot deny families whatever peace that society's vengeance can bring them. They are the people who should decide the fate of the guilty.
It is a fit punishment for heinous acts committed by violently depraved people upon other people.
The conundrum is that some of the psychopaths who commit these crimes suffer from chronic mental disorders stimulated by the unknowns of brain chemistry. Are these persons accountable for the consequences of their actions if those actions are compounded by schizophrenic illusions?
How can society distinguish between psychopaths driven by brain chemistry disorders from the otherwise rationale actions of assassins who have chosen to kill because its part of the job? What about those violent offenders who choose to kill or violate because not to do so may risk retaliation, either by the victim, society, or a rival organization?
In its final analysis, the death penalty is the vengeance of the victim executed upon the perpetrator. For many victims and their families, the vengeance brings needed closure of a sorts. Just the thought of a murderer peacefully living out his life in a cell torments the victims' families; a never ending reminder that the psychopath lives while their loved ones do not and died horribly.
We cannot cure flawed brain chemistry today, and maybe never.
We cannot tolerate psychopaths in our midst.
We cannot deny families whatever peace that society's vengeance can bring them. They are the people who should decide the fate of the guilty.
1
The death penalty is a good thing. It brings justice and closure to the families of the victims as they know that the perp who murdered their loved ones have had their early existence terminated. Those who get on their high horses and speak out against this penalty have never suffered the horror of having their 12 year old daughter kidnapped, raped and murdered or a similar heinous unspeakable crime. Once you have walked a mile in the shoes of the mother or father that has to bury their loved one, then you might have a different opinion. Is the death penalty perfect? Perhaps not. But the due process clause of the constitution guarantees multiple reviews of these sentences and it is virtually impossible that an innocent gets executed. I have not seen proof of this, only speculation. Are there sometimes problems administering the needle? Yes. Bring back the firing squad. 6 Bullets to the heart usually dispatches the evil doer within seconds. To the man who executed two people, thank you for your service. I understand you. I disagree however that the death penalty should be abolished.
Juries and judges that pass the death sentence should be required to sit in on the execution.
If state governors who support the death penalty were required to personally administer the lethal injection to death row prisoners it is doubtful any state would have the death penalty. If the governors also were required by law to meet with the families before and after executions they would quickly learn the deep inhumanity of the death penalty. As long as "law and order" governors can use the death penalty as a campaign opportunity to show strength against crime without coming face to face with state sponsored barbarism the horror and injustice will continue.
2
I used to support capital punishment, but I as well, can no longer.
So many of my Christian friends are staunchly pro-life and believe every medically possible means should be used to prolong life of the naturally dying, but are in favor of the death penalty. The moral gymnastics required to say "though shall not kill" as an absolute for even severally deformed fetuses or the terminally ill in excruciating pain, yet support state-sponsored killing of perfectly healthy adults seems like a tortured logic, yet the official position of the Vatican.
Perhaps I am too lazy to reconcile competing moral views, but it seems like arguments to end capital punishment start on a moral high ground. Capital punishment is rooted in an eye for an eye, a life for a life.
If the state had never made a mistake and executed a person for a crime they did not commit, if capital punishment were consistently applied, without a very few prosecutors brings the most cases against minorities, if it were cost effective, and was never botched I would take the effort to reconcile Christian values with capital punishment, but I doubt the system can be changed to be just, so without apology, from a morally superior standing, I think we should end the death penalty.
So many of my Christian friends are staunchly pro-life and believe every medically possible means should be used to prolong life of the naturally dying, but are in favor of the death penalty. The moral gymnastics required to say "though shall not kill" as an absolute for even severally deformed fetuses or the terminally ill in excruciating pain, yet support state-sponsored killing of perfectly healthy adults seems like a tortured logic, yet the official position of the Vatican.
Perhaps I am too lazy to reconcile competing moral views, but it seems like arguments to end capital punishment start on a moral high ground. Capital punishment is rooted in an eye for an eye, a life for a life.
If the state had never made a mistake and executed a person for a crime they did not commit, if capital punishment were consistently applied, without a very few prosecutors brings the most cases against minorities, if it were cost effective, and was never botched I would take the effort to reconcile Christian values with capital punishment, but I doubt the system can be changed to be just, so without apology, from a morally superior standing, I think we should end the death penalty.
2
Most developed countries have banned the death penalty. It's been banned ithroughout Europe. US is an exception in so many ways. Not to mention the number of prisoners in US prisons, the percentage that is black and the tiny number of them who had a trials. Primitive country.
1
"Capital punishment is as fundamentally wrong as a cure for crime as charity is wrong as a cure for poverty" (Henry Ford). For decades our nation Criminal Justice System ("CJS") has lagged behind the civilized world from a perspective of what is considered a crime and the proper punishment. While compassion and education have proven effective tools to reduce crime and recidivism globally our elected legislative representatives ("ELR") have chosen to create a CJS that is archaic and ineffective. The policies of the past must be changed, lest we become what we fear the most, a rouge nation that deplorably violates the sanctity of human life.
Statistics have demonstrated that our CJS is both biased and ineffective. We have become a police state with the highest level of incarceration per capita. Yet, our ELR continue to insist on a destructive path that yields more disenfranchised fellow citizen rather than productive compatriots. The question to ask is who is a criminal? Clearly, someone who selflessly takes the life of another is, but we must consider those who betray our trust and intentionally waste our precious resources on policies that deplete our moral soul and our country's future as criminals. "It seems proper, at all events, that by an early enactment similar to that of other countries the application of public money by an officer of Government to private uses should be made a felony and visited with severe with severe and ignominious punishment"(Martin Van Buren).
Statistics have demonstrated that our CJS is both biased and ineffective. We have become a police state with the highest level of incarceration per capita. Yet, our ELR continue to insist on a destructive path that yields more disenfranchised fellow citizen rather than productive compatriots. The question to ask is who is a criminal? Clearly, someone who selflessly takes the life of another is, but we must consider those who betray our trust and intentionally waste our precious resources on policies that deplete our moral soul and our country's future as criminals. "It seems proper, at all events, that by an early enactment similar to that of other countries the application of public money by an officer of Government to private uses should be made a felony and visited with severe with severe and ignominious punishment"(Martin Van Buren).
1
After more than 40 years spent professionally close to this subject, I remain convinced that capital punishment is irrational for two reasons. The first is that studies have shown that the adoption of capital punishment actually increases the homicide rate, i.e., it is not a deterrent but is counter-productive. The reasons and most important reason is that it brutalizes society and creates a more violent environment for all of us. We must strive as a society to be less violent, so we must reject "an eye for an eye" and instead opt to fight all forms of hatred and violence with love. At base, all our thoughts and actions come down to the choice of love versus hate.
Japan employs the death penalty, harshly I might add, yet has one of the lowest nonviolent and violent crime rates in the world. Also, Singapore.
2
The only reason I don't support capitol punishment is the costs and time horizon are excessive. 6 month combined appeal and a 7.62 to the back of the head.
No drama. Done.
Our nation is drowning in a cesspool of liberal foolishness. Enough.
No drama. Done.
Our nation is drowning in a cesspool of liberal foolishness. Enough.
1
A thoughtful article. However, we are all Hypocrites.
When you state that."...I became convinced that, on a moral level, life was either hallowed or it wasn’t. And I wanted it to be...", you are a hypocrite like all the rest of us.
In America we do things every day large and small that puts people someplace else to death. Be it ignoring the homeless person a few blocks away or just the fact we have children in a society that uses so much energy that we condemn someone someplace else on the earth to an early death in support of us consumption.
I do not support The State having the right to kill as there is always the possibility of the innocent man being killed for a crime they did not do. But to single out that method of killing versus the many others that the average American indirectly are responsible for rings hallow.
When you state that."...I became convinced that, on a moral level, life was either hallowed or it wasn’t. And I wanted it to be...", you are a hypocrite like all the rest of us.
In America we do things every day large and small that puts people someplace else to death. Be it ignoring the homeless person a few blocks away or just the fact we have children in a society that uses so much energy that we condemn someone someplace else on the earth to an early death in support of us consumption.
I do not support The State having the right to kill as there is always the possibility of the innocent man being killed for a crime they did not do. But to single out that method of killing versus the many others that the average American indirectly are responsible for rings hallow.
Get a clue.
Today jurors can be forced to decide between the death penalty or release without punishment. But the sole standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt” which is not definite enough to justify irrevokable death. Jurors should be able to choose between death if proven beyond any doubt and prison if proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ramble bamble. Nothing can ever be proven beyond all doubt. How do we know that an alien with the ability to clone DNA was not the real killer? perhaps my hypothetical is unreasonable. Well, in your paradigm unreasonable doubt is still doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt means just that, doubt that is based on a reason, not pure speculation. Anything less is not beyond a reasonable doubt and there should be no conviction in the first place.
I appreciate this man's difficult service and his willingness to share it with us.
However, it does not make me reconsider my view that capital punishment is appropriate for society's worst. From what the author has written, the men he executed were accused and convicted of horrific crimes. Many people seem eager to refer to capital punishment as another form of murder, but it's simply not; and when you pretend it is, you are distorting it. There is no equivalence between what death row inmates have done and what punishment they'll receive. It may very well be that the death penalty contains some strain of vengeance in its DNA. That possibility alone does not bother me one bit. It's possible that ANY punishment is a tool of vengeance. That doesn't change its appropriateness or useful ness in my eyes. The death penalty is a form of justice for our most heinous criminals, and while I believe it should only be used in the most extreme circumstances, it is not inherently immoral.
However, it does not make me reconsider my view that capital punishment is appropriate for society's worst. From what the author has written, the men he executed were accused and convicted of horrific crimes. Many people seem eager to refer to capital punishment as another form of murder, but it's simply not; and when you pretend it is, you are distorting it. There is no equivalence between what death row inmates have done and what punishment they'll receive. It may very well be that the death penalty contains some strain of vengeance in its DNA. That possibility alone does not bother me one bit. It's possible that ANY punishment is a tool of vengeance. That doesn't change its appropriateness or useful ness in my eyes. The death penalty is a form of justice for our most heinous criminals, and while I believe it should only be used in the most extreme circumstances, it is not inherently immoral.
2
What would Jesus do? He wouldn't kill, I'll tell you that.
1
thankfully, we all don't have to see how the sausage is made, because man is it righteously delicious.
(3 men and a boy? He's abandoned all principles of society. The other, he's avoiding arrest during a felony, life no possibility imho)
(3 men and a boy? He's abandoned all principles of society. The other, he's avoiding arrest during a felony, life no possibility imho)
1
I share this sentiment exactly. Either you have complete respect for the life of sentient beings or we don't. Our society has no problem euthanizing hundreds of thousands of stray animals, the vast majority highly emotionally intelligent, a year. We breed and kill whole species of animals so we can have filet mignon on our table. Heck, we murder innocent civilians of our own species in far off lands as acceptable collateral damage.
People against the death penalty do not adequately address how hypocritical they are when they support systems that kill sentient beings, yet are against a system which kills individuals that have committed the gravest of crimes; go read the Wikipedia pages on Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy and you will really process what they did. I for one recognize what I do I eat a piece of meat, but that is the world I inhabit. Additionally, I can comprehend that when people violate the strong principles that bind a society, namely don't brutally murder your fellow citizens, real consequences must be had.
People against the death penalty do not adequately address how hypocritical they are when they support systems that kill sentient beings, yet are against a system which kills individuals that have committed the gravest of crimes; go read the Wikipedia pages on Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy and you will really process what they did. I for one recognize what I do I eat a piece of meat, but that is the world I inhabit. Additionally, I can comprehend that when people violate the strong principles that bind a society, namely don't brutally murder your fellow citizens, real consequences must be had.
2
Thank you so much for sharing this. I am personally opposed to the death penalty on the grounds that we as a species are not infallible. Mistakes get made, and far too often the person who is punished has a brown hue to their skin. Until we can eliminate potential errors there needs to be a moratorium on the death penalty. When the day arises, that we can determine with absolute certainty, that a person has committed these most heinous of crimes, off with their heads !!!
"Most Americans support the death penalty."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/04/17/most-ameri...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/04/17/most-ameri...
4
Maybe in the abstract. Mr. . Thompson's article is far from abstract. How many of those in support would be actually willing to carry it out?
This death by chemical process needs to be eliminated in favor of hanging or the firing squad. Too much time is being allowed to empathize with these threats to society and that includes other prisoners and the guards.
They've committed the ultimate insult to proper society and keeping them alive just adds to the insult. and they are a danger to other inmates and prison workers.
You can put me on the list of people would would willingly perform the service.
They've committed the ultimate insult to proper society and keeping them alive just adds to the insult. and they are a danger to other inmates and prison workers.
You can put me on the list of people would would willingly perform the service.
I appreciate Mr. Thompson's honesty and the concerns expressed in this opinion piece. But I could not disagree more. The prisoners were convicted. They even confessed to their crimes. Should they go free, released after a few years of prison on compassionate release? Perhaps to track down their prosecutors and jury members and kill again, as has been the case in at least two California "compassionate releases." Should jurors and prosecutors live in fear that they will be tracked down and killed by released convicted killers? As to their suffering during execution, my advice is think of the victims, and their families, and how they suffered. The families of many murder victims ask to be present at the execution as it helps give them closure for a life wrongly taken. Why should their death be an easy one when their victims' was not. A life sentence is not always a life sentence. Prisoners with life sentences can escape, assisted by people employed by the prison, as we have so often seen. Or they are given compassionate release, and as they have nothing to lose, kill again. Why put innocent people at risk?
In the future forensics and surveillance will reach a point where guilt or innocence is established absolutely. Technology will allow for executions that leave no prison worker traumatized. 'Morality' will be understood as too culturally subjective to use as a basis for killing or not killing, and in any case both pro and con arguments can be made from the Judeo-Christian position.
Also, self-administered euthanasia will be routine for people too old or too sick to want to go on living. So how to answer this question?
One may be "against" the death penalty for reasons of economics, squeamishness, or religious teaching, but one can be "for" the death penalty only because it "feels right", since it is no more a deterrent than life in prison.
Most Interestingly, only 13% of Boston residents supported death for Dzhokhar Tarnaev. In the greater Boston area it was 17%. And In the nation as a whole it was 53%. Thus one can see the utterly subjective nature of support for the death penalty, (including in the US Government's successful campaign to sentence Tsarnaev to death).
Also, self-administered euthanasia will be routine for people too old or too sick to want to go on living. So how to answer this question?
One may be "against" the death penalty for reasons of economics, squeamishness, or religious teaching, but one can be "for" the death penalty only because it "feels right", since it is no more a deterrent than life in prison.
Most Interestingly, only 13% of Boston residents supported death for Dzhokhar Tarnaev. In the greater Boston area it was 17%. And In the nation as a whole it was 53%. Thus one can see the utterly subjective nature of support for the death penalty, (including in the US Government's successful campaign to sentence Tsarnaev to death).
I am interested to read many comments to the effect that life is somehow sacred. Where does that idea come from? Certainly life is not sacred to a murderer. I also hear it argued that the death penalty has no utility. That is irrelevant. We should not be killing people merely for utilitarian reasons. Western societies have long ago abandoned the idea that our institutions have any legitimacy. They are at best considered a necessary evil and from this position the value of a single life outweighs any claims of the state. However, it's worth considering whether the actions of some people place themselves so far beyond the pale that they have forfeited any claim to the only thing of value which they have, their own miserable life.
1
I respect and even sympathize with Mr Thompson's views. But he suffers from a lack of perspecuity with regard to our legal system, despite his former important role in it.
Prosecuting attorneys are often able to secure conviction of one criminal through the threat of the death penalty, often by inducing betrayal of an accomplice. Criminals are, despite appeals and delays, afraid of capital punishment, and eager to betray partners in crime if they can cut a deal. If judicious DA's use this power fairly, it is an invaluable tool in fighting crime. Mr Thompson doesn't have the stomach for the death penalty process, and I confess I couldn't do it either. But there are men and women who feel criminals in war (Nazis, Toho's henchman) and peace (contract killers, etc) have so forfeited human decency that they deserve to die for their actions.
Prosecuting attorneys are often able to secure conviction of one criminal through the threat of the death penalty, often by inducing betrayal of an accomplice. Criminals are, despite appeals and delays, afraid of capital punishment, and eager to betray partners in crime if they can cut a deal. If judicious DA's use this power fairly, it is an invaluable tool in fighting crime. Mr Thompson doesn't have the stomach for the death penalty process, and I confess I couldn't do it either. But there are men and women who feel criminals in war (Nazis, Toho's henchman) and peace (contract killers, etc) have so forfeited human decency that they deserve to die for their actions.
1
The ritual murder known as capital punishment is a repugnant blot on the collective soul. It must be repealed in all 50 states. Until that time, the literal act of pressing the fatal buttons should be the direct, *personal* responsibility of the Governor her/himself.
1
I find it strange that a so called christian nation would sanction legalised revenge killing. The gospel of Jesus Christ is based on the hope of repentance and salvation for the sinner. This can take time and maturity. If you top the sinner the element of time and therefore the possibility of salvation is extinguished. The U.S. is a truly violent nation. Policemen aren't policemen they are 'law enforcement officers', prisons aren't prisons they are 'correctional facilities' or 'penitentiaries'. All euphemisms papering over the very ugly thuggish nature of the national mind. There is no correction involved and penitence is not the aim. I despair for the future of the US. It seems to me that civil war and national break up are inevitable. Business, politics and the law are controlled by gangsterism. Foreign policy is an extension of this self justifying brutality. The American dream is someone else's nightmare.
If we didn't make execution such a Black Mass it would help. Prison employees conflation with social work notwithstanding As a taxpayer I'm good with a Huey, a pistol and an unannounced one way trip to the deep blue sea. These menaces to society don't deserve a burial. If it's good enough for Osama bin Laden then good enough for these losers.
Death penalty proponents always start with the assumption they have the guy and he's guilty as sin. And if he looks like a scary person of color or has a history of criminality, then no punishment is too severe. Capital punishment also happens to serve the political ambitions of wanna-be tough guy prosecutors and politicians. You can't be more authoritarian than when you wield the power of life and death.
I don’t doubt that there are people who deserve to die for their crimes. I just don’t trust our justice system to be uniformly fair and efficient in finding the guilty and only the guilty in the appropriate measure. Nor do I think we should piously subject any of our fellow citizens to being executioners.
In many parts of the country racial bias seems to be present at all stages from questioning and charging to verdict and sentence. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, police and prosecutorial misconduct are not rare, and ineffective and incompetent defense counsel is often baked into the system. The Innocence Project has repeatedly exonerated people where DNA evidence was pertinent.
We have a justice system that’s very far from perfect, and virtual perfection should be required before state sponsored homicide is condoned and carried out. Even then, it's hard to argue it's morally acceptable beyond some pre-christian sense of retribution.
I don’t doubt that there are people who deserve to die for their crimes. I just don’t trust our justice system to be uniformly fair and efficient in finding the guilty and only the guilty in the appropriate measure. Nor do I think we should piously subject any of our fellow citizens to being executioners.
In many parts of the country racial bias seems to be present at all stages from questioning and charging to verdict and sentence. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, police and prosecutorial misconduct are not rare, and ineffective and incompetent defense counsel is often baked into the system. The Innocence Project has repeatedly exonerated people where DNA evidence was pertinent.
We have a justice system that’s very far from perfect, and virtual perfection should be required before state sponsored homicide is condoned and carried out. Even then, it's hard to argue it's morally acceptable beyond some pre-christian sense of retribution.
2
Why don't we offer Death Row inmates the option of assisted suicide? Why should they sit around in prison for years, I mean it costs money to feed them. And the relatives to the victim could be invited, even participate in the execution. Let's get real.
2
As absurd as it may sound, I've often thought this option should be offered to convicts facing life without parole. If they don't want to hang around – let them go!
Of course, practical considerations, coercion chief among them, would (and in realty probably should) prevent this from ever being law. Still, an interesting idea.
Of course, practical considerations, coercion chief among them, would (and in realty probably should) prevent this from ever being law. Still, an interesting idea.
1
I do not believe that we as citizens have the right to take another life. I believe in a loving God who is ultimately the judge and jury. As a Christian I believe that forgiveness of sins and a relationship with The Almighty is always a possibility and we should never curtail or shorten the offender's ability to make peace with the Lord. The death-row prisoner's life belongs to God, not us. Executing someone will never undo the damage done to the victims -- it will not bring the victim back. The death sentence actually costs the taxpayers more monetarily than sustaining that person for life while in prison due to the legal appeals process.
I generally agree. My problem is with the Timothy McVeighs, Seung-Hi Chos and Nidal Hasans of the world. Did President Obama err in approving the killing of bin Laden?
So I generally oppose the death penalty. But I'm not capable of forgiving mass murderers.
So I generally oppose the death penalty. But I'm not capable of forgiving mass murderers.
1
Perhaps if I could be judge, jury, and executioner I would support the death penalty. Until then, I must agree with Mr. Thompson. It is poor policy for a civilized society to execute people, no matter how heinous they may be. To do otherwise blurs the distinction between us and countries like North Korea and China.
Justice.
Thompson forgot all about it.
It is the reason those two were executed and why all sentences are given.
It is, by far, the most important part of the criminal justice system,
Thomson "forgot" it.
The juries did not.
Thompson forgot all about it.
It is the reason those two were executed and why all sentences are given.
It is, by far, the most important part of the criminal justice system,
Thomson "forgot" it.
The juries did not.
3
Our legal system is imperfect. Juries do not always have all the evidence. More and more death row inmates are being exonerated based upon newly discovered evidence.
Were capital punishment about deterrent, the fate of Cain would have preempted the countless millions murdered since. No, capital punishment is simply that- punishment. Punishment for the most heinous, inhuman actions. It is exactly the sentences this country is carrying out all over ISIL-held territories. And deservedly so. As for civilian considerations, no one begrudges those whose religious or moral codes prevent their involvement and they should not be pilloried for their sensitivities. But in the cases where there is legitimate, adjudicated sentences of death, a firing squad, without application of a coup de gras, is the most humane method for both those charged with carrying out the sentence and those suffering its application.
An execution ought be reserved for the repeat offenders, viz., repeat murderers and rapists, and only cases where the burden of doubt is as close to nil as possible (e.g., video evidence + multiple witnesses + etc.).
The point of an execution ought not be thought of punishment, but of public safety, which is what much of "law" is about: protecting the public from those who would break the law. Death actually makes no sense as a punishment, but it makes quite reasonable sense as protecting the public from a serial rapist.
How an execution is actually carried out is another debate, and one that deserves much attention. Yet, quick is the operative word, I would think. To be humane, meaning not grossly violent (e.g., tossed to crocodiles) is important, but aside from commonsense, the very idea of 'humane' is rather irrelevant once execution has been determined as necessary.
Necessary for public safety.
The point of an execution ought not be thought of punishment, but of public safety, which is what much of "law" is about: protecting the public from those who would break the law. Death actually makes no sense as a punishment, but it makes quite reasonable sense as protecting the public from a serial rapist.
How an execution is actually carried out is another debate, and one that deserves much attention. Yet, quick is the operative word, I would think. To be humane, meaning not grossly violent (e.g., tossed to crocodiles) is important, but aside from commonsense, the very idea of 'humane' is rather irrelevant once execution has been determined as necessary.
Necessary for public safety.
1
In keeping on topic with Mr. Thompson's article, would you be willing to carry out executions?
Years ago I listened to a presentation of research on a "scared straight" program in Texas. The presenter showed that his data fit data published on other programs and general penal programs. He explained it well. The deterrence effect of punishment rests on the three "Ss": surety of being caught, swiftness of delivery of punishment, and severity of punishment. All studies show that the first S has the biggest effect while the last S has by far the least. If you do not believe that you will be caught, the other two Ss do not matter. Yet the US continues to increase punishment for deterrence--Sen. Cotton says that we have an under-incarceration problem.
In the end, the death penalty is a Satanic ritual designed to appease the blood lust of the masses.
In the end, the death penalty is a Satanic ritual designed to appease the blood lust of the masses.
3
Only those who vote for the death penalty and its proponents share the blame. It is a false equivalency to compare those who live in the society in opposition to its worst failings and those who not only do not oppose but support them. Those who agree with bullying, racism, violence toward those with whom we disagree and other antisocial manifestations must bear all of the burden of blame and guilt for the horrors resulting from those attitudes.
2
I think the point of "we all share the burden" is to remind us all of that in a democratic society, if we do not oppose, we acquiesce, and thus tacitly support. I oppose. Do I do enough to oppose? Probably not. Do you?
I think you miss the central point of this piece. It's neither fair, reasonable, nor possible to place the "blame" on the "others" who do not share your "enlightened" point of view.
This issue generates strong views, but executions are rare enough to affect few people directly. The issue became personal for me after the murder of a childhood friend in our early 20s. That crime led to a death sentence and the execution of the man who attacked my friend, a bright, compassionate young woman who planned to study law and thought of becoming a public defender.
Americans tend to be vindictive, and I soon realized that the only politically correct response to that situation was a revenge fantasy: inflicting great suffering on the man responsible for taking my friend's life and for causing such terrible damage on her family and friends. Initially, that intense anger consumed me and I often imagined violent retribution against the killer. But I soon realized that I gained nothing from going down that path. It was up to the state to deal with the killer, and I had to find other ways to honor my friend and a short lifetime of friendship. The execution provided a legal and moral resolution, however imperfect, to my friend's murder, but it could not, as the cliché goes, provide "closure," which is unattainable anyway.
If the subject comes up, I say that the best way to respond to this loss has not been to dwell on the killer's fate, but to sustain the legacy that my friend left to her family, her friends, and to the communities that nurtured her and that she in turn enriched.
Thanks to Mr. Thompson for making this issue less of an abstraction.
Americans tend to be vindictive, and I soon realized that the only politically correct response to that situation was a revenge fantasy: inflicting great suffering on the man responsible for taking my friend's life and for causing such terrible damage on her family and friends. Initially, that intense anger consumed me and I often imagined violent retribution against the killer. But I soon realized that I gained nothing from going down that path. It was up to the state to deal with the killer, and I had to find other ways to honor my friend and a short lifetime of friendship. The execution provided a legal and moral resolution, however imperfect, to my friend's murder, but it could not, as the cliché goes, provide "closure," which is unattainable anyway.
If the subject comes up, I say that the best way to respond to this loss has not been to dwell on the killer's fate, but to sustain the legacy that my friend left to her family, her friends, and to the communities that nurtured her and that she in turn enriched.
Thanks to Mr. Thompson for making this issue less of an abstraction.
6
Should one not start with: what is the AIM of a particular criminal justice system? Societies differ on that questions. (Some beg that question.) Is its purpose solely law enforcement? Increasingly the implicit answer is 'yes'. The number of persons engaged in every aspect of law enforcement has increased dramatically. Law enforcement has become an industry. It is sought after for 'jobs'. By industry it is sought after for 'private enterprise'. By Judges it is sought after a politically privileged position.
The system as it has devolved for the body politic is one that is ridden with with public and private security 'patrolman'. No public or private space where persons is not under vigilance. Cameras every where. Patrol; in front of stores. Paramilitary officers in masks. Patrols in Humvee.
Civil society, and its elected 'job holders', have found no better means for securing compliance with its ordinances than evermore enlisted person in the ranks of licensed weapon carriers. Civil society and its minion of elected leaders fully fail to perform their duty to fashion a society in which decent values are praiseworthy, in which every effort is made to enhance the human role in social life, to assume responsibility for the well-being of each constituents.
The criminal justice system described in the article reflects in a larger context the egregious failure of elected civil government to perform its function and cover-up its failure with a law enforcement battalions.
The system as it has devolved for the body politic is one that is ridden with with public and private security 'patrolman'. No public or private space where persons is not under vigilance. Cameras every where. Patrol; in front of stores. Paramilitary officers in masks. Patrols in Humvee.
Civil society, and its elected 'job holders', have found no better means for securing compliance with its ordinances than evermore enlisted person in the ranks of licensed weapon carriers. Civil society and its minion of elected leaders fully fail to perform their duty to fashion a society in which decent values are praiseworthy, in which every effort is made to enhance the human role in social life, to assume responsibility for the well-being of each constituents.
The criminal justice system described in the article reflects in a larger context the egregious failure of elected civil government to perform its function and cover-up its failure with a law enforcement battalions.
1
I have no issue with the death penalty as long as it's reserved for the worst murderers (e.g., rape murders, torture murders, execution-style killings of multiple people, etc.) where there's no doubt at all as to the defendant's guilt. Unfortunately that's not always the case. If there's any doubt at all, life without parole is always the better choice. It also makes no sense to wait 20 years to execute someone. To have any chance of a deterrent effect, death sentences must routinely be carried out within no more than 5 years.
One advantage of having the death penalty that is often ignored is that it allows the DA to make a deal for life without the possibility of parole to compel testimony that will help convict co-defendants or in exchange for information on additional murders/bodies, providing much needed closure to grieving families. This is how the Green River Killer avoided the death penalty. If Washington state hadn't had the death penalty at that time, the only way to get this serial killer to cooperate would have been to offer him a sentence involving parole after X years, and even that wouldn't be as much of an incentive as avoiding the death penalty. Because while anti-death penalty advocates often argue that decades behind bars is worse punishment than a death sentence, the overwhelming majority of murderers disagree, as evidenced by the fact that they're desperate to make a deal that will take the death penalty off the table.
One advantage of having the death penalty that is often ignored is that it allows the DA to make a deal for life without the possibility of parole to compel testimony that will help convict co-defendants or in exchange for information on additional murders/bodies, providing much needed closure to grieving families. This is how the Green River Killer avoided the death penalty. If Washington state hadn't had the death penalty at that time, the only way to get this serial killer to cooperate would have been to offer him a sentence involving parole after X years, and even that wouldn't be as much of an incentive as avoiding the death penalty. Because while anti-death penalty advocates often argue that decades behind bars is worse punishment than a death sentence, the overwhelming majority of murderers disagree, as evidenced by the fact that they're desperate to make a deal that will take the death penalty off the table.
6
The great majority of these criminals have forfeited the right to continue living, but they do so at our expenses.
So we charge others to eliminate them for us. There must be a better way. Maybe put them all on an inescapable island, and let them try to survive each other.
So we charge others to eliminate them for us. There must be a better way. Maybe put them all on an inescapable island, and let them try to survive each other.
One of the prisoners threatened anyone who blocked his execution. Not granting his request could only be justified by some abstract interest of the state. But death penalty states have already decided that there is no abstract interest sufficient to bar executions. That leaves only the reservations of a minority of the people to bar execution. The abstract view on which such minorities rely are virtually always in the nature of a religion. The quasi "religious" beliefs of this minority simply lack the legitimacy to direct the actions of the state contrary to majority opinion.
2
The rule of law has been put into effect of our civilization under the auspice of justice and not revenge for this reason: English law had persons hung for an infinite number of petty crimes by todays standards.
Homicide is the heinous crime. Taking life from life.
With the propensity of prosecutorial with-holding exculpatory evidence, the propensity of bigoted and hate by juries, prosecutors, police and the advent of DNA evidence that confirms innocence, we must stop capital punishment. The innocent may live to set free and the guilty will have to live a lifetime of dealing with the consequences of their action to kill.
Homicide is the heinous crime. Taking life from life.
With the propensity of prosecutorial with-holding exculpatory evidence, the propensity of bigoted and hate by juries, prosecutors, police and the advent of DNA evidence that confirms innocence, we must stop capital punishment. The innocent may live to set free and the guilty will have to live a lifetime of dealing with the consequences of their action to kill.
6
Once upon a time, people were barbarians who carried weapons 24/7 and believed in witchcraft and demons as the cause of infectious disease. We've made progress. Nobody dresses wounds with dog poo any more, and most people understand the article- the premise that killing another healthy human damages the humanity of those required to do it legally. Nothing is gained, but the upstanding are harmed by it.
Then abolish protective custody.
It's too bad Mr. Thompson couldn't look into the dead eyes of Moore's half-sister and her former husband or the eyes of the three dead homeless men Wright killed or of the 10-year-old boy Moore kidnapped, molested and killed.
7
It's too bad Mr. Thompson couldn't look into the dead eyes of Moore's half-sister and her former husband or the eyes of the three dead homeless men Wright killed or of the 10-year-old boy Wright kidnapped, molested and killed.
13
In my humble opinion the death penalty is not between the general public, the executioner, or the witnesses. It is between the victim's family and the perpetrator. I rarely hear or read from victims' families in these debates. Why not? Mr. Thompson does not give us insight into how the father or mother of the murderers' victims feel about his duty. I, for one, would take great pride in avenging the murder of a family member against the animal who would take the life of someone I love.
Food for thought: collectively American society supported hunting down and killing Osama Bin Laden for orchestrating the 9/11 attacks, yet we waver on whether to enact justice to men and women who maim and murder. Rarely are murder victims given the safety and planned executions states provide. They are often shot, cut up, ran over, poisoned, tortured, etc.
Simply, evil people the states put to death get off easy.
Food for thought: collectively American society supported hunting down and killing Osama Bin Laden for orchestrating the 9/11 attacks, yet we waver on whether to enact justice to men and women who maim and murder. Rarely are murder victims given the safety and planned executions states provide. They are often shot, cut up, ran over, poisoned, tortured, etc.
Simply, evil people the states put to death get off easy.
7
Do you want to do the executions? The writer doesn't quibble over whether it's a just act. He discusses the harm done to those who have to actually do this ugly thing. It's very easy to preach eye for eye when there won't be blood on your own hands. Requiring the good guys to forfeit part of their soul as part of employment because they participate in this action needs to be considered. The death penalty is nice in theory, but way too rough on the prison staff.
We elect our state governments and both trust and expect they will act on our interests. When they pass laws and those laws are enforced in the courts, they are, supposedly, representing the will of the people. If the will of the people is that certain crimes are so heinous the only appropriate punishment is death, then the state penitentiary staff -- including its superintendent -- are to do the jobs for which they are paid.
This does not negate Thompson's analysis and the conclusion he reached. But, if the job requirements were against his beliefs , he should have resigned, then. Instead, he continued in his post, responsible for acts against his belief system, until he could retire with, I presume, full retiree benefits.
Perhaps I am being overly cynical. But I remain unconvinced.
This does not negate Thompson's analysis and the conclusion he reached. But, if the job requirements were against his beliefs , he should have resigned, then. Instead, he continued in his post, responsible for acts against his belief system, until he could retire with, I presume, full retiree benefits.
Perhaps I am being overly cynical. But I remain unconvinced.
9
Mr. Thompson,
Thank you for your enlightened story of your experiences. I have always viewed capital punishment as justified, but agree that it is more vengeance that a deterrent. Just looking at the number of homicides each year ridicules that idea.
However, I never really considered how the act of performing the duty affected the personnel at the facility carrying out the death sentence. I now have a different perspective and much more to think about.
Thank you for your enlightened story of your experiences. I have always viewed capital punishment as justified, but agree that it is more vengeance that a deterrent. Just looking at the number of homicides each year ridicules that idea.
However, I never really considered how the act of performing the duty affected the personnel at the facility carrying out the death sentence. I now have a different perspective and much more to think about.
23
I can't get over the hypocrisy of people who decry executions under sharia law, yet accept that we do it here under common law, supposedly "more humanely." Or those who kill doctors who perform abortions. Or those who are adamant about not letting any gun control measure go through, or anyone who supports war. Either life is sacred, or it's not.
16
"I can't get over the hypocrisy of people who decry executions "
I can.
Sharia law demands execution for adultery, common law does not.
I don't know of any one but a psychopath who declares himself judge, jury and executioner.
You people who want gun control actually want gun confiscation if one sees clearly that every form of registration has always led to confiscation.
Wars are fought for pride. It's our oldest known failing, recorded in verbal and then written histories and myths. The serpent appealed to Eve's pride.
Life is sacred to those who hold to that idea. For those who don't there is denial of it just as they denied it.
I can.
Sharia law demands execution for adultery, common law does not.
I don't know of any one but a psychopath who declares himself judge, jury and executioner.
You people who want gun control actually want gun confiscation if one sees clearly that every form of registration has always led to confiscation.
Wars are fought for pride. It's our oldest known failing, recorded in verbal and then written histories and myths. The serpent appealed to Eve's pride.
Life is sacred to those who hold to that idea. For those who don't there is denial of it just as they denied it.
If the men Mr. Thompson executed were murderers, instead of executing them, perhaps Mr. Thompson would have been comfortable executing their victims.
3
Seriously? What a nasty horrific thing to say. That he felt a qualm about taking a human life is a sign of his humanity and intellignece. That you could suggest he would prefer to have snuffed out his victims shows that you have neither.
1
Or, he is not comfortable executing anyone.
This story fails to mention the decades of research done by Professor Craig Haney of University of California Santa Cruz. His Prison Project research arose from his early work on the Stanford Prison Experiment team. Their findings from those years of research worldwide were released more than a decade ago and they refute the 2012 study and nearly every other study. The one and only factor that determines a country's murder rate after researching dozens of countries is: Was the country engaged in a shooting war in the last 20 years.
Apparently when a country legalizes and even requires killing of other humans the population takes it to heart. Once having crossed the line and having killed another human you are changed forever and that sense permeates your society your culture and everyone you know.
Apparently when a country legalizes and even requires killing of other humans the population takes it to heart. Once having crossed the line and having killed another human you are changed forever and that sense permeates your society your culture and everyone you know.
6
Enter Texas. The nation's waterwheel of state executions; 537 since 1982; of the 15 in 2016, six (along with GA) and four more scheduled. With fluid efficiency, after a federal appeals court ruling this week, "the state back in the business of carrying out death sentences."
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Texas-executions-could-g...
As only OH currently has [nine] executions scheduled in 2017 http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/upcoming-executions, Texas should really keep the crown for nation's most bastardized state by the liberals in each and every category.
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Texas-executions-could-g...
As only OH currently has [nine] executions scheduled in 2017 http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/upcoming-executions, Texas should really keep the crown for nation's most bastardized state by the liberals in each and every category.
There are many reasons to oppose the death penalty. Consider this: you can only execute someone once. If you keep a person in prison for life, you've got years to give him boredom, uninteresting food, and unending regret.
10
And if your a teacher you buy pencils and paper for students out of your own wallet.
Re: "The average citizen will never find himself looking a death row prisoner in the eye..."
And will the average citizen ever find himself looking a death row prisoner's victim in the eye?
And will the average citizen ever find himself looking a death row prisoner's victim in the eye?
6
It is the duty of the State to protect citizens from criminals, by any means necessary. If executing felons is the only means available to protect us, execute them.
3
I'm for brain surgery for all classes of violent criminal behavior including cases of mind boggling hateful fraud and its dire consequences. Better than spending thousands and thousands of dollars on prison upkeep.
2
I really appreciate hearing this first hand account. I have wondered whether the people responsible for executing prisoners have any qualms about what they are doing. Thank you for expressing your feelings and observations. I am very grateful to know that you and some of your staff have doubts.
Maybe in some cases, there isn't even a faint hope that the person who committed such crimes will get even a remote concept of the harm they have done. Nevertheless, as long as there is life, there is that remote possibility. In death, there is nothing.
If there were really that maker somewhere, if there were really that judgment day when we have to stand before an omniscient God, then nothing would be hidden or cloaked and we could be sure that such a judgment would be just and fair; be it handed down. However, we are human. We do not know what actually comes after (if anything). We cannot bring back what was lost.
Therefore, this side of the equation, all we have is the very faint hope that maybe a few people will finally wake up. I think the victims would rather know that the person really understands the wrong he/she has done, rather than just to die with no understanding. Life may not bring that either, but it is what we have on this side of the great river we will all cross when the time comes.
Maybe in some cases, there isn't even a faint hope that the person who committed such crimes will get even a remote concept of the harm they have done. Nevertheless, as long as there is life, there is that remote possibility. In death, there is nothing.
If there were really that maker somewhere, if there were really that judgment day when we have to stand before an omniscient God, then nothing would be hidden or cloaked and we could be sure that such a judgment would be just and fair; be it handed down. However, we are human. We do not know what actually comes after (if anything). We cannot bring back what was lost.
Therefore, this side of the equation, all we have is the very faint hope that maybe a few people will finally wake up. I think the victims would rather know that the person really understands the wrong he/she has done, rather than just to die with no understanding. Life may not bring that either, but it is what we have on this side of the great river we will all cross when the time comes.
8
I can understand Mr. Thompson's feelings but, in the other hand, I realize that we need to get rid of some human beings because they are a menace to all of us. When you abolish the death penalty, you are telling the victim your life is not as important as your killer's; and we tell the killer, no matter how heinous your crime is, we'll guarantee you your life, similar to the one your destroyed, three meals a day, medical attention, a law library, even TV and haircuts. Try to picture one of these monsters torturing and raping a three years old girl and afterward strangling her to make sure she doesn't talk. Nope. The ones who kill in the commission of a crime must die. If some people consider this revenge, so be it. The same people whom condemn the death penalty, don't have any problems with sending thousands of soldiers with lethal weaponry to a foreign country that never did anything wrong to us, and kill their men, women and children. At least the ones put to death it's for something that many times they themselves admitted to have done it. Capisce?
6
As I've read, court verdicts in the time of Jesus were not expressed as guilty or not guilty, but justified or not justified. It seems I have seen in my lifetime that more and more what were once regarded as criminal acts are now seen as justified: the perpetrator suffered abuse, neglect, is prone to genetic vulnerabilities or is a social outsider. Prosecutors did not meet standards of due process or investigations were not legal. Apparently not a joke that one defense seemed to suggest the privileged status of defendant compromised his ability to act responsibly; or he had eaten too many Twinkies. I don't think what is going on is forgiveness. Not answering blood with blood means room and board for life. Another thing to justify.
If the death penalty deters even one murder, it’s worth it. Having been a police officer and jail guard I’ve talked with a number of inmates and criminals. There were a few, I have no idea how many, that still fear the death penalty. Obviously those that commit crimes of passion usually don’t think of the consequences of their actions. But those planning or plotting murder, which is First Degree, are fully aware of the various penalties. They also understand people live long full lives on death row. That many death sentences are commuted. That life in prison can be an acceptable alternate world, with its own flexible societies, social structures; extended educational opportunities; all of which make “Being Institutionalized” as an acceptable life; if you’re caught. And many murderers aren’t.
If we’re to employ the death penalty as deterrent; it must be swift and just. Knowing that it often takes 20-years to actually be executed ruins the deterrent effect. And we should return to public executions. And it should be hanging or the guillotine.
If we’re to employ the death penalty as deterrent; it must be swift and just. Knowing that it often takes 20-years to actually be executed ruins the deterrent effect. And we should return to public executions. And it should be hanging or the guillotine.
2
Maybe if we get a Supreme Court judge with a modicum of ethics and common sense, we can finally stop being a nation of murderers.
5
"Maybe if we get a Supreme Court judge with a modicum of ethics and common sense, we can finally stop being a nation of murderers." Don't include me in your feelings of guilt. Executing a murderer is nothing to feel guilt for.
Mr. Thompson makes it clear that the death penalty is not just about an idea of justice; it's about the humanity of the executioners. It's comforting in a way to know that those closest to the process suffer for it, that they experience their duties as a violation of their own humanity. We need to consider them too, and ourselves.
8
Which burden is bigger to watch: public viewing of brutal killings by terrorists/criminals/rapists or the hangman's rare of the rare executions?
1
I am opposed to the death penalty on several grounds, but I think one of the most powerful arguments against it is that serving for the rest of one's life in prison with no hope of ever getting out is a far worse punishment than being erased and having one's earthly presence ended. Just ask Leslie Van Houtem, one of the Manson girls. She has been in prison for 46 years. She is now a mature 66 year old woman with college degrees. She is a completely different person from the foolish drug-taking young woman of the 1960's. Her requests for parole have been turned down something like 14 times. She is in absolute agony in prison. The chances are she will never receive parole. She is destined to die in prison. She will probably live another 20 years, and being in prison will be increasingly agonizing. To me that is the real punishment, not releasing someone from this life. Then it is over. I say put these terrible people in prison and throw away the key. Let them suffer in a concrete building with bars, terrible people for companions and complete loss of freedom, until they die.
37
Canada doesn't have the death penalty, hasn't had for decades now. Every once in a while, someone floats the idea of reinstating it. Even our national experience of heinous serial murderers (Clifford Olson, Paul Bernardo, Russell Williams, others) has not moved the populace to support its reinstatement.
For criminals such as these, when there is no doubt of their guilt, I would vote for the death penalty.
I take your point that "true life" may be more punitive than the death penalty, but I have several concerns.
Clifford Olson's case disputes that. Through the decades of his imprisonment, he tortured the legal system & the Canadian public with repeated complaints about conditions of his imprisonment, & repeated appeals. There are no indications that he was "punished" by his imprisonment.
Then there is the cost. It's extremely expensive to keep these convicts imprisoned for the length of their lives, fed, housed, protected to any extent, guarded, given health care, etc. I am not arguing against those costs for cases other than these heinous ones, but in these cases, I would far, far rather see the funds going to prevention, victim services, a raft of alternate needs.
And there is the point Thompson raises: what is the effect on guards & other penitentiary staff, of living side by side with these monsters for all those years?
I don't believe that the death penalty is a deterrent--all evidence refutes that. But I do think, in some cases, it is the lesser of two evils.
For criminals such as these, when there is no doubt of their guilt, I would vote for the death penalty.
I take your point that "true life" may be more punitive than the death penalty, but I have several concerns.
Clifford Olson's case disputes that. Through the decades of his imprisonment, he tortured the legal system & the Canadian public with repeated complaints about conditions of his imprisonment, & repeated appeals. There are no indications that he was "punished" by his imprisonment.
Then there is the cost. It's extremely expensive to keep these convicts imprisoned for the length of their lives, fed, housed, protected to any extent, guarded, given health care, etc. I am not arguing against those costs for cases other than these heinous ones, but in these cases, I would far, far rather see the funds going to prevention, victim services, a raft of alternate needs.
And there is the point Thompson raises: what is the effect on guards & other penitentiary staff, of living side by side with these monsters for all those years?
I don't believe that the death penalty is a deterrent--all evidence refutes that. But I do think, in some cases, it is the lesser of two evils.
4
Why not do it up real Old Testament: skin covered with boils, eyes pecked out by crows, perpetual nausea, with a bonus torture of forced listening to D.T. speeches, over and over again
2
If death is preferable to long-term imprisonment, then suicide in that population would be rampant. It isn't.
1
The argument put forth by Semon Thompson is a solid one, based on what it does to those that carry out the executions, and that it has no established deterrent effect. Apart from that, it's expensive--and sometimes innocents die. Indeed, the death penalty's only function seems to be revenge--those to be executed clearly do not like it and will fight tooth-and-nail to avoid it, and it does give some closure to some families. Is that a worthy trade-off for our collective humanity? Not for me.
7
I used to be an "eye for an eye" person but a few things changed my mind, in spite of still wanting revenge etc. First is the possibility of killing an innocent person, which is not just theoretical- it has happened more then once. The second more practical reason is the enormous cost involved in th appeals process passed on to all of us. Far more then incarceration costs. Third is the real effect on the person that committed the crime over many years for which I have no sympathy which in part ameliorates my revenge factor. Lastly is the possibility that we got the wrong person and that they have a chance to be vindicated.
2
It's expensive because we allow these people the flimsiest excuses s the basis of an appeal.
The first appeal should call for a complete review of the trial for inconsistencies. After that there should be little reason for an appeal.
Present day sentences drag on for years because of the amount of time that passes between the appeal and judgement. It shouldn't take years for a review, a special court should be appointed to review them to discourage this farce.
Every lawyer who files one of these appeals should be fined for wasting the courts' time. There are lawyers who make their living filing these cases for the same inmates over and over.
The first appeal should call for a complete review of the trial for inconsistencies. After that there should be little reason for an appeal.
Present day sentences drag on for years because of the amount of time that passes between the appeal and judgement. It shouldn't take years for a review, a special court should be appointed to review them to discourage this farce.
Every lawyer who files one of these appeals should be fined for wasting the courts' time. There are lawyers who make their living filing these cases for the same inmates over and over.
Thank you for this, Mr. Thompson.
3
The death penalty is only a specific deterrent; it just keeps the convicted perpetrator of that crime from comitting another murder. It is not s general deterrent since no one depraved or desperate to kill someone else is going to be dissuaded from that crime on the possibility that he may eventually be sentenced to death.
Project Innocencd groups have in recent years secured the release of people who spent many years in their life in prison after having been wrongly convicted of crimes. No proof of prosecturial misconduct or ineffective defense can restore life to a mistakenly executed prisoner. They certainly weren't available to help the one person who was brutally executed but was able to prove his own innocence by arising from the dead, in His name, let us never use the state's power to kill another person.
Project Innocencd groups have in recent years secured the release of people who spent many years in their life in prison after having been wrongly convicted of crimes. No proof of prosecturial misconduct or ineffective defense can restore life to a mistakenly executed prisoner. They certainly weren't available to help the one person who was brutally executed but was able to prove his own innocence by arising from the dead, in His name, let us never use the state's power to kill another person.
5
I can understand that the death penalty is an extremely cruel and unusual form of punishment. And I tend to think that I'm against it 95% of the time until some horrible crime is committed (e.g. the Charleston church killings by Dylan Roof). Then my emotions get the better of me and I'm all for it again. Then I read a piece like this and go back to fully being against it. And I revolve back and forth like that.
The only thing I can say is that I'm glad I'm not the one who has to pass sentence and I'm not the one who has to execute the sentence.
The only thing I can say is that I'm glad I'm not the one who has to pass sentence and I'm not the one who has to execute the sentence.
9
Perhaps supporting the death penalty is indicative of some moral failing in my character, but I doubt it. I hold that in certain circumstances, certain crimes, it is in no way unethical or immoral for the killer or killers to be executed. I believe that by the commission of certain unspeakable crimes, the perpetrator fundamentally – and in perpetuity -- forfeits his humanity, along with any claim to the tender mercies of his fellow man.
There is also another benefit that factors into my death penalty support --- and this is something that never seems to be mentioned by DP opponents. In my spare time I have become a fan of “true crime” TV shows – I must have watched hundreds by now – and one thing that regularly pops up is a scenario in which (a) the crime was committed in a death-penalty state, and (b) both the defendant and his attorney know the evidence of guilt is overwhelming.
What nearly always happens in these situations is that the defendant is willing to make a deal to avoid execution, and often those deals have to do with locating the remains of one or more of the victims, or implicating others complicit in the murders. Put another way, the death penalty can be a serious and valuable bargaining chip for the prosecution – and often a source of solace and closure for the families of the victims.
There is also another benefit that factors into my death penalty support --- and this is something that never seems to be mentioned by DP opponents. In my spare time I have become a fan of “true crime” TV shows – I must have watched hundreds by now – and one thing that regularly pops up is a scenario in which (a) the crime was committed in a death-penalty state, and (b) both the defendant and his attorney know the evidence of guilt is overwhelming.
What nearly always happens in these situations is that the defendant is willing to make a deal to avoid execution, and often those deals have to do with locating the remains of one or more of the victims, or implicating others complicit in the murders. Put another way, the death penalty can be a serious and valuable bargaining chip for the prosecution – and often a source of solace and closure for the families of the victims.
2
This might be the only compelling case for the death penalty in my mind.
Life or Death. A question all of us must face but will not reflect on for long as there are so many conflicting arguments in it. How to decide when a life is not worth allowing to continue? Do we make a living declaration as to our opinion on when we should be allowed to cease to exist? Is it physical incapacity or mental incapacity that is the point of no longer wanting to live? Is confinement the answer to people who have been judged to be a danger to the public. If Nelson Mandela could endure 27 years of confinement and exit as a moral leader of humanity, does that say that a system of justice that determined him to be a danger to the public was in error or not? Should we not allow all people the right to decide if they wish to live or not, a choice between confinement or death? Should not those that determine in their own judgement that another person no longer has the right to decide to live or die be the one to take that life? Since no one has ever returned to life after dying, is it not more reasonable to err on the side of life? Are we such a poor society that we cannot afford the cost of keeping someone judged to be a danger to society in confinement, just in case that we might have erred in our judgement? Remember Nelson Mandela?
2
I worked with offenders for many years. The one thing that stands out today, for those who had committed the most heinous acts would be or could be worse than spending the rest of their days in a cell, separated from all other human contact. Year after year after year. Human beings are social animals. Some more than others. But having contact with a limited or broad range of people insures our sanity. Using "true life" prison sentences is, in fact, a death sentence...just another kind.
23
Isolation, and even a lot of in-cell time, of general population inmates is a myth - albeit a common one. Most adults in custody spend the majority of the daytime out of their cells or dorms at work, training, school, and activities. 97% of inmates will eventually be released so the objective is teaching them how to live crime-free lives. Offering adults in custody the tools to succeed in society is a great strategy and the mark of a well-run corrections system.
Death row inmates, however, are not in general population so their activities are much more restricted. Therefore, your argument doesn't work...if there's no death row, then inmates have a chance to be in general population where prison life is more tolerable.
Death row inmates, however, are not in general population so their activities are much more restricted. Therefore, your argument doesn't work...if there's no death row, then inmates have a chance to be in general population where prison life is more tolerable.
Nearly 100% of those subject to the death penalty do all they can to avoid the death penalty/executions, seeking life, instead, the entire time.
Reality matters.
Reality matters.
This account will have an effect on those who might care in the first place. For the balance of the populace, many of whom hanker to drop the hammer on those whom they condemn, it will mean nothing.
I believe, if you'll pardon the seeming non-sequitur, in a draft rather than a voluntary army because. amongst other reasons, if state sanctioned violence is democratized, it will make us more reluctant to sanction it. Perhaps we should select at random and compel people to function as state executioners from all adults. I wonder how people would feel about state-sponsored killing then.
I believe, if you'll pardon the seeming non-sequitur, in a draft rather than a voluntary army because. amongst other reasons, if state sanctioned violence is democratized, it will make us more reluctant to sanction it. Perhaps we should select at random and compel people to function as state executioners from all adults. I wonder how people would feel about state-sponsored killing then.
5
Reminds me of a Village Voice article I read entitled "The Last Executioner," dated January 18, 2005. Its worth a read.
The anguish and crisis of conscience the author describes he and his fellow employees experienced is similar to that experienced by many police officers after being forced to take someone's life in the line of duty. Many are so grief-stricken and shaken they are "forced" out on pyschological disability retirement.
All their training cannot prepare them for the reality, which they cannot know until they must do the deed.
Sad and sobering.
Read the article. It's enlightening.
The anguish and crisis of conscience the author describes he and his fellow employees experienced is similar to that experienced by many police officers after being forced to take someone's life in the line of duty. Many are so grief-stricken and shaken they are "forced" out on pyschological disability retirement.
All their training cannot prepare them for the reality, which they cannot know until they must do the deed.
Sad and sobering.
Read the article. It's enlightening.
4
Other than the horrible possibility of executing innocent people, and the ethical questions of the state to putting people to death, there is the practical aspect of the cost of the death penalty.
Since 1978, California has spent about 4 billion dollars to execute 13 people, or about 308 million dollars on average foolishly spent for each single person executed. Death penalty cases are very lucrative for the criminal justice system so legal professionals are often in favor of the death penalty. It seems that abolishment of the death penalty would help improve America's image, and possibly some of the money saved that would have been spent on death penalty trials that drag on for years could instead be used to help crime victims and their families.
Since 1978, California has spent about 4 billion dollars to execute 13 people, or about 308 million dollars on average foolishly spent for each single person executed. Death penalty cases are very lucrative for the criminal justice system so legal professionals are often in favor of the death penalty. It seems that abolishment of the death penalty would help improve America's image, and possibly some of the money saved that would have been spent on death penalty trials that drag on for years could instead be used to help crime victims and their families.
38
Mark,
You numbers on the cost of execution in California are off.
Even with endless appeals it is not going to coast 308 million dollars per execution.
Perhaps 3.08 million which is still astounding.
You numbers on the cost of execution in California are off.
Even with endless appeals it is not going to coast 308 million dollars per execution.
Perhaps 3.08 million which is still astounding.
1
Mark:
The $4 billion result is based upon, totally, discredited numbers used by a prior study,
Fact checking, really, is important.
Is there a solid case for LWOP being more expensive than the death penalty in Ca?
Yep.
Saving Costs with The Death Penalty
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/02/death-penalty-cost-saving-money.html
The $4 billion result is based upon, totally, discredited numbers used by a prior study,
Fact checking, really, is important.
Is there a solid case for LWOP being more expensive than the death penalty in Ca?
Yep.
Saving Costs with The Death Penalty
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/02/death-penalty-cost-saving-money.html
A few crime scene photos would change your mind.
5
The author has been at those scenes in person. Both the crime and execution. He disagrees.
2
Haunting. There is something so macabre about running practices for a month before an execution to make sure you get it right, as if you're gearing up for the big game. I've also always found the idea of a special last meal especially cruel and twisted. You're about to end someone's life, but hey, let's do it in style. It's the exaggerated show of polite and civilized behavior right before they put the needle in you that is especially chilling.
23
Liberal appeasement notwithstanding, nothing a stationary diesel backup generator and a connecting length of hose couldn't accomplish.
I have watched plenty of "ID" on cable to know there will always be those who are beyond any hope of rehabilitation or redemption. The lowest form of humans who not only took lives- but wasted their own. I have no sympathy for these people. And for those who commit the most heinous, unconscionable crimes, we must have the death penalty at our disposal. We will end the life of those who have proven they can not live among civilized society. Our system of justice will ensure that this final act be performed with swift dignity and mercy- so as not to compare or come near the vile hate and disdain wrought on by the perpetrators themselves. In other words- we're gonna kill you- but we'll be nice about it.. We aren't China where the government shoots criminals in the back of the head then bills their family .30 cents for the bullet.
10
Kill is kill and dead is dead, however the act is accomplished.
The death penalty puts the U.S. in company with China, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Iraq and Iran. Great company to be in. Perhaps the country that likes to call itself the leader of the "Free World" should consider joining the civilized world.
9
A bandaid perhaps but this is something that might help the staff who are connected to executing a condemned person: During the month of training leading up to the execution they should read and be shown the court-determined facts that convicted the murderer. The staff should be witness to what the jury observed. In many, perhaps most murders, innocent people are being killed. It's important, very important to show the staff whose job it is to carry out executions that something horrendously fatal happened to people other than the condemned and that the person being executed was legally held responsible for committing the crime.
4
Right, because otherwise they'd think they were executing jaywalkers.
3
People are funny creatures and our monkey brains tend to emotionally bond with the person currently in front of us. Consider the "Serial" podcast, where millions got worked up about a convicted murderer ignoring his high school female victim. The comment above is about psychology and emotions, not facts. Of course people intellectually know they are executing a convicted criminal and not a jay walker. However, much of the resulting emotional stress from participating in an execution comes from placing the criminal first emotionally, and the heinous crime second. Maybe considering the crime first would help executioners avoid emotional problems.
2
Thank you Mr. Thompson for sharing your thoughts. Canada abolished civil death penalties in 1976. We finally abolished military death penalties in 1998, although nobody had been executed by military command since the 40's.
I have always thought that if the state has sanctions against murder, the state has no right to commit murder.
Your personal story about the impact that state sanctioned murder has on those who are tasked with carrying it out is very powerful.
I hope your country will come to the same conclusion my country came to. It is very disheartening to read reports about the execution (murder) of those with intellectual disabilities (Is his IQ 70, or only 69?), the disproportionate rate for minorities, and all the rest.
Several people who were given the death penalty in Canada, but escaped it due to the change in law were found to be innocent of the crimes they were convicted of later on.
Your opinion piece is very powerful. We all do our jobs, and sometimes we don't like what we have to do. Nobody should be tasked with taking the life of another human being, the moral and ethical cost to those individuals, and to the society as a whole that tasks them to do it, is far too high.
I have always thought that if the state has sanctions against murder, the state has no right to commit murder.
Your personal story about the impact that state sanctioned murder has on those who are tasked with carrying it out is very powerful.
I hope your country will come to the same conclusion my country came to. It is very disheartening to read reports about the execution (murder) of those with intellectual disabilities (Is his IQ 70, or only 69?), the disproportionate rate for minorities, and all the rest.
Several people who were given the death penalty in Canada, but escaped it due to the change in law were found to be innocent of the crimes they were convicted of later on.
Your opinion piece is very powerful. We all do our jobs, and sometimes we don't like what we have to do. Nobody should be tasked with taking the life of another human being, the moral and ethical cost to those individuals, and to the society as a whole that tasks them to do it, is far too high.
11
As a as an Oregonian, I thank you for your service. As a human, I appreciate your courage in expressing your informed opinion, and hope with all my being that you will prevail in your efforts to persuade others.
6
"I could not see that execution did anything to enhance public safety. While death penalty supporters suggest that capital punishment has the power of deterrence, a 2012 report by the National Research Council found that research is not informative about whether capital punishment decreases, increases or has no effect on homicide rates."
Since only 2% of all convicted murderers are given the death penalty, and even fewer are actually executed (see the 700+ on California's death row), how on God's green earth COULD it be a deterrent? Gang members recently sentenced to death in LA laugh, as it's a joke.
http://www.whittierdailynews.com/article/zz/20130712/NEWS/130719351
Since only 2% of all convicted murderers are given the death penalty, and even fewer are actually executed (see the 700+ on California's death row), how on God's green earth COULD it be a deterrent? Gang members recently sentenced to death in LA laugh, as it's a joke.
http://www.whittierdailynews.com/article/zz/20130712/NEWS/130719351
4
Thank you warden. You've been given a rare opportunity as a public servant to describe the kind of horrid, horrid assignments the citizens of this very troubled country assign to their much maligned public servants. I once heard some judges describe privately the agony they suffered in sending persons to those like you to do what you have described in this article. In one instance, the aftermath was similar to that suffered by members of your staff who either found another job or who opted out of future assignments. But the other I vividly recall, a Florida judge serving people who voted 70% + in favor of this penalty, who spoke with unmitigated anger about where they all went when it came time for a similar proportion to step up when called to serve on a jury in a capital case. In a nutshell, the excuses not to serve simply just boggled the mind.
In the upcoming California election, I will again have the opportunity to cast a vote to end this senseless madness and spare our state's officials the duty to do what your job commanded. I'll never find glee, solace, or comfort of any sort in the death of any human through such a deliberately planned and carefully premeditated act. Never!
In the upcoming California election, I will again have the opportunity to cast a vote to end this senseless madness and spare our state's officials the duty to do what your job commanded. I'll never find glee, solace, or comfort of any sort in the death of any human through such a deliberately planned and carefully premeditated act. Never!
3
I was an RN in a TX max. security prison, and at a federal penitentiary. When I took the job, I thought I would be a real Betty Badass and I was afraid I wouldn't be able to rouse myself to help a child molester in distress.
I was there for close to 5 years, and I ran our hospital ER, and various clinics, and there wasn't a single time that I didn't run to the point of feeling like my heart was going to explode, and I couldn't have worked on patients as hard as I did with them. If you harden to a human in duress, then YOU become like most of them. Sadistic, punishing, people who are not there to carry out some behind the scenes way to torture them since that's what a courtroom is for.
Unless you feel like you can personally take a life, I don't think we could have our government carry out a punishment we can't mete out as individuals, and if you COULD take a person's life, again, you just became like (most) of them.
It's easy to say, "I would kill the mother-stabbing molesters", but I think the majority of us couldn't do it in real life.
I was there for close to 5 years, and I ran our hospital ER, and various clinics, and there wasn't a single time that I didn't run to the point of feeling like my heart was going to explode, and I couldn't have worked on patients as hard as I did with them. If you harden to a human in duress, then YOU become like most of them. Sadistic, punishing, people who are not there to carry out some behind the scenes way to torture them since that's what a courtroom is for.
Unless you feel like you can personally take a life, I don't think we could have our government carry out a punishment we can't mete out as individuals, and if you COULD take a person's life, again, you just became like (most) of them.
It's easy to say, "I would kill the mother-stabbing molesters", but I think the majority of us couldn't do it in real life.
4
While I respect Superintendent Thompson's view on the subject of capital punishment and recognize that he has had experiences I have not, I do not share his view.
For me, capital punishment simply tells the man who has committed murder that his crime will not be tolerated, and he will pay with his own life for the life or lives he has taken. It also affirms that society places the ultimate value on the taking of the life of an innocent person.
I used to be against the death penalty until the rape and murder of Stephanie Ann Roper in 1982. I'm not likely to change my mind. With all due respect to the author of this piece, I think executing the men who ended Miss Roper's life would have had a very constructive role in our criminal justice system and our society as a whole. I don't regard that idea as a myth.
For me, capital punishment simply tells the man who has committed murder that his crime will not be tolerated, and he will pay with his own life for the life or lives he has taken. It also affirms that society places the ultimate value on the taking of the life of an innocent person.
I used to be against the death penalty until the rape and murder of Stephanie Ann Roper in 1982. I'm not likely to change my mind. With all due respect to the author of this piece, I think executing the men who ended Miss Roper's life would have had a very constructive role in our criminal justice system and our society as a whole. I don't regard that idea as a myth.
5
Thank you Mr. Thompson for sharing your thoughts and experience. And for the good work you do.
Like our soldiers overseas, you and your coworkers suffered trauma for doing violence on behalf of a citizenry that largely doesn't care and doesn't want to know, as long as the job gets done.
If there was a law in states that support capital punishment requiring a random citizen to participate in every execution, capital punishment would end tomorrow.
Like our soldiers overseas, you and your coworkers suffered trauma for doing violence on behalf of a citizenry that largely doesn't care and doesn't want to know, as long as the job gets done.
If there was a law in states that support capital punishment requiring a random citizen to participate in every execution, capital punishment would end tomorrow.
6
The death penalty makes no sense - it is impractical.
1. Mistakes can be and have been made. Innocent people have been put to death. Even one is too many.
2. Death penalty trials and appeals are long and expensive wasting millions of dollars on a single case.
3. The executioners suffer significant collateral damage, as described in this article.
4. There is no proof that it serves as a deterrent.
5. The vast majority of industrialized nations do not have the death penalty and they have a much lower murder rate than we do. What do they know that we don't.
This doesn't have to be an issue about the sanctity of human life, civil rights, justice, and so on. (It could be.) Just just based on pragmatism, it is a stupid practice.
1. Mistakes can be and have been made. Innocent people have been put to death. Even one is too many.
2. Death penalty trials and appeals are long and expensive wasting millions of dollars on a single case.
3. The executioners suffer significant collateral damage, as described in this article.
4. There is no proof that it serves as a deterrent.
5. The vast majority of industrialized nations do not have the death penalty and they have a much lower murder rate than we do. What do they know that we don't.
This doesn't have to be an issue about the sanctity of human life, civil rights, justice, and so on. (It could be.) Just just based on pragmatism, it is a stupid practice.
11
Why is locking up an animal in a cage for the rest of his life any more just than killing him?
We humans do so love our cosy hypocrisies and our wretched euphemisms, especially when there's a living and money to be made. When my beloved Alfie was too sick to eat his breakfast and then collapsed, my wife and I took him in our car to the vet who concluded he had a cancer of the spleen. Within less than a hour Alfie was dying in my arms, as we killed him (sorry, 'euthanised' him) with a lethal dose of anaesthetic that stopped his heart.
Alfie took almost ten minutes to die. Contrary to what the vet promised, it wasn't quick and easy. It wasn't painless. Alfie struggled to breathe. He struggled to live. He had been an ultrafit and very lean Labrador all his life, because I used to run him and his brother up and down the beach, to where the boulders began. When we came to the black rocks, Alfie would bark with joy and his voice would echo off the hard place and out across the waters of the bay.
I killed my pal because in the end I didn't know what else to do to help him escape his pain. Sometimes, we humans are killers, and we even kill those we love, because in the end it is all we can do.
We humans do so love our cosy hypocrisies and our wretched euphemisms, especially when there's a living and money to be made. When my beloved Alfie was too sick to eat his breakfast and then collapsed, my wife and I took him in our car to the vet who concluded he had a cancer of the spleen. Within less than a hour Alfie was dying in my arms, as we killed him (sorry, 'euthanised' him) with a lethal dose of anaesthetic that stopped his heart.
Alfie took almost ten minutes to die. Contrary to what the vet promised, it wasn't quick and easy. It wasn't painless. Alfie struggled to breathe. He struggled to live. He had been an ultrafit and very lean Labrador all his life, because I used to run him and his brother up and down the beach, to where the boulders began. When we came to the black rocks, Alfie would bark with joy and his voice would echo off the hard place and out across the waters of the bay.
I killed my pal because in the end I didn't know what else to do to help him escape his pain. Sometimes, we humans are killers, and we even kill those we love, because in the end it is all we can do.
1
Many decades ago Warren T. Duffy, the warden of San Quentin wrote a book titled "Eighty Eight Men and Two Women" whose executions he oversaw in his many years as warden. It was the deepest work in the spirit of humanity regarding why we should not execute our fellow human beings. He laid out clearly that the states committing capital punishment had greater numbers of murders per population than those that did not. That it is not a deterrent.
America must join the rest of the civilized world and stop killing people for killing people.
America must join the rest of the civilized world and stop killing people for killing people.
1
No, I am not sorry for feeling zero sympathy for the 'suffering' of violent killers at the hands of the state. Said killers showed no regard for the families and friends of those they killed and certainly no regard for the person(s) they put through a violent and traumatic end. Attempting to humanize these monsters is a travesty of justice.
4
And what about those who were wrongfully executed?
1
So many commentators write with unexamined bloodlust to endorse judicial revenge killings. Would they actually feel the same were it their job to do? Frighteningly, the answer may be yes. We are a juvenile, knee-jerk nation full (basket half-full) of jerks. We are about to elect a Man who represents US. Then we'll see what all this means, no holds barred.
"...we all share the burden...." I do understand Mr. Thompson's point. Nevertheless, a voice wailing inside from long ago is saying, "After much thought, I concluded at about ten that capital punishment is wrong and unjustified. I decided when I was about eight that war and militancy is a lie and the greatest evil. Those ideas have been part of who I am my whole life. No, no, no, I do not share the burden. I've tried my best, and the burden is not mine."
1
I can't imagine anyone with more authority to opine on this subject than this man. We should bow to that authority and experience. We would be hypocrites not to do so.
1
I have worked for the Oregon Dept. of Corrections for a few years and learned that death is an easy way out from punishment. Far worse to be held in confinement for the rest of your life, no freedoms and no matter what you hear prison in not a nice place to be, and a life sentence is appropriate for even the most heinous crimes.
I do not think the government should be so all-powerful as to hold even the power of life and death over its citizens, and therefore oppose the death penalty, whether someone seems to deserve it or not. I also believe it is highly costly punishments go, and simple imprisonment of the worst offenders is a cost savings in comparison.
However, I must strongly disagree with Mr. Thompson's statement that the death penalty is "a policy that has not been shown to make the public any safer". This is quite erroneous. In the known history of the death penalty, no offender has ever been known to ever commit a single crime after the sentence has been completed. This is in hard contrast with imprisonment, where prisoners can leave prison after the sentence is completed, and where recidivism rates can be well more than 50% for serious crimes like rape and child molestation. The 0% recidivism of executed felons means none of them ever harm anyone again, giving society one less criminal and certainly making society that much safer. Has Timothy McVeigh attacked another Federal building since his execution? Has Ted Bundy murdered any more college students? No, because awful and wrong as it may be, the death penalty works.
I don't expect a correction from Mr. Thompson, and I hope for a day when there is no death penalty, but let's give credit where it's due - this ultimate punishment is at least the ultimate deterrent for the convicted offender.
However, I must strongly disagree with Mr. Thompson's statement that the death penalty is "a policy that has not been shown to make the public any safer". This is quite erroneous. In the known history of the death penalty, no offender has ever been known to ever commit a single crime after the sentence has been completed. This is in hard contrast with imprisonment, where prisoners can leave prison after the sentence is completed, and where recidivism rates can be well more than 50% for serious crimes like rape and child molestation. The 0% recidivism of executed felons means none of them ever harm anyone again, giving society one less criminal and certainly making society that much safer. Has Timothy McVeigh attacked another Federal building since his execution? Has Ted Bundy murdered any more college students? No, because awful and wrong as it may be, the death penalty works.
I don't expect a correction from Mr. Thompson, and I hope for a day when there is no death penalty, but let's give credit where it's due - this ultimate punishment is at least the ultimate deterrent for the convicted offender.
We have no death penalty in Canada, it was abolished before I was born and most countries have since abolished it. I read statistics some years back that showed the effects on the homicide rate after the DP was abolished. Most countries showed very little change. Either it stayed the same, or dropped or rose very slightly. Either way, the death penalty had very little effect. It is a failed policy and there really is no legal need for it. I understand why people feel some criminals deserve it, but that's emotion, not law. It's also a failure when anyone is innocent and executed.
There is no evidence to show that the death penalty deters potential offenders or, indeed, that harsh penalties of any type deter offense. What it can do is remove a person judged to be too dangerous to remain on the same planet as the rest of us. If that was a reliable outcome, invariably visited upon the right perpetrator, perhaps a case for the death penalty could be made. Unfortunately substantial and irrefutable evidence exist that this outcome is not reliable - that the penalty has often been inflicted on the wrong person. If even one person has been wrongly executed, the case for the death penalty is thereby flawed. That it has been wrongly inflicted many times destroys any case for its continuance. Further, some say "why should the taxpayers foot the bill for life imprisonment?" Life vs. death should never be a matter of dollars and cents but even if it were, it would be a fallacious argument, considering the millions it costs to bring a death penalty case all the way to conclusion. It is actually less expensive to lock up someone for life. It may also be more cruel. That too may be a consideration - both for and against in this debate.
1
Thank you Mr. Thompson. I had a similar professional experience, and a similar epiphany. State sponsored murder is not a helpful response to murder. Life in prison without parole I believe is a punishment merited for horrific crimes, but one which does not diminish our common humanity in the way that the death penalty does. My only caveat is that we have to stop punishing prisoners with long episodes of solitary confinement; that course leads to madness, not rehabilitation, and it produces prisoners who make the jobs of prison superintendents more dangerous and difficult, not less so.
2
The perfect punishment administered by imperfect beings.
People having been executed, killed, for crimes they did not commit.
Justice obscured by personal ambition.
etc. etc. etc. etc.
People having been executed, killed, for crimes they did not commit.
Justice obscured by personal ambition.
etc. etc. etc. etc.
1
Thank you, Semon Frank Thompson, for your moving and knowledgeable essay. If more people like you came forward with your thoughts and feelings, we could end the barbaric practice of state-sponsored execution in this country. I admire your honesty, your courage, and your hard-earned humanitarian ethics.
--Wendy Lesser
Berkeley, Califorvia, and New York, New York
--Wendy Lesser
Berkeley, Califorvia, and New York, New York
4
Bravo, Mr. Thompson, for putting this on paper. It is clear you are a caring and good man, and these two men met their fate with some amount of compassion from those who carried out their duty. Your words, here and wherever else you speak, may do more to end capital punishment then you realize.
2
In a fair and decent society, no one would be executed and no one would eat animal products. We have a long way to go. Let's get started.
3
Yes, killing someone else is among the worst, if not the worst, crime one can commit.
So what does society do?
Well, let's just kill the killer.
Oh, for sure, vengeance is sweet.
And ain't that the problem. Until we understand the human-driven lust to kill, we will never be able to harness it.
And the truth is that that's the way we were wired by Mother Nature in order to survive. Yep, there's an actual brain-chemical high making vengeance "sweet" because there's a survival benefit to that high. Kill, and kinda enjoy killing, that which may be a "threat" to "me and mine" was bred into our ancestors. They were the ones who mostly survived, not so much the meek, the mild, the compassionate.
The only question is whether that hard-wired, primal lust for vengeance can be offset by another survival, brain-chemical high -- i.e., empathy. Yep, empathy for kin and kith was also wired into our brains as it also has an obvious survival benefit. It's kind of the yin to the fear/hate yang. And in constant tension with it.
Then there's the last to evolve of the human brain -- i.e., the thinking part (neo-cortex). Which should make us question whether by constant killing of the "other" we will end up reaping what we sow.
But will it? At least will it before it's too late for humanity to step back from all the inhumanity to other humans resulting in a field of death and destruction for everyone all, paradoxically, in the belief that it will keep at least my tribe "safe" ?
So what does society do?
Well, let's just kill the killer.
Oh, for sure, vengeance is sweet.
And ain't that the problem. Until we understand the human-driven lust to kill, we will never be able to harness it.
And the truth is that that's the way we were wired by Mother Nature in order to survive. Yep, there's an actual brain-chemical high making vengeance "sweet" because there's a survival benefit to that high. Kill, and kinda enjoy killing, that which may be a "threat" to "me and mine" was bred into our ancestors. They were the ones who mostly survived, not so much the meek, the mild, the compassionate.
The only question is whether that hard-wired, primal lust for vengeance can be offset by another survival, brain-chemical high -- i.e., empathy. Yep, empathy for kin and kith was also wired into our brains as it also has an obvious survival benefit. It's kind of the yin to the fear/hate yang. And in constant tension with it.
Then there's the last to evolve of the human brain -- i.e., the thinking part (neo-cortex). Which should make us question whether by constant killing of the "other" we will end up reaping what we sow.
But will it? At least will it before it's too late for humanity to step back from all the inhumanity to other humans resulting in a field of death and destruction for everyone all, paradoxically, in the belief that it will keep at least my tribe "safe" ?
4
I don't want to pay for the sandwiches. When someone chooses to commit a heinous, violent crime, I don't want to pay to feed, clothe, house, monitor and medically care for this person for 10, 20 or 30 years. We have better ways to spend those resources, there is so much need. That's why I am in favor of use of the death penalty. If you say that the appeals process costs even more, then I'd say let's put more reasonable limits on the appeals process. Evil is evil, wrong is wrong, there is no mitigating factor that excuses ruining innocent lives intentionally or through depraved indifference.
23
Ever hear of The Innocence Project and the 100+ exonerated prisoners facing death? Our Legal
System cannot truly be called a justice system as it has no interest in justice. Our system is for the verbal gladiators called lawyers to argue about commas and meanings of words. Unfortunately the system also is prejudiced against poor people and minorities.
System cannot truly be called a justice system as it has no interest in justice. Our system is for the verbal gladiators called lawyers to argue about commas and meanings of words. Unfortunately the system also is prejudiced against poor people and minorities.
"...there is no mitigating factor that excuses ruining innocent lives intentionally or through depraved indifference."
Such as when the state executes an innocent man??
Such as when the state executes an innocent man??
The fact is that it costs us far more to carry out the death penalty than life without parole.
I've spend many a season working on small local farms where, among other things, we raised and butchered beef cattle. On slaughter day, the cattle would be led, one at a time, from the barn to the back pasture (like was done every day), where someone would be standing with a loaded .22 rifle. As soon as the cow was allowed around the corner and through the gate, the slaughterman would shoot one round into the cow's brain. It would drop like a stone, completely unresponsive, and we'd get to work processing it. I'm not against the death penalty, at least in theory, but I am completely against how we kill people in this country. Why can't we take the lead of the Humane Slaughter Act and keep the victim stress- free and in the dark? Why can't we tell the condemned "the court finds you guilty, sentence to be determined later", and lead him to an isolated cell, where a trained marksman shoots him point- blank while he sleeps? The only humane death is that which is both instantaneous and unexpected, and capital punishment as we do it now violates both criteria. If we determine that a human must die, whatever the reason, we owe it to that human to kill them humanely. When wild animals commit "capital crimes", when bears maul people or cougars kill children, we don't tie them to tables and inject them with poison. No, we go to where they are and shoot them as they lie. Surely we owe humans the same consideration as we owe other animals? Surely we don't mean to torture?
More power to ya, Semon.
Thank you.
Thank you.
1
I once heard the saying that he who buys meat cannot sneer at the butcher. But many do just that when it comes to execution. Here's a proposal: every time there is to be an execution, a name is randomly selected from a list of the registered voters. The person selected performs the actual execution. If that person reuses to carry out the duty, the prisoner is automatically sentenced to life.
I am against the death penalty for many of the arguments set forth by commenters here. I remain against the death penalty, but one counter argument I have never had a good response to is the existence of examples where a person in prison continues through lines of communication to the outside world to do harm, even murder. My father is a retired county prosecutor, who supports the death penalty, and when on the topic, points out the case of a man sentenced to death in his county who, after being jailed, went on to instruct members of his network outside prison to murder his pregnant ex-girlfriend in retaliation. Obviously, the death penalty cannot prevent this: the individual accomplished the task before his death sentence. But the example does complicate the argument that the death penalty is useless because it does not accomplish deterrence.
I'm with Nate from Atlanta. The 2007 rape, murders, bed-tying, and body burnings of the mother and children, in their home, in Cheshire, CT, should make someone think twice about entirely banning the death penalty. I know that the father, who survived, a medical doctor, sought the death penalty of those who invaded his home and violated and murdered his family. I would go back and read the clips on this. It's why we do indeed need the death penalty in rare cases. I'm a liberal Democrat but I also value personal responsibility. The killers confessed and neither expressed remorse. I do think that our empathy wrongheadedly goes with the perpetrators and not the victims, most of the time. The dead can't speak for themselves. They're 6 feet under. Can we not speak for them? I would oversee the executions of these men. I would not enjoy it, but yes, I would carry it out.
3
I am a proponent. But, I also believe it should never be on the table with a circumstantial case. It must be a hard, forensic case with NO doubt yet alone reasonable doubt. In many cases there is no doubt and the only reason the case goes to trial is to try to thwart death because everyone knows who did it through forensics. Then there are those exiled to the death penalty and found innocent because it was circumstantial to begin with - that should never happen to anyone and God knows how many innocents have been executed. I believe if we took the circumstantial off the table with no room for doubt of guilt more people would be in favor. I believe in the DP, but also believe we need reforms on when it is appropriate. I do not think it is a deterrent but is the ultimate punishment. That does not make it "revenge", it is justice.
3
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. In my work for a nonprofit law firm assisting in death penalty appeals, I've met a lot of death row prisoners, and in a long career as an appellate lawyer, plenty of murderers who didn't get the death penalty. The death penalty is supposed to be for "the worst of the worst," but my experience has been that it doesn't work that way. Who gets sent to death row depends a lot on random chance: the county where the defendant is prosecuted, the relative skills of the prosecutor and defense attorneys, the makeup of the jury, the defendant's race or personality Defendants who get the death penalty are often young, traumatized, mentally ill, or borderline mentally retarded, people who weren't functional or savvy enough to take a plea bargain or work constructively with their attorneys. The death penalty doesn't do what it's supposed to; it just wastes a lot of taxpayer money on the illusion of just retribution.
1
it's time to recognize capital punishment in America for what it is - a peculiarly antiseptic form of human sacrifice.
Morally the general citizen does not have the right to commit First Degree Murder - but the State does? A plurality of unknown "people" - through the State - have the right to First Degree Murder done on their behalf?
It is one thing to kill someone in active self-defense and another to contemplate and methodically kill someone.
And this country considers itself a Christian nation? A moral nation? When other nations do it we call it Barbaric.
The death penalty probably deters as much crime as prisons do - so why do we have so many prisoners? Murders still happen and crime continues to happen - regardless.
At least with a true Life Sentence without parole you are condemned to death in prison - with a chance to prove your innocence, if you are, in the meantime.
It is one thing to kill someone in active self-defense and another to contemplate and methodically kill someone.
And this country considers itself a Christian nation? A moral nation? When other nations do it we call it Barbaric.
The death penalty probably deters as much crime as prisons do - so why do we have so many prisoners? Murders still happen and crime continues to happen - regardless.
At least with a true Life Sentence without parole you are condemned to death in prison - with a chance to prove your innocence, if you are, in the meantime.
I believe most people that are pro death penalty wouldn't be able to "pull the lever" themselves. Death penalty is vengeance, not justice.
An important and thought-provoking piece, Mr. Thompson. Thank you for writing. As difficult as it may be to read, I think we should hear more. These stories should be told; the procedures, the politics, and most importantly, the human stories behind the policy and deliverance of capital punishment. I would implore you to consider writing a book.
1
You US people are so brutal, a rational being can´t never understand what can you take from killing a killer, just spreading death, not repairing a wrong but creating a new one. In civilized countries we see you as a very backward people.
2
Thank you Mr. Thompson, it's a barbaric act at best and monstrous if a mistake is made. Powerful essay, thanks for your work!
What a persuasive essay. Not preachy, not adamant, not too emotional nor too cerebral.
One reason I am for eliminating the death penalty is that we have an alternative - locking those who have committed particularly heinous crimes up for life with no possibility of parole. A few decades ago, states were not permitting this punishment. People were angry and scared at the thought that someone could murder a child but still be able to get out of prison in 20 or 30 years. It eases my mind to know these people will not be out in society again.
I am also opposed to the death penalty because I have decided that I could not "flip the switch" myself and that it was unfair to ask my fellow citizens to do so.
Finally, it just costs too much with all the legal appeals and training.
Let's get rid of the death penalty.
One reason I am for eliminating the death penalty is that we have an alternative - locking those who have committed particularly heinous crimes up for life with no possibility of parole. A few decades ago, states were not permitting this punishment. People were angry and scared at the thought that someone could murder a child but still be able to get out of prison in 20 or 30 years. It eases my mind to know these people will not be out in society again.
I am also opposed to the death penalty because I have decided that I could not "flip the switch" myself and that it was unfair to ask my fellow citizens to do so.
Finally, it just costs too much with all the legal appeals and training.
Let's get rid of the death penalty.
Perhaps a cursory review of Amdt 8 is in order:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
The Constitution, and our predecessors, contemplated punishment, not deterrence. Punishment. You do X and we'll punish you with Y.
Now, maybe the so called "evolving standards of decency" have made punishment an obsolete concept, no?
No. Evidently not.
We routinely lock people up for a long time, forever sometimes, obviously to punish. Terms are meted out according to the severity of the crime. If the reason for prison were reformation of the individual or removal of a threat, these terms would be given not according to the severity of the crime, but would be tailored according to how easily a criminal may be reformed, or how fast (sometimes immediately in some white collar crimes) the criminal ceases to be a threat.
But we don't do that. Terms accord mainly with the crime, and only faintly in line with the likelihood of reform or the necessary period of removal from society.
So, evidently, punishment is contemplated, allowed, though not required, by the Constitution, and nothing this society has done in the last two hundred years has altered its practice or philosophy of inflicting punishment.
Therefore the only question is, is the punishment cruel and unusual. This stipulation in no way mandates that the death penalty be inappropriate or prohibited.
Executioners can always be found.
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
The Constitution, and our predecessors, contemplated punishment, not deterrence. Punishment. You do X and we'll punish you with Y.
Now, maybe the so called "evolving standards of decency" have made punishment an obsolete concept, no?
No. Evidently not.
We routinely lock people up for a long time, forever sometimes, obviously to punish. Terms are meted out according to the severity of the crime. If the reason for prison were reformation of the individual or removal of a threat, these terms would be given not according to the severity of the crime, but would be tailored according to how easily a criminal may be reformed, or how fast (sometimes immediately in some white collar crimes) the criminal ceases to be a threat.
But we don't do that. Terms accord mainly with the crime, and only faintly in line with the likelihood of reform or the necessary period of removal from society.
So, evidently, punishment is contemplated, allowed, though not required, by the Constitution, and nothing this society has done in the last two hundred years has altered its practice or philosophy of inflicting punishment.
Therefore the only question is, is the punishment cruel and unusual. This stipulation in no way mandates that the death penalty be inappropriate or prohibited.
Executioners can always be found.
1
First-degree murder is deemed to be a premeditated killing, not one of passion or hostility, but planned and carried out. It is not the intent, but the act that is the crime. How is an execution any different? It is nothing but revenge, and revenge is a bitter thing.
This article is so chilling in its portrayal of the humiliation and debasement of all parties involved, executioners and executed alike. Those involved in executions either have to dehumanize themselves or face the consequences of being haunted by the horror of it. Let us stop state sanctioned murder, for everyone's sake.
This article is so chilling in its portrayal of the humiliation and debasement of all parties involved, executioners and executed alike. Those involved in executions either have to dehumanize themselves or face the consequences of being haunted by the horror of it. Let us stop state sanctioned murder, for everyone's sake.
1
When I was 15 I read about Timothy Evans, hanged in England in 1950 for a murder he did not commit. There were a couple of other probable miscarriages of justice, even by the standards of the times (Derek Bentley) and the UK abolished the death penalty in the sixties. Had there been capital punishment during the seventies there would undoubtedly have been more wrongful deaths of innocent Irishmen accused and convicted (much later overturned) of bombings. There needs to be only a single argument against capital punishment: it is impossible to compensate someone if we get it wrong.
1
wow. Just wow.
I am currently reading Andrew Roberts' "Napoleon_A Life," in which at one point Napoleon noted with respect to the loss of life that if your concern is always and only humanity, then one should never go to war. The point here is that yes we do go to war, and so no our concern must not always be humanity, ie we are fooling ourselves to think otherwise. Napoleon knew death intimately, and he loved to expose hypocrisy.
I find it alarming reading this piece how Mr Thompson glosses over his Vietnam vet status. In that war crime is endless multiples of the minor interaction with death in his supervisory role in Oregon's prison system. I would venture to wager that he is currently and hypocritically accepting pensions from both work experiences.
I find it alarming reading this piece how Mr Thompson glosses over his Vietnam vet status. In that war crime is endless multiples of the minor interaction with death in his supervisory role in Oregon's prison system. I would venture to wager that he is currently and hypocritically accepting pensions from both work experiences.
As an ethics professor, I have reviewed all manner of arguments pro and con with respect to the death penalty.
The arguments against it are generally fully articulated, appeal to publicly accessible evidence, and logically presented. They exhibit rational reflection and demand responses in kind.
I have never encountered an argument in favor of the penalty that commands reasoned respect. There are appeals to tradition, to present legality, to past "religious" practices, etc.--all of which are readily unmasked as reiterations of an emotive thirst for vengeance.
The penalty's supporters tend to minimize: the likelihood that innocent persons will fall victims to this barbaric practice; the potential psychological damage done to those charged with enacting and/or witnessing it; the attendant wider desensitization of society to the value of human life.
If anyone can articulate a reasoned argument for retaining or re-establishing the death penalty, I would be most interested in reviewing it.
The best I have encountered so far are all variations on the following claims: "The death penalty provides ultimate closure both for those close to the victim and for the perpetrator. It is the most highly effective deterrent possible. It permanently deters all those condemned to it from ever doing anything again."
The arguments against it are generally fully articulated, appeal to publicly accessible evidence, and logically presented. They exhibit rational reflection and demand responses in kind.
I have never encountered an argument in favor of the penalty that commands reasoned respect. There are appeals to tradition, to present legality, to past "religious" practices, etc.--all of which are readily unmasked as reiterations of an emotive thirst for vengeance.
The penalty's supporters tend to minimize: the likelihood that innocent persons will fall victims to this barbaric practice; the potential psychological damage done to those charged with enacting and/or witnessing it; the attendant wider desensitization of society to the value of human life.
If anyone can articulate a reasoned argument for retaining or re-establishing the death penalty, I would be most interested in reviewing it.
The best I have encountered so far are all variations on the following claims: "The death penalty provides ultimate closure both for those close to the victim and for the perpetrator. It is the most highly effective deterrent possible. It permanently deters all those condemned to it from ever doing anything again."
1
We're getting there, sir, it's just taking us awhile. We need to get through just one more generation and the future adults coming up behind us will eliminate this historical practice once and for all. When I see the evolution fifty states have made on abortion, marriage preference and other tolerances, I'm convinced this adjustment won't be far behind. Thanks for your essay.
So - are you returning the public-sector pension checks you're likely getting, for having done this job...
Or just writing about it...
Try blowing the whistle on yourself - the cut of the take for whistle-blowers exceeds even the most lucrative public-sector pensions...
This is all just so much liberal garbage...
Are the terrorists at the other end of an Obama-signed-off drone strike any less human than any of our own death-row citizens...
Or any more loathsome, and deserving...
As far as the notion that twenty percent of the folks on death row are wrongly convicted - this is nothing more than full employment for lawyers...
If this statistic is true - and it may well be - it is then just as likely that forty percent of the folks in prison have been wrongly convicted...
So, Semon Frank, what's the sequel...
"What I Learned From Imprisoning Two Thousand Men"
Or just writing about it...
Try blowing the whistle on yourself - the cut of the take for whistle-blowers exceeds even the most lucrative public-sector pensions...
This is all just so much liberal garbage...
Are the terrorists at the other end of an Obama-signed-off drone strike any less human than any of our own death-row citizens...
Or any more loathsome, and deserving...
As far as the notion that twenty percent of the folks on death row are wrongly convicted - this is nothing more than full employment for lawyers...
If this statistic is true - and it may well be - it is then just as likely that forty percent of the folks in prison have been wrongly convicted...
So, Semon Frank, what's the sequel...
"What I Learned From Imprisoning Two Thousand Men"
I believe, and your account of your learning through experience reinforces, that for me as well it would be horrible experience to execute a person.
Your statement "life is either hallowed or it isn't" may be the tell seperating those who can execute from those who should not.
Apparently we are currently a society that does not believe life is hallowed.
Someday maybe some day we may come to see how hallowed life might be and that alternatives to killing might be considered....even when making a traffic stop.
Your statement "life is either hallowed or it isn't" may be the tell seperating those who can execute from those who should not.
Apparently we are currently a society that does not believe life is hallowed.
Someday maybe some day we may come to see how hallowed life might be and that alternatives to killing might be considered....even when making a traffic stop.
Hear, hear !!
There are many arguments to be made for and against capital punishment, but for decades I have justified my own opposition to it in the simplest of terms. We should all ask ourselves, "could I myself participate in the execution of a prisoner?" For me, the answer is, "no," and this trumps any argument in favor of the death penaly. Any supporter of capital punishment should ask himself or herself the same question. If you yourself could not look the condemned prisoner in the eye moments before pulling the trigger, administering the poison, releasing the gas...then you have no moral claim to support capital punishment.
There are many arguments to be made for and against capital punishment, but for decades I have justified my own opposition to it in the simplest of terms. We should all ask ourselves, "could I myself participate in the execution of a prisoner?" For me, the answer is, "no," and this trumps any argument in favor of the death penaly. Any supporter of capital punishment should ask himself or herself the same question. If you yourself could not look the condemned prisoner in the eye moments before pulling the trigger, administering the poison, releasing the gas...then you have no moral claim to support capital punishment.
It took me a while to work up the nerve to read your piece, because as you point out, carrying out the death penalty is done out of sight where we want it. Murder One, murder with pre-meditation, is against the law, and you can't get much more pre-meditated than picking out the place, means and time. I have always felt that the death penalty is wrong and is ultimately just revenge (witness the number of people who have said "I'd do it myself if they'd let me!). If there were no severe psychological drawbacks to it for those carrying it out, why do firing squads do it so no one knows who fired the fatal bullet? I am glad I read your excellent piece.
1
Some people's crimes are so heinous they deserve killing.
3
I worked in the criminal courts for many years. I do not believe we could get it right with anything like the reliability needed for the death penalty. The more emotional and horrifying the case, the more human weakness influenced. There is no way to trust this system to kill only when "this time we are certain."
Still, let us consider these two cases of confession and solid proof for two men who just wanted to get it over with. No mistake here.
Vengeance does no good. The crime victim is still dead. It is like a person killed in an accident -- it isn't fair, it should never happen, but it did. Vengeance won't bring the victim back. Vengeance won't help anything.
The survivors feel better? No, I doubt they really do. Once it is over, they are left with their loss. They are left to come to terms too with taking a helpless life years after their loss. Anyway, if one embittered survivor really does feel better, is that the measure of our criminal justice?
We can't make it right. The crime happened. Other bad things happen and kill. They can't be made right either by killing someone.
Frustration drives this. Anger. Hurt. Discreditable things to drive life and death decisions.
It is always easy to get up on a high horse and talk anger and revenge and feel righteous. But then there is reality. Doing it. Living with it.
Those who do it come away knowing it was wrong. Listen to them.
Still, let us consider these two cases of confession and solid proof for two men who just wanted to get it over with. No mistake here.
Vengeance does no good. The crime victim is still dead. It is like a person killed in an accident -- it isn't fair, it should never happen, but it did. Vengeance won't bring the victim back. Vengeance won't help anything.
The survivors feel better? No, I doubt they really do. Once it is over, they are left with their loss. They are left to come to terms too with taking a helpless life years after their loss. Anyway, if one embittered survivor really does feel better, is that the measure of our criminal justice?
We can't make it right. The crime happened. Other bad things happen and kill. They can't be made right either by killing someone.
Frustration drives this. Anger. Hurt. Discreditable things to drive life and death decisions.
It is always easy to get up on a high horse and talk anger and revenge and feel righteous. But then there is reality. Doing it. Living with it.
Those who do it come away knowing it was wrong. Listen to them.
9
I like that Mr Thompson limited his argument to respect for human life and the lack of deterrence of capital punishment. There is something just wrong with the premeditated killing of a person by the state - it sanctifies lethal violence to no purpose.
1
What about our foreign wars? What about our targeted killings in far off lands? Could one argue the death penalty prevents future killings from that individual just like killing our enemies prevents the deaths of Americans?
LIfe in prison in a super-Max would prevent future killing by that individual.Killing enemies in war usually doesn't offer that opportunity.
If capital punishment for murder would bring the dead person back, I'd be for it, whatever the feelings it induced in those who carry it out.
But since it cannot do this, and judges and juries can err, and racial and class and gender bias can enter into who gets a death sentence, and since it is incredibly expensive to carry out, and since there is no evidence that murder rates are reduced when it is carried out -- the costs are too great if we're to remain a civilized society.
But since it cannot do this, and judges and juries can err, and racial and class and gender bias can enter into who gets a death sentence, and since it is incredibly expensive to carry out, and since there is no evidence that murder rates are reduced when it is carried out -- the costs are too great if we're to remain a civilized society.
3
No government should be in the business of killing its own citizens. If we weren't busy incarcerating millions of Americans to keep them from voting perhaps we could afford to safely incarcerate those for whom freedom would be a public hazard. This eye for an eye stuff is old biblical baloney and I have no faith, so biblical don't cut it. This is all about public safety and non religious based moral reasoning. I don't want anyone including my elected government killing anyone in my name. Pretty simple. The risk of getting it wrong on some level is too much for my personal (non religious) moral compass. As this gentleman recounts, the emotional cost to society is too great to continue these state sanctioned executions.
1
I think that if a state wants to impose a death penalty that its citizens should be "drafted" to help carry it out and it should be televised. This would ensure that, just like jury duty, citizens must participate. This would likely end death penalties throughout the US rapidly.
1
Bob Dylan sang "the executioner's face is always well hidden..."
Thankyou Semon for removing the veil. No man should have to do what you do.
Thankyou Semon for removing the veil. No man should have to do what you do.
2
Bravo, Mr. Thompson. Outstanding. You have eloquently put your finger on the irreducible nut of the matter: "on a moral level, life was either hallowed or it wasn’t." It is hallowed. Every life -- even those of the worst miscreants among us. We don't decline to kill these miscreants to save them. We do it to save ourselves. Even if they deserve it. Because life is hallowed.
3
The death penalty serves one and only one useful purpose. It convince me beyond a shadow of a doubt that we humans are soul-less animals living in a godless universe. And yes, being able to completely discount the possibility of any divine being or purpose in the universe is very useful. Although I still cannot rule out that the universe is ruled by Satan, using "God" as His puppet.
"An eye for an eye...and the whole world blind." Mohandas K. Gandhi
"An eye for an eye...and the whole world blind." Mohandas K. Gandhi
2
Mr Thompson, your essay performs a valuable public service, and your professionalism shows. Thank you for your service.
I hope we'll see the day when life is respected and supported, using tax dollars where necessary. Yes to a full, dignified life for all. No to capital punishment, abortion, euthanasia, torture, preemptive war, and other forms of suffering. I want to live in a society that respects life and is willing to bear every burden so that everyone thrives.
I hope we'll see the day when life is respected and supported, using tax dollars where necessary. Yes to a full, dignified life for all. No to capital punishment, abortion, euthanasia, torture, preemptive war, and other forms of suffering. I want to live in a society that respects life and is willing to bear every burden so that everyone thrives.
2
Euthanasia ends suffering, it doesn't cause it.
The last public execution in the United Kingdom was in 1868. Right now ANYone can go on line and watched videos of any number of recent executions.
If this is not a shift in the paradigm I do not know what is.
If this is not a shift in the paradigm I do not know what is.
2
What a heartfelt and heartbreaking article. The author is knowledgeable, experienced and eloquent. The death penalty has never made sense to me. The experimental nature of the chemicals and procedure now being used have degenerated this deplorable practice into a barbaric ritual our government would certainly condemn if it were being performed by some third world nation. All lives matter. Even those who have committed unspeakable horror do not deserve unspeakable horror inflicted upon them as retribution. Such barbarism only serves to diminish our humanity.
7
I suppose we all could be hypocrits about the death penalty at one time or another. When asked, "Would you want the killer of your child to die or spend their life in a prison cell?", most of us would want to pull the lever on the killer.
I am not a fan of the death penalty anymore either thanks to the development, improvements and deployment of DNA evidence that has forced the release of innocent men who may have spent 10, 20 or 30 years on Death Row for a crime they did not commit. Withheld evidence, a malicious prosecutor, an inept defense lawyer, media pressure ... a lot can happen going into and through a trial for a capitol crime.
And finally, given the recent uptick in murders and other brutal violence (usually carried out with illegally obtained guns) in America's biggest cities, clearly, the death penalty is no deterrence to potential killers. Psychotic behavior is not influenced by policy. In the nearly every study of psychotic and sociopathic behavior among children, teens and adults, there is no empathy from which to reflect on right and wrong, to draw upon for remorse.
An old saying in Texas goes, "Some people just deserve killin'. Perhaps so. As Nate in Atlanta noted herein, the murders of a family in Cheshire, CT demand the execution of those killers. They were caught; they confessed; there was no remorse.
The death penalty should never be described as a "deterrant." Rather it is simply revenge. Getting it right is where things can go terribly wrong.
I am not a fan of the death penalty anymore either thanks to the development, improvements and deployment of DNA evidence that has forced the release of innocent men who may have spent 10, 20 or 30 years on Death Row for a crime they did not commit. Withheld evidence, a malicious prosecutor, an inept defense lawyer, media pressure ... a lot can happen going into and through a trial for a capitol crime.
And finally, given the recent uptick in murders and other brutal violence (usually carried out with illegally obtained guns) in America's biggest cities, clearly, the death penalty is no deterrence to potential killers. Psychotic behavior is not influenced by policy. In the nearly every study of psychotic and sociopathic behavior among children, teens and adults, there is no empathy from which to reflect on right and wrong, to draw upon for remorse.
An old saying in Texas goes, "Some people just deserve killin'. Perhaps so. As Nate in Atlanta noted herein, the murders of a family in Cheshire, CT demand the execution of those killers. They were caught; they confessed; there was no remorse.
The death penalty should never be described as a "deterrant." Rather it is simply revenge. Getting it right is where things can go terribly wrong.
2
There is another reason the death penalty is not a deterrent. A psychopathic serial killer driven by an urge to kill is not deterred by the death penalty. They don't care. Or they figure they won't get caught, or get convicted because they're so much smarter than everyone else..They don't think "Oh, I shouldn't do this, I could get the death penalty!" "Gee, I shouldn't kill my pregnant wife, I could face the death penalty!" They think they'll beat the rap or they just don't care if they die. The death penalty has become revenge so the families of the victims can feel better or feel avenged. The justice system shouldn't be used to make people feel avenged or to convince the public they are safer; it's emotional and false, IMHO. The justice system is supposed to be blind, logical and equal, and the death penalty's fairness is often corrupted by emotion, not to mention issues of race and class. The innocent or wrongly executed are usually not middle class executives, let's face it.
18
The death penalty is punishment pure and simple.
2
I support the death penalty, preferably gruesomely and in public, protracted, subject to 8A limitations
The lives taken are demeaned when their killers live
I am aware of the wrongful death fear by execution; many say that failure to execute is also wrongful death by those who homicidally recidivate. One wrongful death has all the safeguards we can provide, the other is some poor hard-luck person in the wrong place at the wrong time
I'll face my maker better knowing I did what i could to ensure justice, vs letting some unfortunate pay my bill for-bleeding heart, for failure to triage society
As for lack of deterrence, piffle, the death penalty has never been tried, a few random deaths, lower than prison stabbings or food poisonings, are hardly a test of deterrence
Execution would be tested for deterrence if, for say twenty years, an entire generation, we executed every homicide, and an entire generation grew up - you kill, we catch you, you die
Thus about 20,000 executions a year
if THAT carnage horrifies, THAT is the carnage we endure by NOT testing deterrence
AND we do not test other crime-prevention, --would we think 'life' in prison deters and if it did not would we abandon that punishment?
I doubt so
As for the morality of State murder - I read of a crazy man who kidnapped his girlfriend and locked her up in a cellar for a few years
when he was caught we locked him up
Does locking him up make us the same as he when he locked her up
I can tell the diff
The lives taken are demeaned when their killers live
I am aware of the wrongful death fear by execution; many say that failure to execute is also wrongful death by those who homicidally recidivate. One wrongful death has all the safeguards we can provide, the other is some poor hard-luck person in the wrong place at the wrong time
I'll face my maker better knowing I did what i could to ensure justice, vs letting some unfortunate pay my bill for-bleeding heart, for failure to triage society
As for lack of deterrence, piffle, the death penalty has never been tried, a few random deaths, lower than prison stabbings or food poisonings, are hardly a test of deterrence
Execution would be tested for deterrence if, for say twenty years, an entire generation, we executed every homicide, and an entire generation grew up - you kill, we catch you, you die
Thus about 20,000 executions a year
if THAT carnage horrifies, THAT is the carnage we endure by NOT testing deterrence
AND we do not test other crime-prevention, --would we think 'life' in prison deters and if it did not would we abandon that punishment?
I doubt so
As for the morality of State murder - I read of a crazy man who kidnapped his girlfriend and locked her up in a cellar for a few years
when he was caught we locked him up
Does locking him up make us the same as he when he locked her up
I can tell the diff
5
The problem is you have no facts to base your views.
For one, it costs more to have the death penalty, yes largely based on legal fees yes, but those are the facts. The myth that you are having to pay to keep murderers alive is simply that, a myth.
Also, it is estimated ten percent of people on death row are wrongfully convicted. That's not "wrong place and wrong time", that is reason enough to question it.
The difference between you and the people doing this act, is they have a conscious. Why don't you listen to the people who actually are the ones having to execute people?
Personally, I think these decisions should be in the hands of family and friends. If someone ever touches my little girl, I should have the right to place one between the eyes. Pedophiles should all be immediately executed by the family members.
For one, it costs more to have the death penalty, yes largely based on legal fees yes, but those are the facts. The myth that you are having to pay to keep murderers alive is simply that, a myth.
Also, it is estimated ten percent of people on death row are wrongfully convicted. That's not "wrong place and wrong time", that is reason enough to question it.
The difference between you and the people doing this act, is they have a conscious. Why don't you listen to the people who actually are the ones having to execute people?
Personally, I think these decisions should be in the hands of family and friends. If someone ever touches my little girl, I should have the right to place one between the eyes. Pedophiles should all be immediately executed by the family members.
So you're in favor of lynching, the ultimate in pure revenge. Terrific.
I have made no factual allegations, or not many
I think the wrongful conviction rate is closer to 1%, we have had maybe 200 reversals via the various innocence projects, over what denominator, 2,000 condemned persons? 20,000/ 200,000 murder convictions?
A non-capital conviction is as likely to be wrongful as a capital conviction, we might think
I expect the homicidal recidivism rate is closer to 2 or 3%, no convenient data
THOSE victims, of homicidal recidivism, --we know THEY exist,-- are my 'wrong place wrong rime' forgotten victims
=
As for the people who pull the triggers, they have no particular expertise regarding wrongful conviction
THEIR expertise pertains to reading 'prisoner in cell 5' as 'prisoner in cell 25' - and does THAT happen, or using the wrong chemical in the lethal injections
=
As for cost? yes we read that small jurisdictions cannot afford the decades of legal fees, vs somehow the decades of prisoner maintenance
When I looked at these numbers decades ago, annual prisoner maintenance was $25,000 per year
Crudely, if murderers are in their mid 20s, say 25, and life expectancy is 75, that is 50 years of prisoner maintenance, about say $1,250,000
And I expect older prisoners cost more to maintain, for medical reasons
AND we are not good for 'life' - the people are often released
I never hear - "the prisoner shall be in jail for as long as the decedent is dead," MY preferred sentence
I have no comment on victims pulling the trigger
I think the wrongful conviction rate is closer to 1%, we have had maybe 200 reversals via the various innocence projects, over what denominator, 2,000 condemned persons? 20,000/ 200,000 murder convictions?
A non-capital conviction is as likely to be wrongful as a capital conviction, we might think
I expect the homicidal recidivism rate is closer to 2 or 3%, no convenient data
THOSE victims, of homicidal recidivism, --we know THEY exist,-- are my 'wrong place wrong rime' forgotten victims
=
As for the people who pull the triggers, they have no particular expertise regarding wrongful conviction
THEIR expertise pertains to reading 'prisoner in cell 5' as 'prisoner in cell 25' - and does THAT happen, or using the wrong chemical in the lethal injections
=
As for cost? yes we read that small jurisdictions cannot afford the decades of legal fees, vs somehow the decades of prisoner maintenance
When I looked at these numbers decades ago, annual prisoner maintenance was $25,000 per year
Crudely, if murderers are in their mid 20s, say 25, and life expectancy is 75, that is 50 years of prisoner maintenance, about say $1,250,000
And I expect older prisoners cost more to maintain, for medical reasons
AND we are not good for 'life' - the people are often released
I never hear - "the prisoner shall be in jail for as long as the decedent is dead," MY preferred sentence
I have no comment on victims pulling the trigger
Mr. Thompson, thank you ever so much for this sincere, reflective and effective condemnation of a barbaric practice.
What a telling "conversion" narrative!
I wonder how many of the death penalty's most ardent advocates have ever acknowledged the severe psychological "blowback" that can so readily damage those charged with its hands-on administration?
As a professor of ethics, I believe that this piece should be included in every anthology of readings designed to stimulate reflection on this hideous practice.
You have effectively communicated ever so much with an admirable economy of means.
You are performing a great service for our society.
My heartfelt thanks and appreciation for your commitment and your service in the cause of the penalty's abolition.
What a telling "conversion" narrative!
I wonder how many of the death penalty's most ardent advocates have ever acknowledged the severe psychological "blowback" that can so readily damage those charged with its hands-on administration?
As a professor of ethics, I believe that this piece should be included in every anthology of readings designed to stimulate reflection on this hideous practice.
You have effectively communicated ever so much with an admirable economy of means.
You are performing a great service for our society.
My heartfelt thanks and appreciation for your commitment and your service in the cause of the penalty's abolition.
12
"I was 13 when Emmett Till was lynched for “flirting” with a white woman. I can remember upstanding black Christians expressing hope that his murderers would be caught and hanged. It seemed quite reasonable to me then that death was the only proportionate response for people who would so egregiously violate the norms of a society."
I believe Superintendent Thompson, in his spare eloquence, intentionally left out the obvious corollary, that that was exactly the reasoning of the murderers, but I feel compelled to leave it here, in case anyone missed it. "The norms of a society" are thin ice indeed, and sometimes it's hard to say whether breaking through or proceeding across is the quicker way to hell.
I believe Superintendent Thompson, in his spare eloquence, intentionally left out the obvious corollary, that that was exactly the reasoning of the murderers, but I feel compelled to leave it here, in case anyone missed it. "The norms of a society" are thin ice indeed, and sometimes it's hard to say whether breaking through or proceeding across is the quicker way to hell.
7
Whether you feel some persons absolutely deserve to be executed because they are so evil, dangerous and guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt... or whether you are against it for reason of doubt, a spiritual etc... it's been shown in studies it is not a deterrent. It also for some odd reason costs more to e execute a person than it does to imprison them forever - the cost & lack if deterrence should be enough to say no more.
It's also part if our messed up prison system that shouldn't be a profitable industry.
What happened to reform, work details etc. If other countries can do it better why can't we?
It's also part if our messed up prison system that shouldn't be a profitable industry.
What happened to reform, work details etc. If other countries can do it better why can't we?
I worked with Frank during the executions. Saying it was a privilege seems bizarre, as was everything during that time when we were all trying to cope with the enormity -- and finality -- of killing someone. What Frank failed to mention, and maybe he doesn't even know, was that he was our rock. It was his broad shoulders to which we clung when the whole damn thing was simply overwhelming. He was our buffer zone, the person who had our backs, encourager-in-chief. No one walked away. That says it all.
I endured being called a Nazi for doing my job; I can't imagine the vitriol that was, and still may be (because of this piece), directed at him. But you know what? He's right. Capital punishment is wrong in so many ways, not the least of which is its enduring effect on every professional involved. From 20 years of first-hand perspective, capital punishment itself needs to be put to death.
I endured being called a Nazi for doing my job; I can't imagine the vitriol that was, and still may be (because of this piece), directed at him. But you know what? He's right. Capital punishment is wrong in so many ways, not the least of which is its enduring effect on every professional involved. From 20 years of first-hand perspective, capital punishment itself needs to be put to death.
172
Oregonian, thank you for your comment. Thank you for your validation of Mr. Thompson's opinion piece. I can't imagine what any of you went through.
2
This is a heartfelt piece from a sincere man who carried out his duty and later had misgivings about the need for capital punishment. That is what makes our country great. We are not a blood thirsty people but a nation of laws and not men. No one expects people with internal conflicts to assist in the taking of a human life. It can weigh heavy on a man's soul. However, the constitutionality of the death penalty is settled law. It is not cruel and unusual punishment and indeed death by lethal injection is in most cases swift and painless, dispatching the murderer almost instantaneously to his maker, for either final judgment and damnation or redemption. The death penalty is still a deterrent even if it makes a single person think twice about raping and murdering a child or kidnapping and torturing to death a teenager. That one life the death penalty may have preserved is why we have it. It puts fear in the heart of the evil doer and provides a measure of justice to the families of the victims who have suffered their loss and perhaps might sleep more soundly knowing the murderer of their child is now deceased and gone. So let others now do their duty and execute the laws of the state. You are retired and properly so. But thank you for your service.
1
No one should have to go through that.
1
Executing how many innocent people is OK? One or two? The courts make mistakes. But one or two such mistakes is OK? in the name of justice!
2
Yes, that is the question proponents of the death penalty consistently evade.
If you are for it, you need to at least acknowledge that innocent people will be killed and that you can live with that.
If you are for it, you need to at least acknowledge that innocent people will be killed and that you can live with that.
"While death penalty supporters suggest that capital punishment has the power of deterrence, a 2012 report by the National Research Council found that research “is not informative about whether capital punishment decreases, increases or has no effect on homicide rates.”
So, that's it? The author is convinced that capital punishment does not have a deterrent effect because of some crummy 2012 report that claims that it is not clear whether or not capital punishment has a deterrent effect???
What is the National Research Council? How was the study conducted? Did they simply ask people whether or not capital punishment would deter them from committing capital crimes? Who did they ask...people already convicted of committing capital crimes (any answer here is gratuitous), other criminals, the man on the street? What the report vetted? By whom? Who commissioned the study?
This is total garbage, and the author is an intellectual lightweight for writing that this "report" constitutes the definitive rationale for opposing capital punishment.
So, that's it? The author is convinced that capital punishment does not have a deterrent effect because of some crummy 2012 report that claims that it is not clear whether or not capital punishment has a deterrent effect???
What is the National Research Council? How was the study conducted? Did they simply ask people whether or not capital punishment would deter them from committing capital crimes? Who did they ask...people already convicted of committing capital crimes (any answer here is gratuitous), other criminals, the man on the street? What the report vetted? By whom? Who commissioned the study?
This is total garbage, and the author is an intellectual lightweight for writing that this "report" constitutes the definitive rationale for opposing capital punishment.
1
The death penalty should be abolished, because it doesn't really serve any purpose in a modern legal system. But we should be willing to euthanize on request any person serving a life sentence, because a life sentence in an American prison is a terminal condition which inflicts needless suffering and which costs taxpayers large amounts of money.
1
What the gentleman has to say reminds me an awful lot of the colloquey engaged in by the law enforcement officers at end of Truman Capote's "In Cold Blood".
They want us to make the assumption that the death penalty does not work in deterring murder because, despite the existence of the death penalty, murder does still happen.
The fallacy of that argument is that it is does not take into consideration, nor can it, the murders which are not commited because would-be murderers are, in fact, deterred by the death penalty.
They want us to make the assumption that the death penalty does not work in deterring murder because, despite the existence of the death penalty, murder does still happen.
The fallacy of that argument is that it is does not take into consideration, nor can it, the murders which are not commited because would-be murderers are, in fact, deterred by the death penalty.
2
Kudos to Mr. Thompson for speaking out from a position of authority and experience on this important issue.
I agree that the death penalty does nothing to deter crime, and its irreversible nature makes it cruel and unusual punishment, regardless of the crime.
I agree that the death penalty does nothing to deter crime, and its irreversible nature makes it cruel and unusual punishment, regardless of the crime.
1
I believe there are criminal things a person can do that are so repugnant and deviant that they must forfeit their right to life. Jesse Timmendeques is still alive, still filing appeals, which is a daily insult and wounding of the Megan's family. My problem with the death penalty is the endless automatic appeals and delays that make a death sentencing, though deserved, and instance of justice delayed is justice denied.
1
It must be an incredibly unpleasant job to have. How about a labor union for executioners?
I believe there are things a person can do that are so repugnant and unforgivable, that they must forfeit their right to life. I believe Justice demands it. My complaints with the death penalty are the endless legislated delays and appeals that makes a death sentence, though deserved, an instance of Justice delayed being Justice denied, and another wounding of the victims family. I believe Jesse Timmendequis is still alive Murder One is not appropriately responded to with a life sentence. You can read that in the body language and post-trial statements of any victims family.
5
The death penalty is an act of revenge for the innocent victims of heinous crimes.
It does not require any other end to be a legitimate response of a just society.
It does not require any other end to be a legitimate response of a just society.
5
Revenge is not something a legal system should embrace
"The death penalty is an act of revenge"
Laws are supposed to be punishment for breaking the laws of our country, They are not supposed to be revenge. So senseless to think our civil laws are based on revenge, revenge never ends it is on going for as long as there are people who feel they have been hurt some how.
I believe revenge is still carried out by the extremists over in the middle east on themselves and others.
The death penalty should be abolished, life in prison is worse than execution
Laws are supposed to be punishment for breaking the laws of our country, They are not supposed to be revenge. So senseless to think our civil laws are based on revenge, revenge never ends it is on going for as long as there are people who feel they have been hurt some how.
I believe revenge is still carried out by the extremists over in the middle east on themselves and others.
The death penalty should be abolished, life in prison is worse than execution
In the callowness of my youth I was in favor of an almost Draconian expansion of the death penalty.
Then I met a fellow lawyer who was a member of the John Howard Society who made arguments against the death penalty I could not refute.
Then I saw a prosecutorial system in my state that condemned more than a dozen people who were later *proven* innocent.
Despite the political fallout, which I believe led in part to his conviction for other crimes, our governor commuted the sentences of everyone on death row in Illinois. The death penalty was later abolished. Among the sentences commuted was the murderer of my mother's best friend.
I'm no bleeding heart by any stretch of the imagination. But I cannot countenance state-sanctioned killing any longer. I just can't.
Then I met a fellow lawyer who was a member of the John Howard Society who made arguments against the death penalty I could not refute.
Then I saw a prosecutorial system in my state that condemned more than a dozen people who were later *proven* innocent.
Despite the political fallout, which I believe led in part to his conviction for other crimes, our governor commuted the sentences of everyone on death row in Illinois. The death penalty was later abolished. Among the sentences commuted was the murderer of my mother's best friend.
I'm no bleeding heart by any stretch of the imagination. But I cannot countenance state-sanctioned killing any longer. I just can't.
3
Prisoner sentenced to life kills a guard or fellow inmate. Now what do we do? Put them in solitary for life...won't someone complain cruel and unusual
1
The death penalty is:
1. More expensive than life in jail.
2. Does not deter crimes.
3. Has killed and might kill other innocent people. Reason number three alone is enough to forbid its use forever.
A very heartfelt article.
1. More expensive than life in jail.
2. Does not deter crimes.
3. Has killed and might kill other innocent people. Reason number three alone is enough to forbid its use forever.
A very heartfelt article.
11
In arguing that the death penalty is vengeance, many commenters are correct, but not only can it also serve as justice for the crime victim's families, it can be justice for the victims themselves and for civil society at large.
To use one example--be advised, the following is an account of a horrific crime that took place Aug. 24th--take the torture and murder of a young girl named Victoria Martens in New Mexico that her own mother participated in.
Little Victoria's mother invited men to rape her ten-year-old girl several times, and on Aug. 24th, as Victoria' mom watched, one of the men and his female cousin strangled and stabbed little Victoria to death after raping her. Then, they defiled her lifeless body by sawing off her arms and a leg before setting her alight as police arrived after a 911 call from a neighbor.
Though New Mexico got rid of the death penalty in 2009, I can't think of three better candidates to be executed given their heinous crimes against little Victoria. Yes, their executions would be vengeance, but their deaths would also offer a modicum of justice to the girl whose life they senselessly stole.
For those against the death penalty for moral reasons, I understand, but there also are moral reasons to execute when the evidence is overwhelming and the crimes are horrific as in Victoria's case. And for those against the death penalty in these said cases, I'd argue that they should be the ones to pay for the food and upkeep for these animals.
To use one example--be advised, the following is an account of a horrific crime that took place Aug. 24th--take the torture and murder of a young girl named Victoria Martens in New Mexico that her own mother participated in.
Little Victoria's mother invited men to rape her ten-year-old girl several times, and on Aug. 24th, as Victoria' mom watched, one of the men and his female cousin strangled and stabbed little Victoria to death after raping her. Then, they defiled her lifeless body by sawing off her arms and a leg before setting her alight as police arrived after a 911 call from a neighbor.
Though New Mexico got rid of the death penalty in 2009, I can't think of three better candidates to be executed given their heinous crimes against little Victoria. Yes, their executions would be vengeance, but their deaths would also offer a modicum of justice to the girl whose life they senselessly stole.
For those against the death penalty for moral reasons, I understand, but there also are moral reasons to execute when the evidence is overwhelming and the crimes are horrific as in Victoria's case. And for those against the death penalty in these said cases, I'd argue that they should be the ones to pay for the food and upkeep for these animals.
4
If drug companies won't provide the drugs for lethal injection, it doesn't happen. If no human agrees to personally be a part of capital punishment, it won't happen.
Everyone needs to take responsibility and do the right thing, especially the executioner.
Everyone needs to take responsibility and do the right thing, especially the executioner.
A few thoughts: Some have said that capital punishment amounts to ‘revenge,’ and that revenge is beneath civilized society. But why should this be so? We live every day trusting that fellow members of our human community will treat us decently; if someone breaks this trust by taking a life, who is to say that revenge is not called for? What do we, collectively, owe the killer?
I understand how an imprisoned murderer, who lives among and interacts with law-abiding people for years, can gradually seem to them to transcend his or her act, even turn his/her life around, and that carrying out a death sentence a decade or more later might look unnecessary and capriciously cruel. For this reason victim advocates constantly fight to keep the cruelties visited on murder victims from being forgotten. Is there a point when time is punishment enough for the criminal and healing enough for loved ones?
Finally, preserving the death penalty – for the most egregious and irredeemable cases – seems a more flexible resolution than eliminating it across the board.
I understand how an imprisoned murderer, who lives among and interacts with law-abiding people for years, can gradually seem to them to transcend his or her act, even turn his/her life around, and that carrying out a death sentence a decade or more later might look unnecessary and capriciously cruel. For this reason victim advocates constantly fight to keep the cruelties visited on murder victims from being forgotten. Is there a point when time is punishment enough for the criminal and healing enough for loved ones?
Finally, preserving the death penalty – for the most egregious and irredeemable cases – seems a more flexible resolution than eliminating it across the board.
33
There are other issues involved. The vast majority of death penalties are inflicted on those who are from socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. Hence execution is disproportionately applied to poor racial minorities, who cannot afford the legal representation of more affluent clients. Racial prejudice is rampant.
There are a number of other issues that go beyond innocence and life in prison is no picnic. Many think is it also far less expensive given that endless appeals do not take place.
Here is a fairly good summary about the lopsided nature of the penalty: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/05/we-already-know-what... .
There are a number of other issues that go beyond innocence and life in prison is no picnic. Many think is it also far less expensive given that endless appeals do not take place.
Here is a fairly good summary about the lopsided nature of the penalty: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/05/we-already-know-what... .
Jeanne Woodford, former California executioner, Ron McAndrew, former Florida prison warden, Jim Willet, former warden of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice's Walls Unit where Texas executions take place, and the late Donald A. Cabana, warden of Mississippi's Parchman Farm and member of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, are among a number of former correction officials who had some responsibility for carrying out a state's death penalty.
Has Mr. Thompson joined the Coalition or spoken with Woodford and Willet?
It would seem that former executioners (for want of a better word) are folks who are the second most deeply affected by carrying out the penalty, after those executed. This essay provides moving arguments against the penalty, but cites no national movement or other effort to stop its enforcement.
Mr. Thompson is not alone, although the consequence of enforcing Oregon's death penalty obviously made him feel that way. Perhaps a NYTimes piece should be written on all of the former executioners who also oppose the penalty.
Has Mr. Thompson joined the Coalition or spoken with Woodford and Willet?
It would seem that former executioners (for want of a better word) are folks who are the second most deeply affected by carrying out the penalty, after those executed. This essay provides moving arguments against the penalty, but cites no national movement or other effort to stop its enforcement.
Mr. Thompson is not alone, although the consequence of enforcing Oregon's death penalty obviously made him feel that way. Perhaps a NYTimes piece should be written on all of the former executioners who also oppose the penalty.
7
The Johnson/Weld ticket and the Libertarian Party want to eliminate the death penalty. It's the only human/humane choice to be made - the state should not murder its own citizens when there is doubt in the justice system's ability to confidently judge guilt.
6
I'm not sure what the author means when he says, "We all share the burden" of capital punishment. If he means we all share the responsibility, no we don't. Many people take principled stands against it.
If the author means that it is something we all pay for -- in the form of financial cost as well as a crueler and more violent society -- then I agree with him.
If the author means that it is something we all pay for -- in the form of financial cost as well as a crueler and more violent society -- then I agree with him.
14
My sense here, as someone who feels strongly that capital punishment is a fundamental societal wrong, is that it is my feeling the burden -- sharing in the burden as a member of society -- that serves as my motivation to speak out against it.
This is a beautifully written, well argued essay. Sincere thanks to the author for sharing his insights from direct experience, and thanks to the Times for publishing it.
This is a beautifully written, well argued essay. Sincere thanks to the author for sharing his insights from direct experience, and thanks to the Times for publishing it.
2
I fully believe that the death penalty is morally repugnant in all cases, and shouldn't be used period. Those who argue that life without the possibility of parole isn't enough punishment should spend time in a maximum security prison.
On a more practical level, application of capital punishment faces all the same issues of bias that the rest of our justice system, with no possibility of rectifying a mistake. Unless police and prosecutors can assure the public that no innocent person is ever executed then we shouldn't be in the business of executions. Having worked with wrongfully convicted men and women (almost all of them poor POC) it was obvious to me that the poorest defendants are the ones most likely to end up being executed - guilty and innocent alike.
On a more practical level, application of capital punishment faces all the same issues of bias that the rest of our justice system, with no possibility of rectifying a mistake. Unless police and prosecutors can assure the public that no innocent person is ever executed then we shouldn't be in the business of executions. Having worked with wrongfully convicted men and women (almost all of them poor POC) it was obvious to me that the poorest defendants are the ones most likely to end up being executed - guilty and innocent alike.
29
Can there be a difference between "wrongfully convicted" and innocent?
1
A "guilty" verdict is handed down when the jury agrees that the accused is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt."
An execution is FINAL.
What happens when we find the "reasonable doubt" wasn't so reasonable after all? That person is STILL DEAD and cannot be brought back to life.
It is said that "to err is to be human." We can fix an errant judgement; we canNOT fix an errant execution.
An execution is FINAL.
What happens when we find the "reasonable doubt" wasn't so reasonable after all? That person is STILL DEAD and cannot be brought back to life.
It is said that "to err is to be human." We can fix an errant judgement; we canNOT fix an errant execution.
44
I used to be vehemently against the death penalty until the 2007 home invasion, rape and murder of an innocent family in Cheshire, CT. This was an absolutely senseless crime committed against strangers who were randomly targeted. The two perpetrators, career criminals, were caught in the act, so there was no debate over their innocence. The idea of an innocent person being put to death sickens me, as do cases where there are mitigating factors that aren't considered. However, I believe certain, rare cases rise to level of heinousness that deserves the death penalty. These men were the embodiment of evil and forfeited their right to be on this earth by committing a such an unequivocally gruesome crime. It disgusts me that Connecticut has banned the death penalty and commuted their sentences to life.
99
It was my turnaround moment as well.
1
The death penalty was made for that Connecticut case, which included robbery, rape, murder, arson.
3
At taxpayers' expense, no less.
1
Thank you Mr. Thompson. Can you please run for President of the United States?
9
Quickly!!!!!
1
I am in many ways against the death penalty. But then someone like Angela McNulty happens, right there in Oregon. And I honestly *do* think I could look her in the eyes and send her to death. Not even in anger, but in just.... soberness. True recognition of the gravity of the evil she fell prey to, and perpetuated.
Of course, crimes like hers are quite rare; I'd like to see the death penalty reserved for crimes like torturing your own daughter to death. But maybe as long as the death penalty is legal, we'll overuse it.
Of course, crimes like hers are quite rare; I'd like to see the death penalty reserved for crimes like torturing your own daughter to death. But maybe as long as the death penalty is legal, we'll overuse it.
4
(Not Mark) I have no problem using the death penalty in especially heinous cases and unfortunately there seem to be no lack of them. I'm not a Christian and generally get turned off by the seeming piety of the opposition, as I feel they are trying to force their religious beliefs on all of us. If the day ever comes when we actually get to vote on the issue I would abide by whatever the outcome would be, even if I lost.
Together with denials, that capital punishment is about revenge, you always hear about "closure" for the murder victims relatives. What is this strange closure, if not revenge?
9
Not sure that I object to revenge but I'm happy to do away with revenge if you can ensure some future enlightened society won't set the 'reformed' murderer free
Actually, many (most) families of victims, even those who lobbied for the death penalty, feel no sense of closure or relief when the sentence is finally carried out. And then there are those who argue strongly against it, realizing that killing another human, no matter how deranged, will not bring their loved one back or lessen their own suffering.
1
Like many, I feel that the death penalty is over utilized in the U.S. and doesn't serve as any sort of deterrent, but is there NO crime that warrants capital punishment? Is there no line beyond which our society should condone the execution of a guilty criminal?
I'm not talking about one drifter killing another in a bar fight or even the killing of a police officer in a shootout. I refer to crimes like the Oklahoma City bombing and the murder of the wife and daughters of Dr. William Petit in Connecticut. Exceptional events like these shake people's sense of safety and well-being. Society should have an exceptional response to them.
I'm not talking about one drifter killing another in a bar fight or even the killing of a police officer in a shootout. I refer to crimes like the Oklahoma City bombing and the murder of the wife and daughters of Dr. William Petit in Connecticut. Exceptional events like these shake people's sense of safety and well-being. Society should have an exceptional response to them.
6
Such hypocrisy, to insist on executions but run and hide when it's time to carry them out. Men and women like this bear the burden of our collective cowardice. Let them by performed in public, and make everyone watch. No sanitized methods like injection that let us pretend this is simply another bureaucratic procedure. And the person who pushes the button must be one of us, chose by lot.
Don't like it? Then maybe we should not be doing this.
Don't like it? Then maybe we should not be doing this.
141
Good idea. Bring back public hangings, put them on pay per view and give the money to the victims.
1
I find a huge red flag in your "make" everyone watch. Honestly, I wouldn't have a problem with letting everyone watch (put it on YouTube for all I care). But when someone wants to "make" everyone watch it smells of totalitarian regimes.
1
Public executions were very popular in 19th century England.
1
I oppose the death penalty.
However I take issue with the notion that the justices of the Supreme Court, whether of an Earl Warren or Antonin Scalia bent who are not answerable to the people have the authority to unilaterally substitute their subjective cultural values for those of the people and their representatives, a conceit which although by tradition a legitimate function of the Law Lords of the British House of Lords denies the fundamental principle of this country's democratic republicanism that the people have reserved to themselves the right to be wrong.
Our errors are correctable. The Court's, not so much if at all.
However I take issue with the notion that the justices of the Supreme Court, whether of an Earl Warren or Antonin Scalia bent who are not answerable to the people have the authority to unilaterally substitute their subjective cultural values for those of the people and their representatives, a conceit which although by tradition a legitimate function of the Law Lords of the British House of Lords denies the fundamental principle of this country's democratic republicanism that the people have reserved to themselves the right to be wrong.
Our errors are correctable. The Court's, not so much if at all.
11
True. Now what's exactly is your point? I am missing it ...
"I take issue with ... have the authority to unilaterally substitute their subjective cultural values for those of the people and their representatives ..."
How so? What are you talking about?
"I take issue with ... have the authority to unilaterally substitute their subjective cultural values for those of the people and their representatives ..."
How so? What are you talking about?
1
I hope you are not a lawyer because your understanding of the function of the Supreme Court falls short. The Supreme court exists to arbitrate disputes between states, between persons and foreign nations and to interpret the constitution. In order for the constitution to have effect, it must be interpreted as it relates to specific cases. "The People" as a whole can not do this. It can only be done by a select, deliberative body. Such a body is inevitably made up of persons who must uses - and can only use - their own best judgement. sometimes that judgement falls behind popular feeling and sometimes it is in advance of it. Recall that almost every important step forward in civil rights since World War II has been advanced by the court. "The People," for example, would not have voted for striking down prohibitions on inter-racial marriage (Loving vs. Virginia) Nor would they have voted for eliminating school segregation. The people do not have "the right to be wrong" when that wrong inflicts harm on minorities.
Judicial review of legislation is not a feature of the British system. You really have no idea what you are talking about. The Times editors making this entry a pick is truly a mystery.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson, for these strong and heartfelt words.
Capital punishment is indeed a failed policy. But, in a society as morally and ethically corrupt as ours, blood lust is a difficult thing to overcome.
Capital punishment is indeed a failed policy. But, in a society as morally and ethically corrupt as ours, blood lust is a difficult thing to overcome.
4
(Not Mark) Since they are on death row for 15 to 20 years I hardly think 'blood lust' has much to do with it.
So many lives are implicated in a death. A judge has to make decisions. Maybe a jury. A prosecutor works to kill the person. The defense attorney works to save his or her life, knowing that death is the price of failure. It's too hard on everyone. None of it brings the victim back. Killing is wrong. We should stop.
7
Thanks to the death penalty, the south is a paradise with way less murder than places like NYC and New England where there is no death penalty.
Oh wait, that's not right. It's higher, how can this be?
Oh wait, that's not right. It's higher, how can this be?
16
Be careful what you wish for. Perhaps lawmakers will one day respond to Mr. Thompson's concerns by bringing automation to the process.
2
Execution is not only about deterrence. It is also payment for taking another person's life. It is proportional. It therefore makes sense.
Having said that, nothing in the US Constitution mandates the death penalty, or prohibits it as per SCOTUS (assuming it is not cruel AND unusual). If voters, state by state, want to change the laws, and ban executions, let them.
Just remember: one legislature cannot bind another, future legislature.
Having said that, nothing in the US Constitution mandates the death penalty, or prohibits it as per SCOTUS (assuming it is not cruel AND unusual). If voters, state by state, want to change the laws, and ban executions, let them.
Just remember: one legislature cannot bind another, future legislature.
5
Thanks for this great article. All the best.
3
I live in Texas and they can't kill them fast enough here. It's downright shameful.
6
(Not Mark) I live in Texas too, but I have the exact opposite feeling.
To begin with, killing a person for killing people makes no more sense then torturing someone for torturing, beating someone for assault, stealing from thieves for stealing--the list would be endless.
Second of all, we have executed people who are completely innocent, owing to corrupt prosecution, poor defense attorneys, false testimony. That shameful list is endless, too. Just look at how many innocent people the Innocence Project has saved from execution. It's beyond appalling.
Finally, putting corrections employees through the trauma of killing people victimizes them, which becomes a crime in and of itself.
I can't help but notice that only one other person has commented on this which tells me how little interest there is, which is one of the main reasons why we continue to kill people in the name of justice.
Second of all, we have executed people who are completely innocent, owing to corrupt prosecution, poor defense attorneys, false testimony. That shameful list is endless, too. Just look at how many innocent people the Innocence Project has saved from execution. It's beyond appalling.
Finally, putting corrections employees through the trauma of killing people victimizes them, which becomes a crime in and of itself.
I can't help but notice that only one other person has commented on this which tells me how little interest there is, which is one of the main reasons why we continue to kill people in the name of justice.
4
None of what Mr. Thompson wrote convinces me that people who commit horrible, brutal murders should be able to live (even with a lack of freedom) for fifty years or more at the expense of the taxpayers. When I read articles like this I often wonder if the writer shed any tears for the victims of these convicted murderers, who may well have been screaming or pleading for mercy at the hands of their killers, who had sometimes raped or tortured them before killing them.
In regards to it being a deterrence, it's foolish to think that a sentence delayed for fifteen years or more is going to deter someone else. If you want it to be a deterrent, much swifter justice would be needed.
The only problem I have with the death penalty is the chance of killing an innocent person. Too often we read about people who have been in jail for decades and have now been freed because of DNA evidence or some other reason. That possibility, to me, is the argument against capital punishment.
In regards to it being a deterrence, it's foolish to think that a sentence delayed for fifteen years or more is going to deter someone else. If you want it to be a deterrent, much swifter justice would be needed.
The only problem I have with the death penalty is the chance of killing an innocent person. Too often we read about people who have been in jail for decades and have now been freed because of DNA evidence or some other reason. That possibility, to me, is the argument against capital punishment.
8
There's nothing wrong with putting down sick animals, or those that bite, apparently, so it again it seems we treat our pets better than their wild counterparts or our fellow man. No surprise society is collapsing, either.
Ha! Society isn't collapsing. Jeez, relax, Chicken Little.
5
Look at the other societies that have the death penalty. Do you really want be like them. Most free and democratic countries do not have the death penalty and are far from collapsing.
The problems with capital punishment are all very human:
1- Rich people get better legal counsel than poor people.
2- Pre-trial publicity of salacious acts in the media make an impartial jury a joke.
3- Political prosecutors looking to make a mark take it out on the accused.
4- Evidence gathered via Police misconduct is sometimes allowed to be used.
5- Far too many convicted people have been shown to be innocent- sometimes after they have been executed.
How many of us doubt that OJ killed his ex-wife and Ron Goldman? Despite this, O.J. never spent a day in Prison for the murder of two people thanks to an ineffective judge, incompetent prosecutors and a lot of money spent on high priced legal talent. If O.J. were an unknown random man of color do you think the outcome might have been different?
1- Rich people get better legal counsel than poor people.
2- Pre-trial publicity of salacious acts in the media make an impartial jury a joke.
3- Political prosecutors looking to make a mark take it out on the accused.
4- Evidence gathered via Police misconduct is sometimes allowed to be used.
5- Far too many convicted people have been shown to be innocent- sometimes after they have been executed.
How many of us doubt that OJ killed his ex-wife and Ron Goldman? Despite this, O.J. never spent a day in Prison for the murder of two people thanks to an ineffective judge, incompetent prosecutors and a lot of money spent on high priced legal talent. If O.J. were an unknown random man of color do you think the outcome might have been different?
9
If capital punishment is to be administered, it should be carried out like jury duty - with citizens chosen at random to carry out the execution.
12
Except in death penalty cases, citizens are not chosen randomly--people who indicate that they will not vote for capital punishment are not allowed to serve on the jury.
1
Strange article. It is a personal, first person account. Yet, it feels distant, cold and unengaging.
Personally, I don't fall for the political correctness of it being "justice" or whatever. I am not particularly in favor of the death penalty, but I really don't oppose it either. There are some people that, we as a society, should just get rid off. My only opposition is the time that it takes to actually execute a prisoner. I think that 3 - 4 years should be enough. Keeping a guy in death row for 15, 20 or 25 years is by itself cruel.
Personally, I don't fall for the political correctness of it being "justice" or whatever. I am not particularly in favor of the death penalty, but I really don't oppose it either. There are some people that, we as a society, should just get rid off. My only opposition is the time that it takes to actually execute a prisoner. I think that 3 - 4 years should be enough. Keeping a guy in death row for 15, 20 or 25 years is by itself cruel.
12
While sociological data analysis is challenging, I believe that capital punishment is no deterrent at all. In fact, I think it increases the level of criminal activity. This is for two reasons: (a) Executions confer an inchoate sense of "permission" for violent acts; at least subconsciously, we conclude that "if the State kills people, killing is acceptable." Violence generally becomes more natural in society, and less abhorrent. (b) Perhaps with even greater impact, I think most killers have an innate identification with killing that corresponds with a personal death wish. The idea that they may be executed is actually an enticement to violence, considering the hangman's offer of a permanent escape from the cruelties of life.
I have about five other reasons why I think capital punishment is abjectly BAD public policy (although I don't consider it constitutionally "cruel and unusual"). Until I read this compelling article, however, I hadn't added to that list the terrible consequences for the employees of our justice and penal institutions. I thank the author for identifying, from sad experience, this one, further reason for the abolition of capital punishment.
I have about five other reasons why I think capital punishment is abjectly BAD public policy (although I don't consider it constitutionally "cruel and unusual"). Until I read this compelling article, however, I hadn't added to that list the terrible consequences for the employees of our justice and penal institutions. I thank the author for identifying, from sad experience, this one, further reason for the abolition of capital punishment.
4
It is often said that we continue to execute prisoners so that the family members of those who were murdered might find closure.
But is this really a good enough reason? As we now know from this article, the act of state-sponsored killing exerts a toll on those tasked with carrying it out.
Sister Helen Prejean emphasizes that in her work with victim families, the grief and despair following their loved ones murders is not lessened after the condemned's execution. The popular belief is wrong. The families do not suddenly feel their grief and sorrow swept away or even necessarily ameliorated somewhat.
I certainly don't know the right answer, but I think it's long past time to retire the death penalty in 21st century America.
But is this really a good enough reason? As we now know from this article, the act of state-sponsored killing exerts a toll on those tasked with carrying it out.
Sister Helen Prejean emphasizes that in her work with victim families, the grief and despair following their loved ones murders is not lessened after the condemned's execution. The popular belief is wrong. The families do not suddenly feel their grief and sorrow swept away or even necessarily ameliorated somewhat.
I certainly don't know the right answer, but I think it's long past time to retire the death penalty in 21st century America.
16
It's NOT a good enough reason. Our government should never be in the business of revenge. It serves NO useful purpose, is incredibly expensive, and is certainly not a deterrent. Life without parole should provide enough closure for the families of any victim. If it doesn't, then they are the ones who might need some psychological attention.
89
CheBay,
Isn't Life without Parole a form of revenge.
It may not be an "eye for an eye" but it is revenge nonetheless.
By your argument - criminals should not be punished at all.
Isn't Life without Parole a form of revenge.
It may not be an "eye for an eye" but it is revenge nonetheless.
By your argument - criminals should not be punished at all.
2
Straw man. Unlikely execution, imprisonment serves a distinct social purposes beyond revenge or punishment. Keeping people imprisoned for life serves the purpose of protecting society for further. Shorter sentences can be said to serve the same purpose, with the added goal of providing rehabilitation so that once individuals are released, they will not commit further crimes.
Sometimes it takes a life time to find your truth. Now Mr Thompson has found his. Most of this country is fixated upon crime AND punishment. The 'civil' arm of Law Enforcement is focused upon the the 'enforcement' and in particuklar the use of 'deadly force'. I find it ironic that people who are such strong believers in 'God' and punishing women for abortions because of the 'sanctity of life' also for some utterly illogical reason believe in the 'death penalty'. The US thinks it has such an advanced society and all I see are many fearful people who want to arm themselves and others with lethal weapons (cowboy style) to "protect" themselves and others from being killed. Not even the secret service who surround the President can guarentee that the President is safe and always will be. Perhaps the way forward is to change our behavior and our 'gun loving' culture. respecting ALL citizens by treating each other courteously even during an arrest and stop with the DRAMA.
2
The death penalty is vengeance, not justice. It is kept in place because victims' families insistence and the Supreme Court's unwillingness to declare what almost every other country in the world has concluded, that it is unconstitutional. I understand why families of victims feel that way. I can't understand the Court's position. Especially since apart from the moral argument the practical arguments against the death penalty are so strong.
21
Scores of victims' families have come out vocally AGAINST the death penalty. A handful of examples:
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/26/this_is_life_row_when_family_members_of_...
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/26/this_is_life_row_when_family_members_of_...
2
It is also immoral.
2
(Not Mark) According to whose morality? What religion? Are we now a religious state without the rule of law? Keep your morality to yourself.
What a powerful, honest, moving piece.
I have been on the fence about the death penalty, but I have to say I had never fully realized its costs (other than the cost of multiple appeals, which is well publicized). This piece was very informative and, while arguing against the penalty, did not argue on the basis of moral superiority. A must-read for all of us.
Thank you Mr. Thompson.
I have been on the fence about the death penalty, but I have to say I had never fully realized its costs (other than the cost of multiple appeals, which is well publicized). This piece was very informative and, while arguing against the penalty, did not argue on the basis of moral superiority. A must-read for all of us.
Thank you Mr. Thompson.
284
Well Orjof, you don't say if you're still on the fence or not. Are you?
You're arguing that if your parents, siblings or other loved ones were subjected to a tortuous murder by a random stranger, you wouldn't want their killers to be executed? Sorry, but I find that hard to believe.
Thompson left out justice, the entire reason for the criminal justice system and the reason those two murderers were executed.
In any state where execution is legal, the governor personally should throw the switch, pull the trigger, administer the drug that proves lethal, and always in full public and televised view, lest any lie to themselves that they're not directly involved.
78
Shouldn't the victim(s) or their family/chosen representative do the honors? That seems fairest. If they don't want it, maybe we shouldn't do it, via elected officials or otherwise.
1
Thank you for this piece, Mr. Thompson.
9
Thank you, Mr. Thompson, for doing what you had to do for Oregon. And thank you, Mr. Thompson, for allowing yourself to be changed. I hope you find peace.
62
Guards at Auschwitz, soldiers at Bataan and jailers at Abu Ghraib have expressed regrets and remorse. So what?
15
Silly comment. There is no comparison.
What is exactly your point? At best your reasoning is faulty. At worst you insulted Mr. Thompson who seems to be very reasonable, honorable and honest.
Except that in none of the cases you cited did the guards, soldiers, or jailers actively sought to stop death while they were still in a position of power.
Thank you for writing this.
7
Thank you very much, Mr Thompson. I am with you!
K. C. Rougeux
K. C. Rougeux
9
Mr. Thompson - you are a brave person to have so honestly faced what you did and shares what you learned from what must have been a horrific experience, the only good result of which is that you changed your mind about capital punishment. I hope this helps others to work on changing this inhumane punishment.
32
A brave and beautifully written piece. Thank you for sharing this experience.
36
I admire you for being able to connect with the human feeling inside yourself, with your ability to recognize the human in another. It is the lack of that quality that allow nearly half of the country to embrace a Donald Trump despite- and perhaps because- he denies the humanity of "the other."
9
I respect the author's arguments, and his feelings. However, his qualms do not change my view, which is that the death penalty should continue to be available for the most heinous crimes. Granted that the system needs drastic reform. But there's an old saying, 'it's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it', and these jobs are usually carried on out of sight.
Tell me, Mr Thompson (and all those who concur with him): did you kill the meat in your sandwich? Did you even watch? Could you do it if you had to? Yet the steer, or lamb, or hog, or chicken is completely innocent of anything except perhaps being tasty and unable to fight back. Nor did it have years of appeals and volunteer legal talent to protect it, and its death - as well, probably, as its short life in a factory-farm prison - was far more painful and horrible than any you administered.
And if you had the freedom to write your essay, you may thank a soldier. I'm generally antiwar, and strongly critical of the wars the US has fought in my lifetime (I'm 61); but I feel war is like capital punishment - the option should be available, though resorted to only in extreme circumstances, and our criteria for resorting to it need reexamination and drastic reform.
Tell me, Mr Thompson (and all those who concur with him): did you kill the meat in your sandwich? Did you even watch? Could you do it if you had to? Yet the steer, or lamb, or hog, or chicken is completely innocent of anything except perhaps being tasty and unable to fight back. Nor did it have years of appeals and volunteer legal talent to protect it, and its death - as well, probably, as its short life in a factory-farm prison - was far more painful and horrible than any you administered.
And if you had the freedom to write your essay, you may thank a soldier. I'm generally antiwar, and strongly critical of the wars the US has fought in my lifetime (I'm 61); but I feel war is like capital punishment - the option should be available, though resorted to only in extreme circumstances, and our criteria for resorting to it need reexamination and drastic reform.
56
"And if you had the freedom to write your essay, you may thank a soldier"
This is another of those platitudes thrown out to discredit those expressing less than the most conservative views.
The writer is a veteran.
"perhaps Mr. Thompson shooiid spend some time experiencing the hole in the lives of the victims loved ones created by the murderer"
He lost a friend and a cousin - both policemen to murder. One of those murderers was executed.
This is another of those platitudes thrown out to discredit those expressing less than the most conservative views.
The writer is a veteran.
"perhaps Mr. Thompson shooiid spend some time experiencing the hole in the lives of the victims loved ones created by the murderer"
He lost a friend and a cousin - both policemen to murder. One of those murderers was executed.
9
War occurs when the opposing state is BY DEFINITION not under your state's complete control. Execution occurs when the person is BY DEFINITION under your state's complete state control.
Hurting or killing someone when they are in your complete control is morally wrong. Hurting or killing someone when they are attacking you and not under your complete control (when you are at war, or being attacked personally) can be morally forgiven. That's the difference you don't mention.
Who said killing animals is morally defensible? I do it knowing that in the future it will be viewed as morally wrong. That fact does not forgive or excuse our choice to kill people we have complete control over. They are not innocent, but to kill them is evil and wrong.
Note that I can personally see myself hurting and maybe killing someone that had done harm to someone else under certain circumstances (especially if they hurt people close to me). However 1. I hope I would have the moral courage to resist the urge to do so unless they were a continuing threat (ie, they had not given up) and 2. If I did not resist that urge, I would expect and hope that I would be given leniency *at my trial*. That is: we can understand the passion that makes us harm others, but must still judge the act and punish those that do it when they are no longer being threatened.
Hurting or killing someone when they are in your complete control is morally wrong. Hurting or killing someone when they are attacking you and not under your complete control (when you are at war, or being attacked personally) can be morally forgiven. That's the difference you don't mention.
Who said killing animals is morally defensible? I do it knowing that in the future it will be viewed as morally wrong. That fact does not forgive or excuse our choice to kill people we have complete control over. They are not innocent, but to kill them is evil and wrong.
Note that I can personally see myself hurting and maybe killing someone that had done harm to someone else under certain circumstances (especially if they hurt people close to me). However 1. I hope I would have the moral courage to resist the urge to do so unless they were a continuing threat (ie, they had not given up) and 2. If I did not resist that urge, I would expect and hope that I would be given leniency *at my trial*. That is: we can understand the passion that makes us harm others, but must still judge the act and punish those that do it when they are no longer being threatened.
2
Why executions for the most heinous crimes? Revenge? What is more heinous than a system that debases both executioner and executed so that someone like yourself somehow feels satisfied? The author does more than make an argument; he shows how degrading an execution is for everyone.
Your analogy to eating meat is interesting. Yes, I would kill certain animals to eat them. No, I would never carry out a premeditated killing, nor direct an employee of the state to do my killing for me.
Your analogy to eating meat is interesting. Yes, I would kill certain animals to eat them. No, I would never carry out a premeditated killing, nor direct an employee of the state to do my killing for me.
2
Something is wrong with the legal process. it forgets and ignores the victims while assuring that the murderers are secure and comfortable.
For balence, perhaps Mr. Thompson shooiid spend some time experiencing the hole in the lives of the victims loved ones created by the murderer, instead of "looking into the murderers eyes".
For balence, perhaps Mr. Thompson shooiid spend some time experiencing the hole in the lives of the victims loved ones created by the murderer, instead of "looking into the murderers eyes".
18
Is there any evidence that relatives of murder victims feel any better after the execution is conducted?
2
JT: How exactly does killing another person benefit the victim...who is already dead? Does it make the surviving family members of the victim whole again in some way? They don't get their dead relative back, do they? Or, do they get their bloodlust satisfied?
3
I've observed that sentences for murder vary widely from state to state ranging from a few decades to life without parole to death. The crimes committed seem to share a similarity in detail.
Whereas especially gristly murders such as child rape and murder and serial killers call out for vengeance, the fact remains that no greater good comes with it and the victory is hollow because the victim remains dead.
I think the death penalty, which is really only used by a few states in practice, should be done away with and sentencing should be more uniform for the same crime.
Whereas especially gristly murders such as child rape and murder and serial killers call out for vengeance, the fact remains that no greater good comes with it and the victory is hollow because the victim remains dead.
I think the death penalty, which is really only used by a few states in practice, should be done away with and sentencing should be more uniform for the same crime.
5
So in effect the process creates more victims. Why should ANY person in corrections have to do this? Shouldn't everyone be able to opt out? If "the effects can lead to all the places you’d expect: drug use, alcohol abuse, depression and suicide" you would think there is a very strong case to be made that this is hazardous work that no employee should be subjected to.
Maybe if we just gotta have the death penalty because some folks think it's justice then maybe we out to write the penal code that crimes currently carrying the death penalty switch to a new status: life sentence with the option that certain qualified plaintiffs can opt to inflict the death penalty and carry out the execution by a member that they appoint: many details to be determined. Point being, why on earth should this burden be shifted onto someone that is unrelated to the offense? Why should their lives be affected? If the plaintiffs are so intent on death, then they should carry it out. They can be trained. They can be observed. They can be held accountable. It's clear from the history of executions that prison personnel have no special qualifications or medical knowledge above and beyond the basics that anyone could be taught fairly quickly. Insert needle, inject poison. If plaintiffs want death so badly, then let them have at it.
Maybe if we just gotta have the death penalty because some folks think it's justice then maybe we out to write the penal code that crimes currently carrying the death penalty switch to a new status: life sentence with the option that certain qualified plaintiffs can opt to inflict the death penalty and carry out the execution by a member that they appoint: many details to be determined. Point being, why on earth should this burden be shifted onto someone that is unrelated to the offense? Why should their lives be affected? If the plaintiffs are so intent on death, then they should carry it out. They can be trained. They can be observed. They can be held accountable. It's clear from the history of executions that prison personnel have no special qualifications or medical knowledge above and beyond the basics that anyone could be taught fairly quickly. Insert needle, inject poison. If plaintiffs want death so badly, then let them have at it.
3
If someone kidnapped, tortured, raped and murdered my daughter, I would not only want him executed. I'd like to be the one to "pull the trigger."
6
Yep, me too. That's one reason I am against the death penalty. It places an utterly understandable desire to take revenge for horrifying and heinous behavior above the respect for life whose failure it's punishing.
3
Mr. Thompson - You have convince me (someone who has gone back and forth on this issue over my 54 years).
4
You deterred two heinous murderers from killing again. For that, thank you. As a soldier you were trained to kill, I hope to protect your countrymen.
Don't make us vulnerable to men like the fellow whom you executed who killed a ten year old.
Work at making execution more efficient and protect the psychological well being of your jailers as we do with soldiers and police We haven't abolished the army nor police because they must kill to protect others. Don't abolish the death penalty for murderers of innocents
Don't make us vulnerable to men like the fellow whom you executed who killed a ten year old.
Work at making execution more efficient and protect the psychological well being of your jailers as we do with soldiers and police We haven't abolished the army nor police because they must kill to protect others. Don't abolish the death penalty for murderers of innocents
13
We all kill a piece of our own humanity with every death sentence.
4
I could feel the anxiety of carrying this burden as I read. Thank you for sharing your experiences, Semon.
6
Well said. For the sake of our Nation's humanity, I hope your voice is heard in every state capitol.
5
We don't THINK there have been people who were wrongfully executed, we KNOW there have been people who were wrongfully executed. We can let an incarcerated person out of jail when we determine the conviction was erroneous. We cannot take back a death sentence. We will never reach a point where we are 100% certain of guilt. On that basis alone, all thinking human beings should detest the death penalty. I will gladly take 1000 mass murderers with life sentences than one innocent person executed by the state.
5
The eloquent Mr. Thompson echoes a British predecessor. Albert Pierrepoint, Britain's "Last Hangman," after retiring from a busy career, summed up state murder thus:
"Capital punishment, in my view, achieved nothing except revenge."
"Capital punishment, in my view, achieved nothing except revenge."
6
No one is served by execution, least of all the justice system.
The death penalty makes murderers of all of us.
The death penalty makes murderers of all of us.
3
Thank you Mr. Thompson. My hope for this entire planet rests on the belief that there are more people with wisdom and values like yours.
9
Thank you, Semon Frank Thompson, for bringing so much humanity to your job. Those guys on death row were lucky they had you and your crew trying to demonstrate as much humanity as the situation permitted.
It is important to get more publicity for the government employees who carry out executions and the toll it takes on so many of them.
You provide a great service to society. Thank you.
It is important to get more publicity for the government employees who carry out executions and the toll it takes on so many of them.
You provide a great service to society. Thank you.
5
And what do the candidates think about executions? We know the Clintons are for it. Both should be asked, during the debates, for their positions and reasons.
2
Mr Thompson you should be commended for your considered and measured response to the death penalty. My grandfather, a prison doctor for 40 years in Canada, came to similar opinion after holding the wrists of condemned men until their pulse dissipated, sometimes 20 minutes after a hanging.
The death penalty there was only abolished after a federal commission was held that included the voices of those that had to administer executions, like yourself. Your personal account and experience is of the highest importance in any decision on the future of capital punishment in this country because as the state executioner you have been our surrogate. We indeed share your burden, and thank you again for your account.
The death penalty there was only abolished after a federal commission was held that included the voices of those that had to administer executions, like yourself. Your personal account and experience is of the highest importance in any decision on the future of capital punishment in this country because as the state executioner you have been our surrogate. We indeed share your burden, and thank you again for your account.
112
Sometimes the crime is heinous enough to deserve the ultimate punishment. Just because you executed 2 persons in the course of of your job does not make your opinion more valuable than any other citizen. If you are keeping a person in prison for life, you are obviously not trying to reform them. There is an element of punishment as well as retribution in the Death Penalty because it is given to people who have murdered other people in particularly brutal and savage manner. America is a violent society and there are deep societal reasons for that and it cannot be pinned simply on Death Penalty. Abolishing it will not suddenly turn everyone European.
7
So, retribution is more important than justice? Such thoughts emanate from the reptilian part of your brain and make you no better than the one who killed another human being.
1
(Not Mark) We're not dealing with thoughts here, but especially heinous crimes. Quite a big difference IMHO. I don't have a problem with Rahul's comment, but your reply leads me to think you should be looking in the mirror.
Thank you, Semon Frank Thompson, for one of the most human and humane essays I have ever read.
63
Why not cut off the arms and legs of those who are now executed? Too gruesome? So is executing them.
3
The Times wrote about Norway's prisons last year. An anthropologist explained: ""if you treat people badly, it’s a reflection on yourself.” In officer-training school, he explained, guards are taught that treating inmates humanely is something they should do not for the inmates but for themselves. The theory is that if officers are taught to be harsh, domineering and suspicious, it will ripple outward in their lives, affecting their self-image, their families, even Norway as a whole. Kristoffersen cited a line that is usually attributed to Dostoyevsky: “The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.”" http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/magazine/the-radical-humaneness-of-nor... If treating people badly is a burden on the guards, what does killing inmates do to them?
146
I refuse to extol the virtues of a criminal justice system that coddles a monster of historic proportions.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/20/all-the-fun-things-ande...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/20/all-the-fun-things-ande...
3
How can one compare Norway to the U.S., a country where over 70,000 people shoot each other, every year? The U.S. has an ultra-violent culture, but one where the only hand wringing over the death penalty is only by the victim class.
3
What a terrific angle rarely discussed in the death penalty debate. What happens to the poor guy whose job it is to pull the trigger? I know if I had the task, it would be an uncomfortable proposition to say the least.
6
Like most other aspects of the American justice systems, imposition of the death penalty takes too long, costs too much, and (seemingly) never ends. I believe we are near a point at which the Supreme Court of the United States will adjudicate the death penalty to be unconstitutional. The sooner, the better. An adjudicative prohibition will do little ... nothing, probably ... to satiate the demands of those who favor the death penalty. I understand those who favor keeping the death penalty on the books: a criminal who stabs to death ... for no "reason" whatsoever ... two Catholic nuns who dedicated their lives to providing meaningful medical assistance to poor people in rural Mississippi, only stokes the flames of vengeance by the state. That is only one example. Life is too cheap in America. And imposition of the death penalty cheapens all of us. Away with it.
3
By failing to have an effective death penalty, we've allowed a culture of murder to fester in our inner cities. In most cases, the "death penalty" is no such thing, merely a life in prison sentence that is never completely adjudicated as our courts play ping pong with people's lives.
What we call today the "death penalty" is an abomination, completely ineffective at delivering timely justice. Either fix it or get rid of it. And yes, I've killed people in Iraq. I sleep well, knowing that innocent Iraqi lives were spared by killing those intent on murder and mayhem.
What we call today the "death penalty" is an abomination, completely ineffective at delivering timely justice. Either fix it or get rid of it. And yes, I've killed people in Iraq. I sleep well, knowing that innocent Iraqi lives were spared by killing those intent on murder and mayhem.
6
Has any study been done to compare the psychological effects on prison staff of administering the death penalty? It would seem that researchers have a perfect control group in the form of prison staff who are never involved with it.
3
A thoughtful abortionist would write a similar essay.
P.S.: Emmett Till was murdered, but not lynched. A lynching is a murder carried out in public by a mob. The mob does not fear consequences because it is acting with the tacit consent of authority, it has intimidated authority into acquiescence, or because (as on the frontier; see The Ox-Bow Incident) there is no authority. Part of the definition of lynching is that it is motivated by a real or fictive crime of which the lynching victim is accused, (hence the expression "lynch law"). None of this makes any difference to Mr. Thompson's argument about capital punishment, but language should be used carefully.
P.S.: Emmett Till was murdered, but not lynched. A lynching is a murder carried out in public by a mob. The mob does not fear consequences because it is acting with the tacit consent of authority, it has intimidated authority into acquiescence, or because (as on the frontier; see The Ox-Bow Incident) there is no authority. Part of the definition of lynching is that it is motivated by a real or fictive crime of which the lynching victim is accused, (hence the expression "lynch law"). None of this makes any difference to Mr. Thompson's argument about capital punishment, but language should be used carefully.
1
The argument of deterrence is a false that was demonstrated statistically 15 years before Supt Thompson interviewed for his job in 1994. And that false argument ignored the most critical element of deterrence: the perpetrator must believe with a fairly high level of confidence that he or she will face execution.
Even in states where executions are prevalent, say, Texas and Louisiana, they have not been at all effective at reducing murders. Yet in cities like New York, located in a state that hasn't executed anyone since the 1960's and long ago moved the electric chair out of Sing Sing, the murder rate has been dropping precipitously since 1990, from something like 2000 annually to less than 350 in 2015. Clearly there are far more effective disincentives to prevent murder than the death penalty.
Even in states where executions are prevalent, say, Texas and Louisiana, they have not been at all effective at reducing murders. Yet in cities like New York, located in a state that hasn't executed anyone since the 1960's and long ago moved the electric chair out of Sing Sing, the murder rate has been dropping precipitously since 1990, from something like 2000 annually to less than 350 in 2015. Clearly there are far more effective disincentives to prevent murder than the death penalty.
3
Mr. Thompson's experience touched me in that we share an evolution process of our thoughts on capital punishment. I also think the death penalty does not provide a deterrent to crime. This has always been a argument for the death penalty in Georgia.
The death penalty is a tool of vengeance more than anything. I covered two death penalty trials during my time as a newspaper reporter. In both cases, the defendants were found guilty and sentenced to death. In both cases, the victims' family were pleased with the verdicts. The men committed heinous crimes, and I wondered how I would have reacted if it were my family who lost loved ones. I arrived each time in trying to make sense of it all that two families will lose after a death penalty conviction, and there are never any winners in these cases.
The death penalty is a tool of vengeance more than anything. I covered two death penalty trials during my time as a newspaper reporter. In both cases, the defendants were found guilty and sentenced to death. In both cases, the victims' family were pleased with the verdicts. The men committed heinous crimes, and I wondered how I would have reacted if it were my family who lost loved ones. I arrived each time in trying to make sense of it all that two families will lose after a death penalty conviction, and there are never any winners in these cases.
82
The death penalty, the most serious of all sanctions, would be the only sanctions, the only negative prospect, not to occur.
It is, quite simply, not a credible claim, as all sanctions deter some.
It is, quite simply, not a credible claim, as all sanctions deter some.
Firing squads are the way to go. No one knows who fired the lethal bullet. Professionally done, suffering and bodily defacement can be minimized.
Who wants the expense of caring for inmates for a lifetime?
Who wants the expense of caring for inmates for a lifetime?
7
I question if the "only one live round" myth is really true. Every soldier knows the heavy recoil of a live round vs a blank. And, they sound way different.
One guy administering the kill shot? Personally, if I was facing a firing squad, I'd want every man to have a live round chambered to make sure they didn't make a mess of it
One guy administering the kill shot? Personally, if I was facing a firing squad, I'd want every man to have a live round chambered to make sure they didn't make a mess of it
The only thing this article has convinced me of is the need to better protect administrators from the weight of their actions carried out on behalf of the state. Doesn't tradition dictate at least one bullet should be blank, in order to give the man on the line hope that his shot did not kill? I sympathize deeply with any good person who must kill a human being as part of their sworn duty: policemen, soldiers...and people like Mr. Thompson. I would even go so far as to amend laws so that only the most egregious killers, those whose sadism can be proved, are subject to capital punishment. But I still do still believe there are people who have lost their right to live, having become so twisted by fate or by natural inclination, that they warrant erasure from time and space.
5
Many people oppose the death penalty because of the fallibility of the system (or the humans that make up the system). I am speaking of racial bias, and the fact that it is likely that the state has put to death people innocent of the crimes of which they have been accused. Built in to these critiques of a fallible system is a sense that, maybe, we can perfect our justice system so that no one is executed without a truly fair trial.
Let’s imagine, for a moment, that we could, in fact make a more perfect justice system. Mr. Thompson cuts to the heart of why capital punishment, even then, should be ended in the USA. He acknowledges that that the two men for whom he oversaw the executions either wanted to die or admitted their guilt – they clearly committed heinous crimes. And yet, in killing them, we, the people, crossed a line ourselves. We, the people, committed premeditated murder. Mr. Thompson and his staff administered the chemicals, but when the state kills in our name, we are all guilty of murder.
Justice is different than vengeance. Vengeance is an understandable response to pain and suffering, especially for the families of victims. But that is why victims and their loved ones are not on juries and do not carry out the punishments. We do not have a vengeance system; we have a justice system. And state sponsored murder is not just. It is revenge. Those correctional officials committed murder in our names and suffer the guilt and shame for all our sins.
Let’s imagine, for a moment, that we could, in fact make a more perfect justice system. Mr. Thompson cuts to the heart of why capital punishment, even then, should be ended in the USA. He acknowledges that that the two men for whom he oversaw the executions either wanted to die or admitted their guilt – they clearly committed heinous crimes. And yet, in killing them, we, the people, crossed a line ourselves. We, the people, committed premeditated murder. Mr. Thompson and his staff administered the chemicals, but when the state kills in our name, we are all guilty of murder.
Justice is different than vengeance. Vengeance is an understandable response to pain and suffering, especially for the families of victims. But that is why victims and their loved ones are not on juries and do not carry out the punishments. We do not have a vengeance system; we have a justice system. And state sponsored murder is not just. It is revenge. Those correctional officials committed murder in our names and suffer the guilt and shame for all our sins.
282
First of all, your description of legal executions as "murder", and of those assigned by the state the executioner role as "murderers", is unacceptable.
Second, justice demand retribution. Retribution is not vengeance.
But, even vengeance has its place. It is unfairly maligned. It rights the scales, it corrects the universe back into equilibrium, and has a cathartic effect on everyone involved, literally so on the criminal.
So call it what you will ... payback is fine with me.
Second, justice demand retribution. Retribution is not vengeance.
But, even vengeance has its place. It is unfairly maligned. It rights the scales, it corrects the universe back into equilibrium, and has a cathartic effect on everyone involved, literally so on the criminal.
So call it what you will ... payback is fine with me.
8
Incredible that we give government - an institution many of us DO NOT TRUST - the power to premeditatedly kill some of its citizens. So much for IN GOD WE TRUST that we do not leave this power to him.
3
And so what's wrong with a vengeance system? Doesn't the bible call for an eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth? These killers should have thought about the consequences of their crimes before they committed them.
2
This is an important first hand account and adds something to the debate about the practice of capital punishment.
I suppose I'm not convinced that there is something inherently wrong with killing a person as punishment for murder. I understand that we greatly value the sanctity of human life and should treat it with extreme care, but the same can be said of the freedoms we deny by confinement in prison. To me, it's just a matter of degree--obviously taking a life is much more significant, but can it not be said that our criminal justice system already acknowledges that fact (when the number of executions per year is down to low double digits)?
And please don't make the nonsensical argument that "the state cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing". If that were true, then would you also say that we cannot not teach that kidnapping is wrong by locking someone away in prison?
I suppose I'm not convinced that there is something inherently wrong with killing a person as punishment for murder. I understand that we greatly value the sanctity of human life and should treat it with extreme care, but the same can be said of the freedoms we deny by confinement in prison. To me, it's just a matter of degree--obviously taking a life is much more significant, but can it not be said that our criminal justice system already acknowledges that fact (when the number of executions per year is down to low double digits)?
And please don't make the nonsensical argument that "the state cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing". If that were true, then would you also say that we cannot not teach that kidnapping is wrong by locking someone away in prison?
41
You truly blew it at the end of your comment. Saying that the state should not teach that it is wrong to kill a killer because it certainly does make sense. Your analogy with locking up a kidnapper rings false. Killing and jailing are morally not equivalent.
1
"obviously taking a life is much more significant"
Especially to the victim.
"the state cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing".
The point is not to teach but to punish and the extent of the punishment and the correct application of the law are what bother me. The State and the law are just flawed enough that we have killed innocent people through the criminal justice system. The existence of any mistake is enough for me to reject the practice. We have a country here, but do we really want to run like insurance underwriters? "Gee, we only get it wrong once in a while." Try telling that to the dead guy. Oops, too late? An overzealous cop, a district attorney with an ax to grind, and any of us could be that dead guy.
Especially to the victim.
"the state cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing".
The point is not to teach but to punish and the extent of the punishment and the correct application of the law are what bother me. The State and the law are just flawed enough that we have killed innocent people through the criminal justice system. The existence of any mistake is enough for me to reject the practice. We have a country here, but do we really want to run like insurance underwriters? "Gee, we only get it wrong once in a while." Try telling that to the dead guy. Oops, too late? An overzealous cop, a district attorney with an ax to grind, and any of us could be that dead guy.
1
We need to evolve further so as to understand that behind every killing there is a person with unresolved character issues. This is where we should begin. As it is now, we are far down the rung of kindness and helping. This is why I believe we live many lives in order to learn and understand our fellow man. Maybe some day also the animals we live among but now see only as our next meal will no longer be considered food.
Thank you for your insight. We can forget so easy the impact that occurs to folks involved in the actual execution of another human. I cringe at the thought of being involved in such an action at the scene.
2
All I needed to read was that you don't support the death penalty anymore. It can only be described as state sponsored murder, and should be abolished. Life without parole is the humane, cost effective, most proper penalty for the crime of first degree murder, or any other crime. When we execute people, we become criminals, ourselves. Those who still support this outdated behavior either have never seen someone die this way, or would absolutely LOVE to watch someone die this way. Uninformed, or sick minded, the death penalty is completely unjustifiable.
3
I am sorry, but here are the facts:
1. Death penalty is a deterrent -- those executed will never escape and commit another crime.
2. Death penalty brings closure and some measure of relief to the victims' families, remember them?
3. Death row prisoners are given time to prepare for the end, something their victims were never given. (again, anyone here care about the victims?)
I am a life long Liberal, but articles like these want to make me vote for Trump
1. Death penalty is a deterrent -- those executed will never escape and commit another crime.
2. Death penalty brings closure and some measure of relief to the victims' families, remember them?
3. Death row prisoners are given time to prepare for the end, something their victims were never given. (again, anyone here care about the victims?)
I am a life long Liberal, but articles like these want to make me vote for Trump
19
1. Death penalty is not a deterrent. How many times a day or week do you risk your life? Jaywalking, speeding, throwing stones at glass houses...
2. They are to be blessed, but if we let our society be run by victims or their families, what kind of laws and freedoms would we have? Basically we wouldn't need prisons.
3. Revenge is neither an effective deterrent nor a sufficient moral position. It only brings more hatred and conflict.
2. They are to be blessed, but if we let our society be run by victims or their families, what kind of laws and freedoms would we have? Basically we wouldn't need prisons.
3. Revenge is neither an effective deterrent nor a sufficient moral position. It only brings more hatred and conflict.
3
For God's sakes, please don't vote for Trump. Hilary is pro death penalty too, you can have confidence in her on this score. I'm a strong death penalty supporter too, and I was very proud to see my fellow Bostonians sentence the kid who did the marathon bombings to death recently. But I concede there are some good arguments on the other side. My best arguments against the death penalty are Socrates, Jesus, and Joan of Arc. Curtis LeMay said if we'd lost WWII, he'd have been tried for war crimes for his bombing of Japanese civilians. We killed Osama Bin Laden. So Joan of Arc could still be at risk of execution if she lived today. That's something to think about, even though I can't imagine ever becoming opposed to the death penalty in my lifetime. Any thoughts?
1
It might be a deterrent to those who kill but it doesn't matter to those out there who are planning to kill or kill in the heat of passion. Many states, including CA, have some variation of a "3 Strikes, you're out!" law but research over years have shown that when people contemplate a crime or murder, they really are not thinking about getting caught and being punished afterwards. The punishment does not stop crime.
1
I've always been puzzled that those who seem to fear the power of government the most are also the most ardent supporters of capital punishment. How can we be afraid of a government for its ability to levy taxes or protect the environment but not for its ability to deliberately take the life of someone who poses no imminent harm--who is incarcerated and separated from society?
28
Not a pleasant assignment for you, and made worse by all the pointless ritual involved. Thanks for doing what needed to be done.
These creatures would have died anyway at some point. You helped them to do it the easy way and thereby saved the taxpayers the cost of their worthless incarceration.
Better and easier, perhaps, if someone in authority had first drugged the inmates' food and then without their knowing what was coming off for you to have to put a bullet through the place where brain stem and spine connect.
I am sorry that you were put through this, but thankful as well that those two killers were not set loose to claim more victims. as they too often are. I shudder every time i drive by a nearby fast food restaurant where two teen age clerks were murdered by two ex-cons, known to be sociopaths, who were set loose by unthinking idiots.
No, I never have been asked to do an execution, but I would have no qualms about volunteering my services to rid the world of two like those.
I too was a soldier who could be called upon to kill other young men for no greater crime than their wearing a different uniform. That might prove an emotional burden, but not killing sociopaths or psychopaths who very well might be set loose by idiots, set loose to slaughter innocents. One could do without the ritual, however, just give me the firearm and direct me to the cell.
I would not be thinking, I suspect, about the lives about to end, but about those possibly thereby to be spared.
These creatures would have died anyway at some point. You helped them to do it the easy way and thereby saved the taxpayers the cost of their worthless incarceration.
Better and easier, perhaps, if someone in authority had first drugged the inmates' food and then without their knowing what was coming off for you to have to put a bullet through the place where brain stem and spine connect.
I am sorry that you were put through this, but thankful as well that those two killers were not set loose to claim more victims. as they too often are. I shudder every time i drive by a nearby fast food restaurant where two teen age clerks were murdered by two ex-cons, known to be sociopaths, who were set loose by unthinking idiots.
No, I never have been asked to do an execution, but I would have no qualms about volunteering my services to rid the world of two like those.
I too was a soldier who could be called upon to kill other young men for no greater crime than their wearing a different uniform. That might prove an emotional burden, but not killing sociopaths or psychopaths who very well might be set loose by idiots, set loose to slaughter innocents. One could do without the ritual, however, just give me the firearm and direct me to the cell.
I would not be thinking, I suspect, about the lives about to end, but about those possibly thereby to be spared.
12
(Not Mark) Agree with you.
1
Awful, just awful.
I always wonder if the lust for revenge would be tempered if the general public were able watch a person getting dripped , hanged or executed by musketry instead of getting press releases.
It appears that the executioners have no closure.
I always wonder if the lust for revenge would be tempered if the general public were able watch a person getting dripped , hanged or executed by musketry instead of getting press releases.
It appears that the executioners have no closure.
2
"After much contemplation, I became convinced that, on a moral level, life was either hallowed or it wasn’t."
That's where you made your mistake. Life begins by being hallowed, but certainly human behavior can separate that which remains worthy of that status and that which doesn't. Who decides? The people whose will is reflected in the laws -- not those whose job it is to execute (forgive the pun) the law.
That's where you made your mistake. Life begins by being hallowed, but certainly human behavior can separate that which remains worthy of that status and that which doesn't. Who decides? The people whose will is reflected in the laws -- not those whose job it is to execute (forgive the pun) the law.
6
Mankind is flawed. There is no perfection to be found in any of us in that moment when we come face to face with having to kill, whether it be in anger, greed, self-defense, or because of a governmentally-ordered execution of another human being.
If one believes in a god, then one must admit that it is not a god who orders the deaths of others. It is not a god who passes the legislation that makes it possible. Neither is it a god who, behind the closed doors of a room wherein ordinary men and women are weighing the life or death of another, votes for death.
It is mankind.
If we cannot admit we are inherently flawed, none of us being free from having made mistakes in judgment during our own lives, how can we ever judge another and send him to death?
A life ceases to have the ability to do good when it is killed by others. Only the individual has that right to pass a sentence of death against him- or herself. Let them chose.
But do not allow one to kill another.
Ever, ever, again.
If one believes in a god, then one must admit that it is not a god who orders the deaths of others. It is not a god who passes the legislation that makes it possible. Neither is it a god who, behind the closed doors of a room wherein ordinary men and women are weighing the life or death of another, votes for death.
It is mankind.
If we cannot admit we are inherently flawed, none of us being free from having made mistakes in judgment during our own lives, how can we ever judge another and send him to death?
A life ceases to have the ability to do good when it is killed by others. Only the individual has that right to pass a sentence of death against him- or herself. Let them chose.
But do not allow one to kill another.
Ever, ever, again.
1
This article was very moving and reminded me of the movie, "The Green Mile".
I agree that the death penalty is not a deterrent and is not only inhumane- but once the execution occurs- there is no recourse to rectify a mistaken guilty verdict that is now a regular occurrence due to the Innocence Project.
The death penalty is more about revenge than anything else. Murder is murder- whether it is done by a criminal or done by the state.
Moreover, capital punishment costs a lot of money when you consider all the legal work, appeals, etc.
If someone really is a hardened criminal that is responsible for heinous crimes, then a life sentence is a harsher punishment. It would also give the criminal a chance to seek forgiveness and to rehabilitate him/herself. There may by yet some good this person can so- such as mentor fellow, young inmates. No one should get to end a life. Prison yes- murder no.
I agree that the death penalty is not a deterrent and is not only inhumane- but once the execution occurs- there is no recourse to rectify a mistaken guilty verdict that is now a regular occurrence due to the Innocence Project.
The death penalty is more about revenge than anything else. Murder is murder- whether it is done by a criminal or done by the state.
Moreover, capital punishment costs a lot of money when you consider all the legal work, appeals, etc.
If someone really is a hardened criminal that is responsible for heinous crimes, then a life sentence is a harsher punishment. It would also give the criminal a chance to seek forgiveness and to rehabilitate him/herself. There may by yet some good this person can so- such as mentor fellow, young inmates. No one should get to end a life. Prison yes- murder no.
6
All other considerations aside, the death penalty should not exist without a one hundred per cent guarantee that the convicted is truly guilty. Every time. And that's not happening. Ever.
4
Whether or not I am an in agreement with the author's views, I commended the author's sense of conscience, responsibility, and duty.
"I became convinced that, on a moral level, life was either hallowed or it wasn’t."
The moral issue of the sanctity of life raised by the author, raises questions that are not fully examined by most.
For the sake of difficult, probably unanswerable, argument:
Do we as a society really view human life as hallowed? And how so? If we really do, then why don't obviously apparent inconsistencies bother our political leaders and the "opinionators" in charge of mass media?
Do those against the capital punishment of the most reprehensible and harmful among us, support abortion?
Are those against abortion, for capital punishment?
And what about our foreign policy that may needlessly kill innocents, bystanders, or those whose motive is self-defense of country? The most reprehensible on death row, have had exhaustive and deliberative judicial investigations, are only convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the "intellectual" process involved in the decision to invade Iraq was full of faulty logic, far below the standard of reasonable doubt and cross examination; yet hundreds of thousands were killed, by choices that need not have been made.
Regardless of which moral answers may be "right". It is logically evident that the moral burden unfairly falls upon a dutiful few, while most in society do not thoroughly engage in moral reasoning.
"I became convinced that, on a moral level, life was either hallowed or it wasn’t."
The moral issue of the sanctity of life raised by the author, raises questions that are not fully examined by most.
For the sake of difficult, probably unanswerable, argument:
Do we as a society really view human life as hallowed? And how so? If we really do, then why don't obviously apparent inconsistencies bother our political leaders and the "opinionators" in charge of mass media?
Do those against the capital punishment of the most reprehensible and harmful among us, support abortion?
Are those against abortion, for capital punishment?
And what about our foreign policy that may needlessly kill innocents, bystanders, or those whose motive is self-defense of country? The most reprehensible on death row, have had exhaustive and deliberative judicial investigations, are only convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the "intellectual" process involved in the decision to invade Iraq was full of faulty logic, far below the standard of reasonable doubt and cross examination; yet hundreds of thousands were killed, by choices that need not have been made.
Regardless of which moral answers may be "right". It is logically evident that the moral burden unfairly falls upon a dutiful few, while most in society do not thoroughly engage in moral reasoning.
4
I understand the huge flaws in the criminal justice system: the innocent sentenced guilty, the inequality in punishments, the finality. I understand the trauma this process could induce on prison guards. I understand that it may be cruel and unusual in the Western developed world.
But, there is some part of me that supports the death penalty despite this. For one, life in prison does not mean life in prison when you account for good behavior, parole, etc. In the case of someone that is put in truly for life, you now have someone that can kill others (e.g. Prison guards, fellow prisoners) with relative impunity, after all they are already in prison for life; additional punishments are just solitary confinement or being sent to the ADX supermax. Also for those who are eventually released, do we even want rehabilitation for a 1st degree murderer? Think about it, would you want to live next to someone that premeditated and killed someone? Finally, if the death penalty deterrence does not work, is that really it's only purpose? No, clearly any law has a vengeance angle; to punish people directly for what they did. It isn't absurd to believe that the ultimate crime deserves the ultimate punishment.
But, there is some part of me that supports the death penalty despite this. For one, life in prison does not mean life in prison when you account for good behavior, parole, etc. In the case of someone that is put in truly for life, you now have someone that can kill others (e.g. Prison guards, fellow prisoners) with relative impunity, after all they are already in prison for life; additional punishments are just solitary confinement or being sent to the ADX supermax. Also for those who are eventually released, do we even want rehabilitation for a 1st degree murderer? Think about it, would you want to live next to someone that premeditated and killed someone? Finally, if the death penalty deterrence does not work, is that really it's only purpose? No, clearly any law has a vengeance angle; to punish people directly for what they did. It isn't absurd to believe that the ultimate crime deserves the ultimate punishment.
7
I understand that there are serious issues with the death penalty - people wrongly convicted, lack of deterrence, and the psychological effects on the executioners along with the fact that we are asking another human to do what the executed did by taking a life. However, I just can't get over the fact that taking someone else's life is the ultimate violation of the innate right to live, the right to life that we are all born with. No other human has the right to take that away. There must be exceptions of course, and graded punishment depending on the circumstances (self-defense, etc.). I just can't say that someone who kills another human in cold-blooded murder deserves to continuing living.
7
So if it were an automated process you'd be ok with it? I'm curious, because that's either the kindest or cruelest method depending on perspective. I'm not even sure where I stand on it, so don't take the question as anything but that.
Thank you author Semon Frank Thompson. A paradox of human life seems that it's very cheap to end, but often too expensive to save. Americans often need human vital organs like kidneys for transplant recipients. Scientists often need human guinea pigs for medical research. The victim's relatives, particularly children, may need financial support for a lifetime. Alternatives to capital punishment could be to repair some of the damage to our society of the condemned without wasting the condemned's possible lifetime retribution.
One of the most troubling aspects of state executions is the wasteful loss of another person's potential use to a society that he or she has harmed, taking away the potential contribution of the victim.
Once, an alternative to execution, was slavery, as detailed in Harvard Prof. Orlando Patterson's "Slavery."
Another later alternative was deportation. And some Islamic countries often require financial payment from the condemned as an alternative to capital punishment, or to lifetime imprisonment. Too bad we do not have law enforcement veterans with experience in Corrections at state cabinet levels adding more insights like yours to end the waste in human capital.
One of the most troubling aspects of state executions is the wasteful loss of another person's potential use to a society that he or she has harmed, taking away the potential contribution of the victim.
Once, an alternative to execution, was slavery, as detailed in Harvard Prof. Orlando Patterson's "Slavery."
Another later alternative was deportation. And some Islamic countries often require financial payment from the condemned as an alternative to capital punishment, or to lifetime imprisonment. Too bad we do not have law enforcement veterans with experience in Corrections at state cabinet levels adding more insights like yours to end the waste in human capital.
1
Douglas Franklin Wright had killed two people before and was paroled from
Prison after which he killed three homeless people and a ten year old boy.
That is six people.
I have no idea why he was paroled after murdering the first two people.
Louis Perry Bryant killed the parents of his wife.
The argument that the Death Penalty does not stop further murders seems
in-accurate.
If someone robbed you of your money and the police apprehended him with
your money, would you not expect the police to give that money back to you ?
If, by some method, it was possible by executing a person that the people they
murdered would come back to life - would those opposed to the Death Penalty
still be against it ?
Why do people assume that Life in Prison is far more humane than the lawful execution of a justly convicted murderer ?
For those who say our Justice System, more accurately our "Lack of Justice" has convicted and executed those who were innocent, what of the rest of those
in prison for lesser felonies and who are innocent and who did not kill anyone ?
Would Mr. Thompson "shoot to kill" someone who was actively shooting policemen and others like the murderer in Dallas ?
I have no answers, but should these questions just be ignored if we are
going to render Justice to those who have been murdered ?
Prison after which he killed three homeless people and a ten year old boy.
That is six people.
I have no idea why he was paroled after murdering the first two people.
Louis Perry Bryant killed the parents of his wife.
The argument that the Death Penalty does not stop further murders seems
in-accurate.
If someone robbed you of your money and the police apprehended him with
your money, would you not expect the police to give that money back to you ?
If, by some method, it was possible by executing a person that the people they
murdered would come back to life - would those opposed to the Death Penalty
still be against it ?
Why do people assume that Life in Prison is far more humane than the lawful execution of a justly convicted murderer ?
For those who say our Justice System, more accurately our "Lack of Justice" has convicted and executed those who were innocent, what of the rest of those
in prison for lesser felonies and who are innocent and who did not kill anyone ?
Would Mr. Thompson "shoot to kill" someone who was actively shooting policemen and others like the murderer in Dallas ?
I have no answers, but should these questions just be ignored if we are
going to render Justice to those who have been murdered ?
6
"If, by some method, it was possible by executing a person that the people they
murdered would come back to life - would those opposed to the Death Penalty
still be against it?" Nope, I wouldn't.
Idea for a science fiction story, though. Murderer is executed. Victim doesn't come back to life. People realize the wrong person was executed. He was innocent! So the executioner is executed, and the innocent person is brought back to life.
murdered would come back to life - would those opposed to the Death Penalty
still be against it?" Nope, I wouldn't.
Idea for a science fiction story, though. Murderer is executed. Victim doesn't come back to life. People realize the wrong person was executed. He was innocent! So the executioner is executed, and the innocent person is brought back to life.
1
Mr. Brown's hypothetical question bringing victims back to life raises another interesting thought experiment:
If we had harvested the organs of Douglas Franklin Wright such that 6 innocent people could continue living, would it be considered justice rather than vengeance?
If we had harvested the organs of Douglas Franklin Wright such that 6 innocent people could continue living, would it be considered justice rather than vengeance?
2
Jeoffrey,
You have yourself a great screenplay.
I will settle for 35 % and 5 % of gross.
Though it is a hypothetical, I posed it because in any other crime
if actual restitution can be rendered we naturally expect it to be
carried out.
That someone who wantonly killed 6 people is allowed to grow to an old age on three meals and day, a place to live and medical care while someone who is homeless suffers far more strikes me as
an moral imbalance. As I said, I don't know what the answers are
but the questions deserve due consideration - do they not ?
You have yourself a great screenplay.
I will settle for 35 % and 5 % of gross.
Though it is a hypothetical, I posed it because in any other crime
if actual restitution can be rendered we naturally expect it to be
carried out.
That someone who wantonly killed 6 people is allowed to grow to an old age on three meals and day, a place to live and medical care while someone who is homeless suffers far more strikes me as
an moral imbalance. As I said, I don't know what the answers are
but the questions deserve due consideration - do they not ?
1
Juries, judges, police, and prosecutors are all human and therefore not infallible. It is just not possible to determine guilt with absolute certainty. How can we apply a punishment that demands infallibility of the conviction, yet the whole process is anything but?
5
"It is just not possible to determine guilt with absolute certainty?"
That's absurd. There are many cases where absolute certainty is not difficult to determine. Obviously, if absolute certainty can't be determined, then no death penalty.
That's absurd. There are many cases where absolute certainty is not difficult to determine. Obviously, if absolute certainty can't be determined, then no death penalty.
5
Mr. Thompson has a point but there are people out there who believe that an eye for an eye is the only way to go. They know, so they tell us, that the death penalty serves as a deterrent and keeps dangerous people from killing again. What they ignore is that the people who are executed are often those who cannot afford a good lawyer, who are in the wrong state when they commit the murder or the death eligible crime, or that some of them are not guilty of anything other than being a minority, or not being liked in their community. Texas executed one man who was innocent but wasn't liked in the community. So he was killed by the state for not being popular enough in a community that decided he did the crime.
Instead of executing or imprisoning for life people who commit a murder on impulse or self defense (think a wife killing her abusive husband), why not focus on life imprisonment for serial murderers and others who cannot be out in society because they are a real danger to us? Instead of wasting money on appeals why not focus on rehabilitation for those we can help and humane imprisonment of those we can never release?
Instead of executing or imprisoning for life people who commit a murder on impulse or self defense (think a wife killing her abusive husband), why not focus on life imprisonment for serial murderers and others who cannot be out in society because they are a real danger to us? Instead of wasting money on appeals why not focus on rehabilitation for those we can help and humane imprisonment of those we can never release?
72
Rehabilitation is largely a fantasy...better to go for an eye for an eye.
1