@Ruth frankly I think death penalty abolition needs to come from the federal level regardless of popularity - unfortunately if you wait for it to become socially unpopular, abolition will just never happen. Capital punishment has remained consistently popular in the UK but it was still abolished despite public lack of support for abolition (this was VERY controversial when the Moors Murders happened only a short time after abolition, as many called for the death penalty in that case).
I'm not, by the way, suggesting that the US legislature works in the same way as the UK or that it would be easy - I realise that it would likely be due to a Supreme Court ruling or similar.
I was thinking about this phenomena where the family of the victim are said to have been failed because they had no closure.
Which is interesting on one level because the whole process is structured as a ghastly moment of theatre performed in front of the victim's family. If it was about closure they could presumably satisfy themselves that the murder was dead afterwards without the theatre.
I was also thinking about this notion of vengeance and justice and how the victims often express themselves as wanting to see the offender suffer. It is hard to argue that in horrific cases like this there is immense suffering as the offender will be hovering in that state between life and death with horrific injuries.
While generally against the death penalty, I am worried by how many cases there have been in the UK recently where a seriously mentally ill person has gone on the rampage with a knife or other weapon (not guns much here of course). And some horrific child abuse cases culminating in murder, like the appalling Sarah Sharif case. It does seriously make me doubt my belief.
I'm starting to think: Jesus didn't speak out against the death penalty, did he? He didn't tell the thieves at Calvary that they shouldn't be there?
While generally against the death penalty, I am worried by how many cases there have been in the UK recently where a seriously mentally ill person has gone on the rampage with a knife or other weapon (not guns much here of course). And some horrific child abuse cases culminating in murder, like the appalling Sarah Sharif case. It does seriously make me doubt my belief.
I'm starting to think: Jesus didn't speak out against the death penalty, did he? He didn't tell the thieves at Calvary that they shouldn't be there?
I think there are two kind of objections. In the first it is about process; the length of time, the capacity of the system to be corrupt or mistaken, the way that it disproportionately falls on certain groups and not others.
The second I think is about a philosophy. Even if it was possible to be absolutely sure that one had the right person, is it still justified?
I was thinking about this phenomena where the family of the victim are said to have been failed because they had no closure.
Which is interesting on one level because the whole process is structured as a ghastly moment of theatre performed in front of the victim's family. If it was about closure they could presumably satisfy themselves that the murder was dead afterwards without the theatre.
I was also thinking about this notion of vengeance and justice and how the victims often express themselves as wanting to see the offender suffer. It is hard to argue that in horrific cases like this there is immense suffering as the offender will be hovering in that state between life and death with horrific injuries.
There is a body of research that suggests the death penalty does not give closure to the vast majority of victims' families, but that the drawn out appeals processes re-traumatise them.
George Orwell's essay, 'A hanging', was very influential to my thinking about these things oh so many years ago.
For a Christian death is not the end and is a path to redemption. But saying this of course cuts no ice with those who believe death is extinction.
There's no 'right' answer ....
I was thinking about this phenomena where the family of the victim are said to have been failed because they had no closure.
Which is interesting on one level because the whole process is structured as a ghastly moment of theatre performed in front of the victim's family. If it was about closure they could presumably satisfy themselves that the murder was dead afterwards without the theatre.
I was also thinking about this notion of vengeance and justice and how the victims often express themselves as wanting to see the offender suffer. It is hard to argue that in horrific cases like this there is immense suffering as the offender will be hovering in that state between life and death with horrific injuries.
There is a body of research that suggests the death penalty does not give closure to the vast majority of victims' families, but that the drawn out appeals processes re-traumatise them.
I think it is important to point out that most murders are not committed by people who are seriously mentally ill, and arguably if the illness is relevant to why they have committed a serious offence then it may in fact mitigate their responsibility which would make the death penalty even less appropriate.
While generally against the death penalty, I am worried by how many cases there have been in the UK recently where a seriously mentally ill person has gone on the rampage with a knife or other weapon (not guns much here of course). And some horrific child abuse cases culminating in murder, like the appalling Sarah Sharif case. It does seriously make me doubt my belief.
I'm starting to think: Jesus didn't speak out against the death penalty, did he? He didn't tell the thieves at Calvary that they shouldn't be there?
Most murders are committed by people who are not mentally ill at all, and are usually committed by someone who knows the victim personally - and they also do not generally involve spree killing, which is rare. Someone who commits murder due to their serious illness is less culpable than someone who commits murder while of sound mind. Why would it make them more deserving of being killed themselves if their crimes were caused by their illness? Why is a spree killing done by someone not in their right mind due to illness worse to you than an abuser murdering their spouse in cold blood, or an adult child murdering their parent for their inheritance? That makes no sense to me.
The death penalty does not deter child abuse. Child abuse including fatal child abuse is significantly more rare nowadays in the UK than it was when the death penalty was in effect here, and child abuse is also more strongly punished nowadays. The same goes for domestic abuse. It's not that these crimes are rare in themselves - they are sadly all too common - but a huge amount of what we now consider to be abusive was not even illegal when the death penalty was in force, and much of it was socially accepted. People were also much more inclined to look the other way, especially if someone respectable was involved.
Also it should be pointed out that news media typically highlights the worst and most morally repugnant cases as those get the most interaction, especially online. Outrage causes more clicks than anything else. In reality a lot of murders happen due to incredibly petty disputes over money, property or planning permission disputes, business deals gone wrong, rivalries between gangs or organised crime groups, etc etc. A "normal" business owner is a much more typical murderer than someone with a severe mental illness. Personally I tend to think that killing someone in cold blood over money or property is much worse than a crime of passion, for eg.
This might be said to be a choice. Someone who is "criminally insane" may well be an ongoing danger to society. A cold-blooded murderer may well never enter the state again where they are going to murder someone.
It does depend on what one even means by the notion of justice and what punishment is supposed to achieve.
Abolishing the death penalty in the UK occurred IIRC after the execution of the innocent Timothy Evans - a tragic case, underlining the dangers of 'getting it wrong'. The notorious Moors murderers Ian Brady and Myra Hindley were tried and sentenced in 1966, after the abolition, which was seen as ironic at the time, given their obvious guilt.
This might be said to be a choice. Someone who is "criminally insane" may well be an ongoing danger to society. A cold-blooded murderer may well never enter the state again where they are going to murder someone.
It does depend on what one even means by the notion of justice and what punishment is supposed to achieve.
Criminal insanity is a specific status that doesn't necessarily co-exist with severe mental illness. Someone can have a severe mental illness but still be ruled sane; likewise someone with a learning disability may not have a mental illness but may still be unfit to stand trial. And like other societal institutions, the legal system (in both the UK and US) perpetuates and enforces ableism and discrimination.
I fail to see any advantage of putting someone to death vs incarcerating someone for life. Costs up to $3mill for an execution considering the various appeals. Costs around $1.5 mil for incarceration (assuming 50 some years in prison.
This is a choice, isn't it? The fact that there are $3 million worth of appeals against being executed, but not $3 million worth of appeals against being imprisoned for life is interesting. These aren't appeals about guilt - these are appeals about punishment. It does seem rather cruel (although unfortunately not so unusual) to spend 30 years trying to execute someone.
Re the actual mechanics of execution, this is something that the collective we has done to ourselves. We put people in medical comas on a regular basis in hospitals. We know how to efficiently and painlessly kill people.
But drug manufacturers choose not to sell their effective drugs to be used in executions, and medical professionals are forbidden from taking part. So the part of "we" that knows how to kill people painlessly and effectively chooses not to do so, leaving the part of "we" that wants to kill people to invent a series of bad ways of doing it.
Abolishing the death penalty in the UK occurred IIRC after the execution of the innocent Timothy Evans - a tragic case, underlining the dangers of 'getting it wrong'. The notorious Moors murderers Ian Brady and Myra Hindley were tried and sentenced in 1966, after the abolition, which was seen as ironic at the time, given their obvious guilt.
The “obvious guilt” is an example for a “hard case” and I think it is fair principle, in either direction, that “hard cases make bad laws”, in that they move from the specific to the general.
Comments
I'm not, by the way, suggesting that the US legislature works in the same way as the UK or that it would be easy - I realise that it would likely be due to a Supreme Court ruling or similar.
Which is interesting on one level because the whole process is structured as a ghastly moment of theatre performed in front of the victim's family. If it was about closure they could presumably satisfy themselves that the murder was dead afterwards without the theatre.
I was also thinking about this notion of vengeance and justice and how the victims often express themselves as wanting to see the offender suffer. It is hard to argue that in horrific cases like this there is immense suffering as the offender will be hovering in that state between life and death with horrific injuries.
I'm starting to think: Jesus didn't speak out against the death penalty, did he? He didn't tell the thieves at Calvary that they shouldn't be there?
I think there are two kind of objections. In the first it is about process; the length of time, the capacity of the system to be corrupt or mistaken, the way that it disproportionately falls on certain groups and not others.
The second I think is about a philosophy. Even if it was possible to be absolutely sure that one had the right person, is it still justified?
There is a body of research that suggests the death penalty does not give closure to the vast majority of victims' families, but that the drawn out appeals processes re-traumatise them.
For a Christian death is not the end and is a path to redemption. But saying this of course cuts no ice with those who believe death is extinction.
There's no 'right' answer ....
I think it is important to point out that most murders are not committed by people who are seriously mentally ill, and arguably if the illness is relevant to why they have committed a serious offence then it may in fact mitigate their responsibility which would make the death penalty even less appropriate.
Most murders are committed by people who are not mentally ill at all, and are usually committed by someone who knows the victim personally - and they also do not generally involve spree killing, which is rare. Someone who commits murder due to their serious illness is less culpable than someone who commits murder while of sound mind. Why would it make them more deserving of being killed themselves if their crimes were caused by their illness? Why is a spree killing done by someone not in their right mind due to illness worse to you than an abuser murdering their spouse in cold blood, or an adult child murdering their parent for their inheritance? That makes no sense to me.
The death penalty does not deter child abuse. Child abuse including fatal child abuse is significantly more rare nowadays in the UK than it was when the death penalty was in effect here, and child abuse is also more strongly punished nowadays. The same goes for domestic abuse. It's not that these crimes are rare in themselves - they are sadly all too common - but a huge amount of what we now consider to be abusive was not even illegal when the death penalty was in force, and much of it was socially accepted. People were also much more inclined to look the other way, especially if someone respectable was involved.
It does depend on what one even means by the notion of justice and what punishment is supposed to achieve.
Abolishing the death penalty in the UK occurred IIRC after the execution of the innocent Timothy Evans - a tragic case, underlining the dangers of 'getting it wrong'. The notorious Moors murderers Ian Brady and Myra Hindley were tried and sentenced in 1966, after the abolition, which was seen as ironic at the time, given their obvious guilt.
Criminal insanity is a specific status that doesn't necessarily co-exist with severe mental illness. Someone can have a severe mental illness but still be ruled sane; likewise someone with a learning disability may not have a mental illness but may still be unfit to stand trial. And like other societal institutions, the legal system (in both the UK and US) perpetuates and enforces ableism and discrimination.
This is a choice, isn't it? The fact that there are $3 million worth of appeals against being executed, but not $3 million worth of appeals against being imprisoned for life is interesting. These aren't appeals about guilt - these are appeals about punishment. It does seem rather cruel (although unfortunately not so unusual) to spend 30 years trying to execute someone.
Re the actual mechanics of execution, this is something that the collective we has done to ourselves. We put people in medical comas on a regular basis in hospitals. We know how to efficiently and painlessly kill people.
But drug manufacturers choose not to sell their effective drugs to be used in executions, and medical professionals are forbidden from taking part. So the part of "we" that knows how to kill people painlessly and effectively chooses not to do so, leaving the part of "we" that wants to kill people to invent a series of bad ways of doing it.
The “obvious guilt” is an example for a “hard case” and I think it is fair principle, in either direction, that “hard cases make bad laws”, in that they move from the specific to the general.