The American Spectator : Reflections on Lethal Injection

Text Size

Another Perspective

Reflections on Lethal Injection

By Roger Kaplan on 9.23.11 @ 6:09AM

Albert Camus had no misunderstanding of the death penalty.

Over 50 years ago, though I cannot help remarking that the years seem impossible, Albert Camus remarked to my father — at the time based in France as a State Department official and Partisan Review correspondent — that he was at work on an essay on capital punishment. “Vous êtes contre,” my father said, anticipating the thinking of a writer whose mind he had studied for years through his writings and for whose character he had some feeling, though the two were never close friends. “Bien entendu,” Camus replied in his reserved way.

Of course I am against, he said. Published at nearly the same time as he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature, Camus’s Réflexions sur la guillotine is perhaps the most famous modern polemic against the death penalty. It marshals most of the arguments that are lined up every time the topic comes up; proponents and opponents of state-sanctioned execution of criminals do little more, with varying degrees of eloquence, rational coherence, and emotional appeal, than repeat the arguments Camus made then and that he discussed with some of his friends and acquaintances as he went to work in 1956 and ‘57 on his classic piece.

Although, characteristically, Camus’s reflections were profoundly informed by philosophical training that was deeply seeped, as befit a man of the Mediterranean, in classical Greek thought, it comes as no surprise that the decision to address the subject was motivated by personal anguish. Camus was haunted all his life, it comes up again in his late writings, by his own father’s reaction to a public execution. Until after World War II, French penal authorities had the option of dressing the guillotine, the head-chopping machine invented during the French Revolution, as a humane improvement (as indeed it was, though Camus pointed out in his essay that it did not always work as advertised) over the methods used in previous times, which were quite deliberately designed to cause lasting horror in anyone who observed them. Notwithstanding, Camus’s father, who was no opponent of the death penalty, was sickened by what he saw and transmitted his aversion to his son. Camus’s father was killed at the front in September 1914. The memories Camus had of his father were those of very early childhood only, and he did not mind admitting that the shock caused by that public execution in Algiers was one of the most indelible.

In the mid-1950s, Camus was concerned that the execution — within prison walls by now — of Algerian terrorists (freedom-fighters by their own lights, or mujahideen, as they referred to themselves) was politically counter-productive, quite apart from indefensible on rational grounds. He did not deny the morality of “an eye for an eye” justice, but he argued that it never worked out that way. In the spiraling violence in his country, every shooting of a French policeman, every search-and-destroy mission against the commando responsible, every bomb in a European café killing civilians, every retaliatory dynamiting of a house in the casbah by white vigilantes, contributed, as Camus well saw, to a situation increasingly impermeable to any sort of discussion of compromise and reform between the belligerent parties. He had been pleading for such discussion since the late 1930s when in his earliest reporting (for the communist paper Alger-Républicain) he said the unjust colonial conditions in Algeria, based on self-serving lies (officially Algeria was not a colony), created a ticking time bomb.

Camus had zero sympathy for the Algerian national movement’s terrorist squads — indeed despite his understanding of his own country, which stood in such glaring contrast to the armchair lesson-givers in Paris like Sartre who scarcely knew where the place was, he could summon no sympathy for the Algerian national movement as such. He viewed it, in a way that could not help but sound like a right-wing caricature but that was eerily prescient, variously as a communist and pan-Arabist conspiracy, and he noted that an Arab Algeria made as much sense as a Berber or a Maltese or a Jewish one. However, he clung to the hope that men of good will would be heard above the din and a decent, essentially federalist, solution might be found. He was sadly mistaken. His own people nearly lynched him when he came home to argue for a “civil truce” followed by negotiations.

In this context, Camus saw no useful purpose gained by executing convicted bomb-throwers and non-uniformed combatants, which under the laws of war was not illegal, though some of the methods used by French authorities to win convictions probably were. Repeatedly, and in complete discretion, he petitioned for stays and orders of clemency, won a few, lost many. The minister of justice who often refused them was a hungry young politician named François Mitterrand, whose position he summed up tersely: “Our policy is war.” As president of France several decades later, Mitterrand encouraged his justice minister, the eminent jurist Robert Badinter, to put through abolitionist legislation, which he did.

All this does, Camus said, is push the extremists to the fore. He was right: when the French withdrew after seven ghastly years of fighting, the most radical nationalists easily took over, then fell out among themselves, leading to more fighting followed by the almost inevitable military dictatorship.

Wartime is not peacetime and a society in which the rule of law and due process are observed is not the same as one torn by a violent insurgency by have-nots (including have-not any political or civil rights) against haves (though often very poor haves, as Camus well knew.) But it is difficult not to see in the painstaking efforts of our states to apply the ultimate sanction of justice the pertinence of the issues Albert Camus raised many decades ago.

Executions on the same day this past week illustrate Camus’s description of capital punishment as “the longest pre-meditated murder” in a way he never would have imagined. Troy Davis, executed by the state of Georgia for a crime committed over 20 years ago, maintained his innocence to the very end, as did Lawrence Russell Brewer’s execution (by the same method of lethal injection, said to be painless) by Texas was almost expeditious by comparison, as the crime for which he, too, rejected responsibility to the end occurred only 13 years ago.

In referring to state-sanctioned “murder” Camus did not mean to bring a kind of moral relativism into the discussion. On the contrary, the classic moralist that he was would have insisted that killing is killing, and killing when the killed has no defenses is murder. He would not, he did not, say the state was not justified in doing this on moral grounds; he never went in for the false sentimentality of root social causes and the non-responsibility of the criminal. Beyond such practical issues as whether or not the death penalty has a deterrent effect (an unending debate, Camus thought, with some statistical evidence in support, that it has none), the question is whether a civilized community, through its state, defends itself effectively by choosing revenge in its most final and irrevocable form.

Recalling his conversations with Camus, my father said, “His morality was absolute. He was a man of the Mediterranean and as such, you know, austere, almost puritanical. He was a kind man, but strict, severe.”

I assumed they had discussed the Rosenberg’s. “Yes, of course, that was one of the cases that provoked his reflection. You know, he was an anti-communist and he was quite able to accept they had a fair trial. He knew how much damage the atomic espionage rings caused us, and collaterally France and even — to the degree he saw the Soviet hand in the Algerian affair — his home.”

“But he was against.”

“Well, again, he asked what good does it do? Why can’t we, leaders of the Free World and defenders of civilization, defend ourselves without this form of punishment? “Voyez, Kaplan,” he said, “les effets que les cocos vont en tirer.” See the propaganda value of this affair to the communists, he meant. And he was right about that.

My father usually agreed with Camus, while reproaching him very gently for some of his literary efforts and while objecting to his cold war positions, which could on occasion be convoluted. Neither man would have found any compassionate or moral grounds for staying the sentences against the convicted killers in Georgia and Texas, though in the case of the former I think both would have worried about the questions about the evidence that repeatedly were raised. The author of The Stranger and The Misunderstanding certainly would have understood the horror of a casually racist killing and would have noted the historical significance of the firm stance taken by a Southern state in responding to it, just as he would have agonized about the lack of a murder weapon in the Georgia case and the ambiguous witnesses.

The stances of the families of the victims in both cases are completely understandable, one can even say admirable and poignant. There remains this: are we like the Taliban, who give to the families of victims the final say on whether murderers should be killed, and the choice of weapons with which to carry out the sentence?

My father and Albert Camus were believers in progress. But neither one thought progress is achieved by social engineering or replacing by means of violent revolution an unfair system with a theoretically more just one. Their stance was, remains, a difficult one, perhaps impossible, but courageous. The terrible question of capital punishment in our country, model of freedom under law in a flawed and, as Governor Perry says, broken world, reminds us that humility and skepticism remain necessary counterweights to our upbeat optimism for the future.

About the Author

Roger Kaplan, a Washington-based writer, covers the Middle East and Africa (and tennis) for The American Spectator.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (170) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

gerald brennan| 9.23.11 @ 6:19AM

The State shouldn't be killing people.
Period.

Robbins Mitchell| 9.23.11 @ 6:32AM

Actually it should....this removes the element of personal revenge when a capital murder is committed....the 'state' has no personal private interest when it executes a murderer.....and the process is simplicity itself....stick in the needle,take out the trash

Timothy L. Pennell| 9.23.11 @ 3:31PM

A Black guy, who MURDERED a White Policeman, was Executed, the other day. There were a lot of Protesters and Sympathizers. "He maintains his innocence", they say." The Death Penalty is BARBARIC and should be ABOLISHED."
The Death Penalty was WRONG, that day, in Georgia.
A White guy was executed in Texas, the other day. It hardly even made the papers. He was involved in Dragging a Black man, behind a truck, to his death. He maintained his innocence, right to the end.
There were NO protests. There were no Sympathizers. No "Letters from Jew Hating Ex Presidents". No "Letters from World Leaders". No pleas, to spare his life.
The Death Penalty was GOOD, that very same day, in Texas.
Interesting.
They had YEARS and YEARS and YEARS, to prove their innocence. Years that their VICTIMS, never did.
It's amazing, how the people, outside the Prison, in Georgia, holding hands, and CRYING, for a Convicted MURDERER, are the same folks who Riot in the streets, when their "RIGHT" to kill INNOCENT Unborn Babies, is threatened.
In a Prison, up North, a Black Radical - MUMIA ABU JAMAL - sits on Death Row. He's been there for a Generation. He calmly walked up to a young Philadelphia Police Officer, who lay BLEEDING, on the sidewalk, from a Bullet, that MUMIA had already fired in to his body, and put another one, IN HIS HEAD. He Murdered somebody's SON, somebody's HUSBAND, and a young Child's FATHER, that day.
I'm told that he gets letters of SUPPORT, from his "Supporters" and "Sympathizers", on the LEFT, by the Bag Full.

Occam's Tool| 9.23.11 @ 4:21PM

Here's my take. In theory, the Death Penalty is both appropriate and good.

However, and I have a major caveat with this, and it is as follows: as an expert witness for 2 decades now, most judges and lawyers I have worked with I would not trust to have the common sense to pour piss out of a boot with instructions and assistants, much less decide the fate of anyone's life. It is judges and attorneys who decide what jurors see and what they should consider.

In short, it amazes me every day that judges and attorneys breathe and walk. Therefore, the death penalty should be reserved for special situations and special cases---like Hasan Nidal (multiple eyewitnesses saw scumbag kill people), for example. A higher standard of evidence than "beyond a reasonable doubt" must be established, as the Innocence Project is getting many people released on DNA evidence, for example.

RCV| 9.24.11 @ 5:51PM

Agree completely, Occam. And that was the problem with the Georgia case.

Margaret| 9.24.11 @ 5:16AM

It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life from the conception to death.
For Christians all life is sacred because it takes its origin in God, belongs to God, and returns to God.

Killing someone (including the unborn) is a path to the dark side.

It also doesn't matter if the person you are killing is convicted murderer, it is still wrong. If you want them to pay for their crimes, then leave them be, and let them suffer in prison where they belong for the rest of their natural life and where they must earn their living.

Only someone who defends his or someone else’s life is not guilty of murder, even if he is forced to kill the aggressor.

michigander_sandusky| 9.24.11 @ 10:51AM

Margaret: With all due respect people like you make me sick. You have the audacity to speak on behalf of God without even knowing God's position on capital punishment. The only place we can find God's position on capital punishment is to look to His word not to our own opinions like you have done. God's word makes it crystal clear that God not only supports capital punishment, He in fact demands it. In Genesis 9:6 He says: "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man." We find in Romans 13:1-7 that God has ordained civil governments to keep order in society and one facet is to execute evil doers. I would advise you to read all seven verses with the key in verse 4: "For he (civil government) is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil." The Bible is filled with cases of those who had the audacity to speak presumptuously on the Lord's behalf and they all met a terrible end. I suggest you get your nose in the Book and see what God really says before presumtuosly speaking on His behalf.

Margaret| 9.24.11 @ 4:27PM

As a Catholic I do not speak on God'd behalf, only follow teachings of Jesus.
The Torah and Hebrew Bible made clear distinctions between the shedding of innocent blood and killing as the due consequence of a crime. But a number of sins were considered to be worthy of the death penalty including murder, incest, bearing false witness on a capital charge, adultery, idolatry, etc.

Do you agree with that too?

Chef Schnauzer| 9.25.11 @ 6:07AM

Margaret, this is one of those issues where I have a gut instinct and the Church has different teachings. I have a hectic as all get out life and some of higher concept issues will just have to wait until retirement for me to take up. This these cases, I go with the Holy Father. Isn't it amazing the two incredible Popes in a row? I don't remember P Paul VI - thats a retirement thing too.

TrueBlue| 9.24.11 @ 11:15AM

I won't leave them be to "suffer in prison", the statement itself makes me laugh. It's okay to let someone "suffer" on the public dime for 20, 30, 40 years but not to spend the 25 cents on a bullet to the head, or whatever thousands of dollars for a lethal injection (which is insane by the way for a bloody shot, but still costs less than keeping them in prison)? I do not agree with keeping someone alive, on my money which the government already takes too much of, after they are proven guilty of murder or treason and sentenced to death.

You get your trial, you should get at MOST two appeals (I'm partial to one myself), and then your sentence is carried out. Prison itself needs to be a lot more harsh than it is. None of this free time in the yard or time to work out in a gym bull. You go to prison you work whatever crud job needs doing inbetween meals for 12 hours a day MINIMUM. Minimum security guys can get used on this or that state project while under guard, and that is as lax as it should get. If we had harsher punishments, and actually followed through with them, we'd have a lot lower crime rate.

If you end somebody's life on purpose, you deserve the death penalty. End of story.

Rob Schapiro| 9.23.11 @ 7:58AM

How far should we take this? Should the military (a killing machine) be disbanded?
Should policemen be disarmed in case they shoot a criminal?

loulou| 9.23.11 @ 9:58AM

"The State shouldn't be killing people."

Not after 20 years. Should have been after 3 years or as soon as possible after the verdict.

Harry the Horrible| 9.23.11 @ 10:58AM

I don't care how long it takes to bring scum to the gallows.
Besides, thats not problem with the death penalty, thats a problem with the judicial system.

MOS was 71331| 9.23.11 @ 2:14PM

Execution could come more quickly, but death penalty opponents do everything they can to drag the process out.

cowgirl| 9.23.11 @ 11:11AM

The State should not be taking people's income.

Period.

Alan Brooks| 9.23.11 @ 5:54PM

"The State should not be taking people's income.
Period."

Then who pays the salaries of Rightist politicians; who pays for defense (offense) even?

Bunky| 9.24.11 @ 6:04PM

Libtards pay.
Only libtards.
I'm sure we can design legislation to accomplish that in the next congress.

TrueBlue| 9.24.11 @ 11:29AM

Let's change that statement a little bit:

The State should not be wasting people's income by keeping death row inmates in prison for decades.

cowgirl| 9.23.11 @ 11:11AM

The State should not be taking people's income.

Period.

Dan Hirsch| 9.23.11 @ 12:21PM

Ma'am,

You were right, both times...

HeeHaw

DTOM

Alan Brooks| 9.23.11 @ 5:56PM

"The State should not be taking people's income.
Period."

Then who pays for Gran and Gramps?

DaveS| 9.23.11 @ 2:11PM

I suppose you mean to have the final say. The best way to stop capital punishment is to refrain from capital murder (and treason.) Even the liberals who set out to show that capital punishment did not deter murder discovered (and to their credit admitted) they were wrong. Each execution saves a number of lives - as many as 16.

MOS was 71331| 9.23.11 @ 2:17PM

And the lives saved include the lives of other prisoners and guards. Not every prisoner who dies dies of "natural" causes.

DaveS| 9.24.11 @ 8:28AM

True, but this is a different matter from the core one under discussion.

Cpm| 9.23.11 @ 2:47PM

"The State" isn't killing people. It is merely the vehicle by which society corrects criminal behavior. The accused were convicted by a jury that viewed the evidence and found the defendant guilty. The guilty commited crimes against society, and society has a responsibility to remove these miscreants, some permanently, and in particularly heinous circumstances it sometimes costs that miscreant the forfeiture of his life.

Alan Brooks| 9.23.11 @ 5:46PM

There was not enough physical evidence to execute Troy Davis.
I'm sure Davis was guilty, but there must be better evidence to execute someone. If Kaplan's friend or relative was to indicted, he would want hard hard evidence before a conviction- let alone execution.
You guys are as bloodthirsty as Bolsheviks.

Alan Brooks| 9.23.11 @ 5:49PM

Mr. Pinkerton, I do not trust the state of Georgia- the state that gave us Jimmuh- to render justice to anyone.

DaveS| 9.24.11 @ 8:34AM

It is false to say a lack of physical evidence makes a guilty verdict, a priori, unsustainable. A dozen witnesses identified Davis as the man who stood over the once-shot cop and shot him again. The recantations (friends of his) were worthless, and Davis knew the jig was up and did not call even the more 'reliable' of them post-trial. Davis was guilty as they get. It was not even close.

Quartermaster| 9.23.11 @ 5:52PM

Roger, Murder is premeditated killing for *personal* advantage. The ability of the target to defend themselves does not enter into the equation.

Alan Brooks| 9.23.11 @ 5:59PM

To Hell with the state of Georgia.

Alan Brooks| 9.23.11 @ 6:36PM

There was no DNA evidence, Davis was almost certainly guilty but convicted and executed merely on testimony from mostly unreliable witnesses.
If DaveS' kid (if he has any kids) were to be convicted by a majority of untrustworthy witnesses, without any physical evidence, it would not hold with him in any way.

MOS was 71331| 9.24.11 @ 12:26AM

There was no need for DNA evidence. Davis murdered an off-duty police officer in a Burger King parking lot around noon in the presence of more than a dozen eye witnesses. What DNA evidence might be of interest during the Davis trial and for any of his appeals?

Robert Pinkerton| 9.23.11 @ 7:05AM

While I am for capital punishment in principle, I insist on a very high standard of proof that the defendant actually did the crime -- and I remain unalterably opposed to confessional jurisprudence ("Holy[?]' Inquisition right down to the Soviet atrocity police). Killing a person is irrevocable. The only killing in which we may be absolutely certain of the guilt of the decedent, is self-defense against interpersonal criminal aggression.

Steve A| 9.23.11 @ 11:38AM

How bout this for a standard of proof. The jury convicts you, twice, like the scumbag cop killer from Georgia.

Alan Brooks| 9.23.11 @ 6:40PM

"The jury convicts you, twice, like the scumbag cop killer from Georgia."

If Judge Lynch had convicted a guy such as Thomas Sowell or Clarence Thomas without adequate evidence then all of a sudden you are indignant.
So it isn't about race, it is about "MY people deserve a fair shake."

DaveS| 9.23.11 @ 2:13PM

Absolutely has nothing to do with it. Every citizen's life is owed to the society that protects it - every day. The burden of absolute can never be met.

Alan Brooks| 9.23.11 @ 5:52PM

"Every citizen's life is owed to the society that protects it - every day. The burden of absolute can never be met."

You are a pighead, DaveS; hope you never are elected to anything.

Alan Brooks| 9.23.11 @ 6:40PM

...well, at least you aren't a libertopian.

DaveS| 9.24.11 @ 8:37AM

Your name-calling gives you away. I cannot wait to see your next posts; I'll dissemble them as well.

Tina Trent | 9.23.11 @ 3:46PM

I don't think you're understanding evidence. Confessional jurisprudence? The activists on the Left have created a gravely false image of convictions, including the Davis case ("lack of a murder weapon in the Georgia case and the ambiguous witnesses" are also straw men in this case).

There is a very good website that dissects these myths in some detail -- it is called "pro death penalty."

Allowing misrepresentations of these cases to stand not only allows false accusations of prejudice; it advance the real, underlying goal of much death penalty activism: to undermine our justice system as a whole by convincing people to question its accuracy and fairness -- through lies, false accusation of prejudice, and other dishonest tactics.

Eliminating the death penalty tomorrow will not alter this goal. Nobody doesn't insist on a very high standard of proof right now.

Alan Brooks| 9.23.11 @ 6:59PM

To execute someone, complete Terry-Nichols evidence is needed. The guy had fertilizer used in the OKBOMB on his lawn!
But naturally he only gets Life for helping McVeigh build a bomb that killed over 169.
Go figure.

Dan Hirsch| 9.23.11 @ 6:13PM

Mr. Pinkerton;

So self-defense against interpersonal criminal aggression is the only thing to save one from the death penalty? Do you mean that if I kill my attacker, I get to be sentenced to life imprisonment? Are you criminalizing self-defense? That is ridiculous, you cannot mean it.

In our government, of the people, by the people, for the people, we have elected representatives that have legislated laws.

Under these laws, for certain crimes, after being accused in open court, having opportunity to cross examine witnesses, confront accusers, and being tried by a jury of peers and found guilty by all twelve beyond a shadow of a doubt, sentence is passed by either the jury or a judge in accordance with the law. Should the sentence be a capital one, there are set procedures to insure that every possible effort has been taken to avoid a miscarriage of justice. Automatic appeals processes are invoked, a governor reviews the case, the Supreme Court is routinely involved.
This is not the government taking a life, it is the people, following an agreed-on process that is designed to minimize errors which often appears balanced overwhelmingly in favor of the defendant.

The victim - too bad for you, you're already dead and silent. You didn't get to defend yourself, you didn't have taxpayers hire attorneys, detectives, investigators, experts, and whatever else you could think of. Nope, the perp didn't like you and too bad, you probably only had seconds to confront your attacker and guess what, you lost!!!

Stop sniveling - don't like the death penalty? Convince your fellow citizens of your point of view and change the law; move to Londonistan (although under sharia they'll be back to capital punishment soon enough!)

But this whining, burning candles, crying 'shame.' It is woefully pathetic and non-American. Kwitcherbitchin and do something!

Sheesh.

DTOM

MyGirlFriday| 9.24.11 @ 5:11PM

And the child who can not defend itself from an adult aggressor?

potkas7| 9.23.11 @ 7:36AM

One man murders another. In very short order the focus of discussion switches from details of the crime to how every consideration must be given, every allowance made to protect the rights of the killer. The victim disappears from view. That he was unjustly deprived of his life is of little concern. What he hoped for and dreamed of for his life is not thought of as material. What contributions he might have made to society are not weighed in the balance. His family is forgotten. All attention is upon the man who took his life.

Adam Smith once said "Mercy for the guilty is cruelty to the innocent." What justice then for the man deprived of life without a hearing, with no benefit of counsel? Who is his advocate? Who speaks for him? Where are the candlelight vigils on behalf of the man whose candle was snuffed out prematurely?

Justice is defined by Aristotle as "Giving every man his due." The Spirit of Justice is often portrayed as holding a balance scale. When everything is loaded on one side, the balance is tilted away from true justice and we fail to render what is due.

Shamus| 9.23.11 @ 7:40AM

The government has a responsibility to keep its citizens safe. If this is best done by execution, then there is an argument for it. Ted Bundy escaped from prison once and continued to kill more people. There is a sound argument for execution of this kind of criminal.

John Navratil| 9.23.11 @ 7:53AM

Random thoughts (with apologies to Dr. Sowell)

(1) On the same day in two southern states, two killers were executed. One was a black man convicted of killing a white policeman, the other was a white man convicted of dragging a black man to death. In the case of the former, the usual anti-death-penalty crowd congregated and beat their drums. In the case of the latter? Silence! I don't know why. Could someone please explain the differences.

(2) A witness who recants testimony is a liar. You just can't tell when they are lying. Does one trust the trial court to evaluate testimony, or the media.

(3) There is no such thing in a country with habeas corpus as a final judgement.

(4) There is a great disparity in the number of murders committed each year and the number of executions. If you want to get executed, you had better make it a spectacular.

(5) Killing a policeman is a special circumstance.

RT| 9.23.11 @ 8:10AM

Well, since you mentioned Dr. Sowell, let me provide one of his quotes on the matter, paraphrased, as it's from memory:

Since it has been proven that capital punishment has a deterent effect, what those who are opposed to it are really saying is that they are fine with having their hands drenched with the blood of the innocent so long as they aren't soiled with the blood of the guilty.

John Navratil| 9.23.11 @ 8:52AM

RT,

I love the man. He has a remarkably pithy way of stating things.

Jack London| 9.23.11 @ 2:33PM

He's remarkably wrong too (as he is on so many things). Still, you can love someone despite their manifest faults I guess. There is no proof that capital punishment deters. As for the Troy Davis case, the 'special circumstance' is the circumstantial case made against him, and not the evidence. Like many other capital cases this was a shameful day for America.

Skippy| 9.23.11 @ 3:20PM

I cheered and enjoyed a fine smoke.
Another scumbag dies.
I am a happy guy!

Occam's Tool| 9.23.11 @ 4:24PM

When Nidal Hassan dies I will cheer. I was slated to be that asshole's colleague. And the evidence in his case is flinkin' overwhelming. There is a man who deserves to die by drowning in LARD.

Jack London| 9.23.11 @ 4:45PM

What good will come of killing him?

Dan Hirsch| 9.23.11 @ 6:14PM

You can be sure there will be no recidivism by Mr. Hassan. That's some good, isn't it?

DTOM

Dan Hirsch| 9.23.11 @ 6:16PM

Oh yea, incarceration does not prevent recidivism; it changes the potential victims from possibly innocent, to probably guilty of some heinous felony...

DTOM

John Navratil| 9.23.11 @ 6:45PM

Jack London,

He will never kill again. Another innocent can live without the prospect of becoming a victim. Both results are positive, to me.

Jack London| 9.24.11 @ 7:57AM

This is someone who is probably mentally ill who will in any case be in prison for the rest of his life. And isn't he paralyzed – he can't walk? There is some indication that hearing about American war crimes first hand pushed him over the edge. It's a complex case for the court martial to consider but I'm sure anything sensitive will be covered up.

John Navratil| 9.23.11 @ 6:47PM

Jack London,

Well no one is perfect. Perhaps, just to edify me, you will pick one of Sowell's many faults and point it out to me. Two, if you like. Or more! As you wish.

Shamus| 9.23.11 @ 9:38AM

(1) Liberals thought concerns itself with groups of people rather than individuals. This leads to strange views, including the idea that putting to death a member of an oppressed minority is an abomination, while putting to death an oppressor is a lesser matter.

(2) Juries try the facts. Once they have rendered their decision, courts generally accept it. The appeal is on points of law or improper trial procedure. It's hard to get new evidence considered once trial is over.

John Navratil| 9.23.11 @ 9:50AM

Shamus,

You are, no doubt, aware that there were evidentiary reviews of Davis' case after trial. It's much easier to get one in a death penalty case for the precise reason that the punishment is irrevocable. N.B. All punishments are irrevocable.

Shamus| 9.23.11 @ 11:08AM

Yes, it's certainly easier to get a review of a death penalty, and there certainly were a lot of reviews done in this case. However, a review differs from a grant of a new trial. Judges tend to respect the decisions that juries make with respect to the facts and are much more likely to overturn a conviction based on flawed trial procedure than on new evidence. It's certainly possible to get new evidence considered, and there are many examples where DNA evidence has been used to free convicted people. Recanted witness testimony is typically not accepted as a reason to set aside a conviction.

John Navratil| 9.23.11 @ 11:31AM

Shamus,

When the review warrants, the case can be reopened and a new trial granted (not very common, but done) or a new sentencing hearing (more common) ordered.

DaveS| 9.23.11 @ 2:15PM

Why is (5) a special circumstance?

Dan Hirsch| 9.23.11 @ 6:27PM

Sheesh - because the policeman is not there on his own behalf-the killer killing a cop is attacking someone paid to protect society. Killing a cop is an assault on the entire society. Murder your neighbor and you are doing harm to an individual and his family; murder a cop, and you are trying to harm everyone the cop is protecting. Get it yet? Or are you still irritated about some speeding ticket?

DTOM

DaveS| 9.24.11 @ 8:42AM

Cops take their risks knowingly. Is my life less important than a policeman's? You are in Alan Brooks' category. By the way, my father-in-law was a cop, brother in law a cop, nephew a cop.

Kingofthenet| 9.25.11 @ 6:28PM

The idea is that crimes of passion are LESS severe than an assault of society, which killing a cop is considered. You are basically declaring war on ALL of society and have no limits. Although if you are dealing with a dirty cop putting someone in a 'choke hold' or some sort of 'cop' riot, that might be a different story.

Timothy L. Pennell| 9.23.11 @ 8:00AM

Dave Williams| 9.23.11 @ 12:51PM

Tim, you are so right about that Philly scumbag....whenever I see one of those idiotic "Free Mumia" signs, I whip out a Sharpie and change "Free" to "Fry."

Dave Williams| 9.23.11 @ 12:51PM

Tim, you are so right about that Philly scumbag....whenever I see one of those idiotic "Free Mumia" signs, I whip out a Sharpie and change "Free" to "Fry."

POST American| 9.23.11 @ 8:06AM

--AS we stand in this, the 11th hour of the
Global mafia RED China sellout op,
and as FUKISHIMA, in superb, agenda
advancing fashion, blows its fallout
across North America ----IMPORTANT
to remember, down through history,
the supreme capital crime -----was TREASON.

---------------------TAKE HEED-------------------------

RJ| 9.23.11 @ 8:34AM

Well, seems like this writer has a thing for his dead dear old daddy, like Camus had for his and Obama-Mao most certainly has for his Kenyan daddy. But I digress.

We don't want you in our group! The next problem is what we do to remove you from our group. Exile or kill. Walk the plank, then swim for your life is a choice. How do you want to die is another choice. We've just taken away one choice leaving you with the method of your death.

No one gets out of here alive.

Counter our author's conflict with the thoughts of Sargent Dakota Ferry on the day he behaved in a manner where his country would come to honor him with the Medal of Honor.

Who would you wish to support?

I'll stand with a Marine.

Merlin| 9.23.11 @ 9:03AM

I have no problem with the death penalty, nor with life imprisonment as an alternative, but as TLP mentions above the incomprehensible POST American, being pro-abortion and anti-capital punishment is totally irrational.

Opposed to capital punishment and abortion: OK.

Opposed to abortion but not capital punishment: OK.

Opposed to neither: Wrong but consistent.

Opposed to capital punishment but not abortion: Your head must be so totally compartmentalized that your right hand would literally not know what your left hand is doing, otherwise it (your head) would explode.

skip| 9.23.11 @ 12:34PM

Liberals overwhelmingly oppose capital punishment.

Liberals overwhelmingly support abortion.

Liberals overwhelmingly fail to grasp your logic.

Liberals overwhelmingly are certain you have no intelligence, you have no compassion, you are a facist trampling everyone's rights, will bet everybody else's money you are a racist and have an irrational fear of homosexuals, and will know every exact reason why you are such a teabagger and refuse to engage them with any intellectual honesty.

DaveS| 9.23.11 @ 2:17PM

Your message explains why I am at a complete loss as to why some many NY priests are Democrats.

Occam's Tool| 9.23.11 @ 4:26PM

I oppose abortion, and I support capital punishment in rare, selected cases. (I want the evidence to be beyond "beyond a reasonable doubt," because the overwhelming majority of lawyers and judges are at least as moronic as Obama is, beyond a reasonable doubt.)

Joseph| 9.23.11 @ 7:33PM

The evidence is evaluated by a jury. The judges review the jury's verdict.

MOS was 71331| 9.24.11 @ 12:34AM

Merlin. You said "above the incomprehensible POST American." I believe you meant "incomprehendable." And I agree. I also can't comprehend what POST American is trying to say.

Steve A| 9.23.11 @ 9:06AM

I'm sure Ole Al Camus would feel exactly the same way if he watched a guy rape his sister & then set her on fire. It's real easy to sit back & "philosiphize" about it when it happens to somebody else.

As for the deterrent issue. If offender above is sent packing, the odds are 100% that he will not "offend" anyone else again . Good enough for me.

Anthony| 9.23.11 @ 9:33AM

"What good does it do", Mr. Camus mused? It rids society of one less dirtball in an act of finality even moral relativists can comprehend.

Dan Hirsch| 9.23.11 @ 10:06AM

And, the recidivism rate for capital punishment recipients remains 0.000.

An old saw said, "A liberal is a conservative who hasn't been mugged, yet."

To which I would add, "An anti-death penalty activist is someone who never knew a murder victim."

When I was a pre-teen, a grade school classmate was raped, stabbed, and strangled to death by the unpopular young boy next door. She was buried; him? Last I saw of him: I was in college and read an article in Time Magazine decrying the fact that the evil prosecutor was attempting to try the boy as an adult. Time did not bother to mention the dead girl's name, age, sex, or suffering, not once. Did I mention that her older sister was within earshot of the entire crime, but encased in a body cast, she was unable to do anything?

Don't know where he is now...I think I know where she is, though...

DTOM

John Navratil| 9.23.11 @ 10:17AM

Anthony,

Indeed! Let's all try an muster a tear for out dear departed brother Mr. Brewer, shall we? Heinous really describes that crime, doesn't it.

I have a temper, but don't think I could ever be so overcome as to commit murder. Perhaps I don't need a deterrent. As these executions are done, I reflect on the horror it must be to walk to your own death. Then, I think of the horror it must be to have your like taken from you as an innocent. I won't speak for anyone else, but the contemplation is a deterrent to me. The lesson was obviously lost on Messrs. Brewer and Davis. But they are certainly deterred from doing it again.

KyMouse| 9.23.11 @ 10:15AM

Whether capital punishment is a deterrent matters less to me, because it is people such as the Mafia who kill as a warning to others.

To me, the only valid reason to execute someone is because the legal system, including a jury of peers and legitimate appeals, has concluded that death is the proper punishment for one's crime(s).

When a murderer strikes, the victim is given NO time to prepare for eternity, get his affairs in order, say goodbye to loved ones, or make a case for sparing his life. The killing itself may not be quick or painless, and may in fact involve slow torture.

The murderer, however, is given years for the appeals process, and plenty of time to prepare for death. When the sentence is carried out, it may begin with his simply drifting off to sleep.

The worst killer on Death Row gets a better deal than his victim(s).

"...[K]illing when the killed has no defenses is murder." It is first the victim who has no defenses against his murder. A murderer deprives his victim of the right to self-defense by overpowering him/her. The state has every right (even the duty) to act in the victim's place and use deadly force against the murderer.

A man might think he can overpower and murder a child, but through capital punishment, We the People do what the child would have done if he had been strong enough.

Seems fair to me -- if you don't want the state to execute you (i.e., to do what your victim would have done, by using deadly force in self-defense), then don't overpower and murder anyone.

no name| 9.23.11 @ 10:18AM

Ohh the pain...cry baby, cry, cry for the murdering low lifes. It should be for the victims and victims families, the children growing up without a parent, the financial hardship. It should be about the taxpayer, having to pay to keep a judicial system in place, then having to pay for the defense of the murderer. Then if they don't have a grease ball lawyer like Casey Anthony had the expense of keeping them in prison at $50,000. plus per year. No thanks, I say execute them. They can explain everything to their maker in person, even the almighty doesn't forgive everything.

Occam's Tool| 9.23.11 @ 4:29PM

The lawyer for Casey Anthony was an unheralded Legal Genius. He literally made a silk purse out of a sow's ear. He did his job magnificently. The prosecution fubar'ed their case. See my comments above about lawyers and judges and the death penalty.

gene| 9.23.11 @ 10:31AM

One can argue for or against Capital Punishment.

But to bring up the case of Troy Davis and JUST simple say that he maintained his innocence as a discussion point is a distortion of the facts.
A few witnesses did recant their tesitmony and they personally KNEW Davis. However that does not negate the fact that over 30 people witnessed the man standing over and executing a police officer; to include 3 military personnel and none of these people recanted. Just stating you are innocent is not a debating point. Whether or not he (Davis) should have just been incarcerated for life is another discussion entirely. Writers should vet the history of other stories before making such absurd quotes about innocence. It does nothing to advance the cause of abolishing the death penalty. It only gives ammunition to the other side and marginalizes those who are against the death penalty.

LiveFreeOrDie| 9.23.11 @ 3:16PM

Please provide a link to source your "facts" regarding 30 witnesses to the murder.

John Navratil| 9.23.11 @ 7:51PM

LiveFreeOrDie,

In re Troy Anthony Davis, No. CV409-130, (S.D. Ga. Aug. 24, 2010), Final Order Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as to Troy Anthony Davis

Page 41: "The state presented thirty-four witnesses in its case-in-chief."

John Navratil| 9.23.11 @ 7:57PM

LiveFreeOrDie,

I forgot the links:

http://www.gasd.uscourts.gov/p.....2part1.pdf

http://www.gasd.uscourts.gov/p.....2part2.pdf

LiveFreeOrDie| 9.25.11 @ 9:10PM

Page 41: "The state presented thirty-four witnesses in its case-in-chief."

Right, but of those 34 only 9 claim to have witnessed the crime.

John Navratil| 9.25.11 @ 10:35PM

LiveFreeOrDie,

You mean to say "stated that they actually saw Davis pull the trigger to shoot McPhail". You disregard the statements from those whose statements said they heard the gunshot and saw someone in a white t-shirt running away or other circumstances linking Davis to the shooting of McPhail while all were present at the Burger King. Where they not witnesses to the crime?

If your wife is shot while you are brushing your teeth and you run into the bedroom to see your wife dead of a gunshot wound and your neighbor climbing out of the window, are you not a witness?

LiveFreeOrDie| 9.27.11 @ 4:43PM

Read the post! Here I'll quote it for you, "...the fact that over 30 people witnessed the man standing over and executing a police officer"

This is what I took issue with and I was correct, it did not happen.

LiveFreeOrDie| 9.27.11 @ 4:43PM

Read the post! Here I'll quote it for you, "...the fact that over 30 people witnessed the man standing over and executing a police officer"

This is what I took issue with and I was correct, it did not happen.

LiveFreeOrDie| 9.23.11 @ 3:29PM

The entire point of your post seems to chastise writers for not getting the facts straight yet what you said is completely false. There were 9 original witnesses of which 7 recanted. Where did you get 30 from??? And one of those two who recanted happens to be who Davis and others accuse of committing the murder. I've sifted through every piece of information I can find and have come to the conclusion there's not enough evidence to apply the death penalty in this case because there is serious doubt whether he is even guilty.

Allowing the death penalty or not is, as you pointed out, an entirely different discussion.

Who Knows?| 9.23.11 @ 10:35AM

Of all the crimes a civilized country must deal with, murder is certainly the hardest one. Given the American system’s admonition against cruel and unusual punishment, it sure seems like there are problems with what choice our society makes when confronted by a caught killer who’s been legally convicted.

Choice rules!

People who decide to kill other people, by their act, choose to THEMSELVES live outside of civilized society---they are, essentially, bodily proclaiming that they are above the LAW, whereas, in truth, they are BELOW it, acting like animals who know no human morality.

Well, if one shows a preference for killing humans, why not put such barbarians together in an enclosed area, with guards only outside the high walls? On a daily basis, drop in enough food and clothing to keep the set number of killers alive, and let them fight it out for their “fair” portion.

In short, let the self-chosen “animals” live out their action-made lives!

I bet if this choice was well known in society, murders would plummet.

How about similar open-air “jails” for people who mug, rapists, etc?

Act like an animal---live with animals!

Occam's Tool| 9.23.11 @ 4:31PM

Who Knows?

"Snake Plissken! I thought you were dead."

Watch a lot of "Escape From New York?"

I agree with you.

MacDaddy| 9.23.11 @ 11:21AM

Cowards, the lot of 'em. Anyone opposed to the death penalty and for abortion REEKS of cowardice.

cicero| 9.23.11 @ 12:01PM

As a general practice attorney with substantial experience in criminal trial work (have tried a dozen or so homicide cases), I have some insight intot the problem. Granted, I practice in Michigan, where we have not had the death penalty since 1846, but the observations are the same.
First of all, the death penalty is reserved for cases of murder in the first degree. By definition, anyone who can, with cool deliberation and time to think about it, take the life of another human being, is a psychopath.
Second, I have no problem with the death penalty on a philosophical basis. It is a fitting punishment for one who dipassionatly takes the life of an innocent.
However, having seen how the State operates in the prosecution of criminal cases, I must give pause. In most cases, the State grabs the most obvious suspect in sight, and then gathers evidence to point to that person, rather than gathering evidence to point to the malefactor.
At this place in time, with the use of jail house snitches who are given rewards for saying what the proosecution wants, the historic use of circumstantial evidence, and sometimes only that, to convict; and the propensity of the jury to want to believe the prosecution (after all, television teaches us the the prosecution is true blue, and goes to the ends of the earth to make sure they got the right guy, while the defense attorney is a conniving trickster), I lack comfort in the certainty of the system to get it right.
Rather than irretrievably destroy the life of an innocent, it is better to forever incarcerate the convicted. While it is expensive, perhaps that is the cost of our civilization.

DaveS| 9.23.11 @ 1:37PM

Cool, deliberate, killers are not psychopaths, sir.

Occam's Tool| 9.23.11 @ 4:36PM

Yes, they can be psychopaths.

Cicero, you put much more professionally and precisely what I stated with Biercian callousness and cynicism. Nicely done, sir.

And I think we agree. Someone like Hasan, who shot people in cold blood in front of many superb witnesses, fry him. If the evidence is not perfect, and the witnesses are problematic, proceed with very high caution.

loulou| 9.23.11 @ 5:52PM

Devil's Dictionary, baby!

DaveS| 9.24.11 @ 8:45AM

Funny how psychopaths are involved in 40% of murders involving spouses, acquaintances, other family members, and associates. They must have been driven mad!

Mark30339| 9.23.11 @ 3:31PM

This excellent comment is really the heart of the matter. Detectives, prosecutors and judges are not noble people; and I don't mean to single them out, most of us (including jurors) are not noble people. Yet we cloak the petitions of prosecutors, the testimony of detectives, the verdicts of juries and the orders of judges with levels of certainty that are far beyond what anyone can merit. Once steered testimony steers a jury to convict, the appellate law is steered to uphold the decision. Understandably, the judicial system is loathe to even acknowledge the possibility that prosecutors and detectives might cross ethical lines to get their guy. It is difficult for me to conceive of a justice system that won't have these kinds of problems, and I accept that. What is impossible for me to accept is a justice system maintaining the arrogant and delusional belief that it can devine what happened at a crime scene and flawlessly select and snuff out the responsible party. Give it authority to incarcerate? Yes. Indulge its arrogance with the power to execute? Certainly not!

Kingofthenet| 9.23.11 @ 3:57PM

Beautiful Post, Hat's off Sir!

John Navratil| 9.23.11 @ 7:05PM

Mark30339, Kingofthenet,

No one said flawless. Has an innocent been executed? Perhaps! How do you know? To even get a conviction requires a lot of the state which must get it right(see O.J. and Casey Anthony) and to get the death penalty requires even more. Your argument is that because we are not flawless and an innocent person may be executed that it is better to incarcerate (and relitigate constantly). The cost of this action, or inaction, to other innocents can't be known, but is completely ignored by you.

The article of faith is whether or not capital punishment is a greater deterrent than incarceration. If it is not, then either punishment has the same effect on the larger society. If it is, then removing it condemns other innocents to a barbarous murder. It's a question of trying to compare the known and the unknown. I know that the death penalty would deter me. I'll stick with it.

DaveS| 9.24.11 @ 8:48AM

Deterrence has nothing to do with it.

John Navratil| 9.24.11 @ 3:59PM

DaveS,

Are you saying deterrence is irrelevant to the issue or that there is no deterrent effect. I can't say I agree with either position.

Mark30339| 9.24.11 @ 9:03AM

Please tell me that the essential "Article of Faith" for civilization has not been reduced to contriving the most excellent punishments which delude us into believing we can deter wicked deeds. Rather, tell me that our essential Article of Faith is to trust that in freely choosing not to invoke the power to kill, our society stands for something better than "life for a life" justice.

On your related point, we know that death row inmates are set free all the time due to flawed evidence (AmnestyUSA.org sets the number at over 130 releases since 1973). This proves that death row has innocent people. Isn't it delusional to maintain that none of those already dispatched to their deaths by this system were innocent of the crime charged? The following link highlights 4 innocents killed by the sytem; see http://www.democracyinaction.o.....ecuted.pdf

John Navratil| 9.24.11 @ 3:58PM

Mark30339,

In answer to your first question - we can start with the 10 commandments. Leave of the first two and you have guiding principles all religions can use. Finish with the law. These are all to deter wicked deeds and they all involve punishment.

As to your second question, it is retributive justice we seek, but rather an example to society and a warning to others not to do the same thing.

Death row inmates are not set free all the time. The list at deathpenaltyinfo.org shows death row inmates, one after the other, released from death row as a result of judicial review. There are a few pardons, which have no such review. You may well wish to review how one proves innocence (it cannot be done). You conclusion is logically insupportable. For the record, I do not claim that no innocents have been executed; please see my second sentence, above. I am unpersuaded by your "InnocentAndExecuted" pdf.

Mark30339| 9.24.11 @ 5:10PM

John, I appreciate the fair exchange. Mankind has believed in justice that delivers retribution for generations, and it certainly is within your discretion to believe the same. You mention Old Testament guidance in the commandments. It is the New Testament that challenges us further. In it God's Son bears the weight of unjust torture and execution, and yet God does not send violent retributions. It calls us to step out of the conventional wisdom of human justice to jointly bear the pain of wicked deeds and yet spare life for life's sake.

John Navratil| 9.24.11 @ 5:43PM

Mark30339,

A fair discussion of opposing points of view is, to me, always welcome.

You get to the nut of the question when you seek to spare life for life's sake. It is not a point I dismiss. It is the life which is spared which cannot be accounted for that I argue. I do to revel in executions, I pray for the condemned. I also observe that if failed humans would stop murdering, executions would stop, as well. I do not believe that God calls us to "jointly bear the pain of wicked deeds" and to be passive in the face of wickedness. I could be persuaded to replace capital punishment with life, without parole. For the innocent, I'm not sure that is mercy (consider the Gulag and other forced labor camps in your contemplations).

However, in this failed system, there is no such thing as life without parole and, I argue, never can be. But now I have come back to what I said in a previous post and therefore add nothing.

John Navratil| 9.24.11 @ 5:50PM

Mark30339,

My editor has the day off. The sentence should have read...

I do NOT revel in executions, I pray for the condemned.

skip| 9.25.11 @ 3:34AM

Mark30339,

The New Testament does not 'replace' the Old Testament. If it did the Bible would be 'just' the New Testament. Christ said he did not come to abolish the Old Testament. Eye for an eye is still in effect.

When to turn the other cheek or not is the rub. Innocence versus guilt. Capital punishment is for the guilty. Abortion is of the innocent. Apples and oranges.

You murder, you get caught, you get convicted beyond a 'reasonable' doubt, you are gone. And not beyond 'all' doubt either. You get convicted of murder not only is capital punishment supported by the Bible, you have forfeited your constitutional rights as well. Your constitutional rights are unalienable so long as you keep every other individual's constitutional rights unalienable.

It is not that much of a moral dilemma really.

Margaret| 9.25.11 @ 2:46AM

"I know that the death penalty would deter me"

Really....
How about your conscience?

John Navratil| 9.25.11 @ 1:45PM

Margaret,

What have I written which suggests I should have a problem with my conscience? Put another way, what have I written that, had you written it, would give you a problem with yours? Or is your conscience superior to mine?

John Navratil| 9.25.11 @ 3:41PM

Margaret,

I think I understand your post. Let me clarify.

I am deterred from speeding by the financial imposition of a fine. I never drive faster than I think safe, but it is regularly is excess of the posted limit. My conscience does not affect me in this crime against the state.

I am deterred from lying to my wife by my conscience.

I am deterred from killing in the abstract by my conscience. I have not been faced with the question in the real world but the consequences certainly would have an effect.

We should not be driven by what we can get away with, but the consequences are not without weight.

As some do not appear to be compelled by conscience to refrain from the act of murder, my conscience has no difficulty with the ultimate consequence.

Margaret| 9.28.11 @ 5:18PM

John, to me conscience is in the soul of man.

Before we can come clean in our own character...we need to get in touch with our conscience. Not easy when it is anesthetized with emotions or by the practical experience of living,

DaveS| 9.24.11 @ 8:47AM

Utter nonsense.

Pat| 9.23.11 @ 4:07PM

Cicero, having problems following your arguments. Seems like there are two distinct types of Americans who oppose the death penalty. Those who oppose it “philosophically”, although I suspect they oppose it only as long as the crime didn’t directly affect them or their family members. And then there are those who oppose it due to potential evidentiary or judicial errors leading to a death penalty sentence and they may also oppose the execution methodology employed. This latter group seems the most puzzling to understand.

As a society, we could allow relatives of the victim or victims to carry out the death sentence but we consider that method lacking in objectivity, although it achieves the same final result. We could allow gruesome tortures before execution to drive the lesson home but we emphatically reject that approach over legitimate fears of what such brutality would say about ourselves and how it would alter our collective morality and social commitment to compassion.

We voluntarily allow and, in fact, insist on years of judicial appeal before carrying out the sentence. And while no human system can be perfect, no legitimate proof has been offered, other than theoretical speculation, that any state supervised executions in recent years have resulted in the death of an innocent man or woman.

The executions are carried out by specific individuals designated by the penal authorities, no one outside of legally mandated official witnesses are asked – or forced - to either view or participate in the execution. And, theoretically, if the executioner is performing the deed in our names, then what does that say about us when we encourage our young soldiers to kill on our behalf?

An emotional inability to deal with the concept is understandable but someone must take the responsibility to perform those hard actions necessary to our collective safety. Can we be sure Osama bin Laden should have been executed by our Navy Seals? If the Seals had taken Osama alive, would you be opposed to imposing the death penalty over a lack of irrefutable evidence?

Many of those “philosophically” opposed to the death penalty are open to “exceptions” within their rigid philosophical certainty. Hitler, Tim McVeigh, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden have been offered up as deserving execution by these philosophers, murdering hundreds or millions of people seems to adversely impact their strongly held philosophical convictions. And perhaps their emotional horror at the killing of thousands thoroughly justifies far more severe punishment, within their mental wiring, than the murder of a single individual – possibly such an elastic form of “philosophy” is also a clear symptom of the “collectivist” mindset many of us Americans don’t share with them either.

Occam's Tool| 9.23.11 @ 4:38PM

I don't have a problem with the death penalty per se, and in some cases where the evidence is overwhelming (Hasan, KSM), it is absolutely correct.

But, my goodness, the quality of lawyers and judges is such that I would NOT trust them with this verdict EXCEPT in such iron clad cases.

Wayne| 9.23.11 @ 7:04PM

There is a third reason some of us oppose it. Death comes anyway, so it is not a punishment. Having to live the rest of one's life in jail is a punishment. The death penalty in my opinion lets the culprit off easy.

Anthony M| 9.23.11 @ 7:55PM

Ever hear of parole? And don't buy the "life without parole" nonsense, eventually they all get paroled.

DaveS| 9.24.11 @ 9:27AM

Life without the possibility of parole is nonsense because governors, for example, can commute any sentence.

Kingofthenet| 9.24.11 @ 1:48PM

Well common sense says they HAVE to be able too, otherwise some bombshell new piece of evidence can come out and all anyone can do is whistle Dixie...

John Navratil| 9.24.11 @ 4:14PM

DaveS,

Not in Texas. The governor has to power to grant a one-time thirty-day stay. He cannot commute a sentence without a letter requesting it from the board of Pardons and Paroles.

W| 9.23.11 @ 10:40PM

I was involved in one death penalty case. The defendant, a lifer, killed another lifer. Both were in for very vicious murders.

The defendant had killed two or three other people and was on parole when he killed a woman which got him in prison where he committed the current murder.

There was overwhelming evidence of guilt. The defendant sat through the trial reading a paperback novel and showed abosolutely no interest in the trial. His attorney worked hard and raised every possible issue.

The jury convicted him and after a separate hearing on the penalty, decided on the death penalty.

The usual appeals followed, first to the trial judge, then to the state supreme court, then back to the trial judge on a habeas corpus, then up through the appeals court. Finally the state supreme court granted a new trial because they said the trial judge should have asked the jurors if they would believe the testimony of a corrections officer over the testimony of a prisoner.

Before the new trial the defendant died of natural causes.

You can make many observations and comments about our system, but one comment that is not true is that an innocent man, today, will get the death penalty. Maybe it happened before, but not now with the numerous reviews and appeals. The appeals courts look for reasons to grant a new trial or reversal in a death penalty case if there is any reasonable reason to do so.

albert constantine jr.| 9.24.11 @ 10:07AM

Having walked the corridors of high security prisons, and having testified at a death penalty hearing, I would offer the following suggestion. All of those who don't support the death penalty under any circumstance, but think life imprisonment (usually accompanied with the phrase "without parole") is adequate, should put their money (and behinds) where their mouths are. They should volunteer to spend some time amongst those inmates, being responsible for getting them to do what needs to be done, and seeing that they do no harm to others, including themselves. In addition, if the circumstance arises wherein that person so sentenced to serve life without parole is actually released before death (due to commutation or what have you), perhaps they should also volunteer to fill that cell until the (former) inmate's death. If they are unwilling to do so, I think it demonstrates an unwillingness to face the consequences of their choice.

Stuart Koehl| 9.23.11 @ 12:08PM

The best reflection on capital punishment I have ever read, by David Gelernter, "What Do Murderers Deserve?", Commentary Magazine, March-April 1999. See here: http://www.utne.com/1999-03-01.....serve.aspx

Mark30339| 9.23.11 @ 4:13PM

Gelernter's piece is compelling from the point of view of a victim calling on mankind to impose order and restore a sense of justice. Contrast it with the Amish response to the murder of their children in 2006. To Galernter, they must seem like God's little fools for embracing a Christ-like forgiveness. I am not suggesting that we can legislate a forgiveness posture, but for the individuals involved, which is the more empowering response? See: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories.....9816.shtml

Dan| 9.24.11 @ 12:22PM

Well, the Amish forgave a person who killed himself anyway. Pretty easy to do that and avoid the death penalty question altogether.

Mark30339| 9.24.11 @ 2:00PM

Dan, there is no "easy" in how the Amish responded to the horror. They bore the pain of burying their little girls. They invested no energy in reprisals on others, and they even reached out to the family of the killer to show no ill will toward them. You really think these people would have urged government forces to use their coercive powers to execute the offender, if he had survived?

Franco| 9.23.11 @ 12:40PM

There's always been a difference between "murder not" (which is the literal Hebrew commandment) and "killing" which is entirely different and is part and parcel of human life. Killing is sanctioned by the state; and the state bears the responsibility to make sure that whatever killing is done in its name or in the name of its citizens meets the highest possible threshold.

DaveS| 9.23.11 @ 1:35PM

If I could eliminate one misunderstanding in all this, it would be the seemingly broad aversion to 'an eye for an eye' approach to justice. The old testament 'eye for an eye' was to make the punishment fit the crime - rather than having, for example, the situation of chopping off a hand because a loaf of bread is missing. Sharia justice, in stark contrast, is disproportionate towards the infraction (I submit parental honor killings, canings, etc.) - yet there's a very odd attraction by some to it.

Mark30339| 9.24.11 @ 1:30PM

You are right about the old testament advancing human justice to taking no more than an eye for an eye. The question is whether we can advance further to the new testament ethic of sparing life for life's sake. Why does God's Son bear the weight of an unjust execution, and why does God not send violent reprisals? Taking custody of offenders and killing offenders are two different things. The ethic is to jointly bear the horror of the offender's acts without adding to the ranks of mothers who have lost a child and children who have lost a parent.

megapotamus| 9.23.11 @ 2:06PM

I'm guessing the casually racist killing was of McPhail? Certainly we aren't talking about Troy. 20 years is no one's idea of haste.

Kingofthenet| 9.23.11 @ 3:54PM

The problem really is that DA's don't seek the truth, they seek convictions. If evidence substantially changes, they should reexamine their case/conviction to see if it still holds water.It's not the DA's fault for not knowing information unavailable at the time of the original trial, it IS on them if they ignore or suppress it.Call before a court EVERY witness that recanted and let them tell their story of why their original testimony wasn't truthful. The quest must ALWAYS be the TRUTH and TRUTH is NEVER a done deal, if circumstances, technology or knowledge change. This ALSO has to be done by the Prosecutors as well as the Defense, it HAS to be the role of the States representatives that JUSTICE is always being served.

John Navratil| 9.23.11 @ 6:49PM

Kingofthenet,

The problem with someone whose testimony changes is that you know they are unreliable. You just cannot tell what is the truth and what is not.

Kingofthenet| 9.24.11 @ 1:47PM

TRUE, but than using their ORIGINAL testimony is pretty shaky, No?

John Navratil| 9.24.11 @ 3:42PM

Kingofthenet,

That is the problem, isn't it. However, the original testimony is given in a court with the opportunity for challenges and to a jury which considers it in the totality of the testimony. The person recanting isn't challenged in any way. In the Davis case, one of the recanting witnesses (Dorothy Ferrell, I believe) declined to be challenged. Read the Supreme Court rejection for a real assessment of the validity of the recantations.

Southern_Comment| 9.23.11 @ 4:43PM

When I was younger, much younger, there was an obit in Rolling Stone for a man named Isidore Zimmerman. A wonderful person who was innocent of his crimes. Now before you jump the gun and assume I'm on the liberal side, I'm not. At some point he was able to prove his innocence. None of the men or women who have been put to death have managed to accomplish that. I am glad to see it done by injection rather than previously used methods. I personally think a bullet to the head is more cost effective and just as quick. The purpose of Capital Punishment is to remove someone who is so dangerous to society that we can never risk his reentry back into society.

Anthony M| 9.23.11 @ 7:58PM

Izzy Zimmerman was a small time thug who got caught up in his criminal activities. The fact that he didn't get executed proves the innocent aren't wrongly put to death.

Southern_Comment| 9.24.11 @ 7:54PM

Exactly! He was able to prove his innocence - the ones put to death have not been - therefore the conclusion is they were guilty and society is safer with them gone.

Bruce Jang| 9.23.11 @ 5:33PM

Personal revulsion is no argument against the death penalty. There are many things done by a decent society that most people would be offended to see. Regardless of any other argument, the death penalty removes murderers from society. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for life in prison, which after all is nothing more than execution by natural causes.

Kingofthenet| 9.23.11 @ 6:24PM

Maybe you can make that into a Tea Party Bumper Sticker: 'LIFE, nothing more than an Execution by Natural Causes!'

Wayne| 9.23.11 @ 7:00PM

I am against capital punishment for practicst case exemplifies this. Because the convict was on death row, his case was reviewed 28 different times. He became important because he WAS on death row. It is counter-productive. Instead he should have just been left in prison to stew over the crime he committed, not let off easy by ending his life early.

Wayne| 9.23.11 @ 7:01PM

Oh boy, editing can be a trip. I meant practical reasons and the latest case exemplifies this.

DaveD| 9.23.11 @ 7:14PM

I tend to agree with you. Economically it is very expensive to execute, several times as expensive as it is to incarcerate for 50 years. Then there is the slow death of decades spent in same tiny cell which may be a more fitting punishment than a quick and comparatively painless death. As long as the alternative is never get out no matter what, than I prefer imprisonment until death to execution.

John Navratil| 9.23.11 @ 8:52PM

DaveD,

Even with the "one bite at the apple" law designed to limit the number of appeals by requiring all issues be raised at once, we have habeas corpus which conflict with this notion. People have the right to petition for unjust imprisonment.

Where is RCV? He knows more about this than I do.

Kingofthenet| 9.24.11 @ 1:45PM

Name one you can PROVE yourself that they did.

John Navratil| 9.24.11 @ 3:39PM

What are you asking?

Kingofthenet| 9.24.11 @ 6:00PM

All I am saying is that most murders don't have witnesses, so most cases are circumstantial. Nothing wrong with that per se, but to say JUST because they were found guilty means they ARE guilty is a stretch. Otherwise that means that OB MUST be innocent(I would have found him not guilty too after that lying cop)I think juries make TONS of mistakes, have Biases and ulterior motivations. Such as how a defendant looks or acts. How many times has a Prosecutor used infidelity or mild physical abuse as a grounds for murder. I know TONS of people who have done both, but no murderers(At least as far as I know).

John Navratil| 9.24.11 @ 6:48PM

Kingofthenet,

Just because they are found guilty means precisely that they ARE guilty under the law. You can get all wound up is what absolute truth is and what God will tell us on judgement day, but that doesn't affect what the law calls for. If you don't like having a system of laws, you are free to vote accordingly or even move. Laredo seems to have a lot of cheap real estate, today.

I have no idea how may prosecutors have built a murder case on infidelity or "mild physical abuse."

Our system is indeed the worst there is, except for all the rest. You can postulate all the travesties you like and I don't deny justice is imperfect. Otherwise - what is your point? I'm lost!

Southern_Comment| 9.24.11 @ 8:01PM

Are you sure about that? I think you may be making an incorrect assumption about circumstantial. There's forensics . Most cases are not circumstantial.

Kingofthenet| 9.24.11 @ 6:00PM

Kingofthenet| 9.24.11 @ 6:01PM

sorry, got some lag there...

John Navratil| 9.24.11 @ 4:32PM

DaveD,

It seems Willie Horton was spending a life in prison without parole when he was allowed a furlough. He enjoyed his break so much he decided to extend it indefinitely, ultimately committing armed robbery and rape.

That's the problem. You can think its life without parole, but then things change.

T. Lindow| 9.24.11 @ 12:13AM

Given the imperfection of mankind, the very real possibility of executing an innocent person is the horror of capital punishment.

DaveS| 9.24.11 @ 11:24AM

Name one executed person in the last 50 years who did not do the crime.

les nesman| 9.24.11 @ 5:12PM

Willingham

Paul Ashley| 9.24.11 @ 10:48AM

Some thoughts:

Being defenseless (as is someine being executed) is not the same as being innocent.

Most studies show that claims of innocents being executed, at least in the U.S., are unsupportable.

The fact that capital punishment in the U.S. is delayed is not an argument against capital punishment but against the apppeals system and our society's lack of resolve in the face of evil.

That capital punsihment is not a deterent is not a valid argument against the practice. Deterence is not its purpose. It's purpose is to demonstrate the value a society places on innocent life.

"Are we like the Taliban?" No, we are not, any more than lawfully armed police defending society are like gangsters who pillage it.

Southern_Comment| 9.24.11 @ 8:07PM

I absolutely disagree with you. The purpose of Capital Punishment really has nothing to do with costs. Nor does it have to do with the value that society places on life, and that is such a flimsy thing to post. We could simply debate abortion - the life of an innocent with the life of the guilty.
The purpose of Capital Punishment is to remove someone considered so dangerous that we as a society cannot risk their reentry.

Tina B| 9.24.11 @ 3:49PM

I am glad to have read the article as well as all the responses. I was moved by the references to the witnesses recantations made by Livefreeordie and John M, moved enough to read for hours about the history of the arrest and trial of Troy Davis. Of course I also read about the tragic murder of the young policeman, Mark Allen MacPhail, who was the father of two infants.

linked here
http://www.kavitachhibber.com/.....avis_story

I know of Old Southern "Justice" and it is a real carricature of what we expect and get with such free access to the internet today. The facts of this story are compelling.

There is an apalling lack of evidence and, coupled with the obvious set up by the guilty man and the mania for the police to get a perp and lock him up and throw away the key in 24 hours or less, and you have "good ol' southern justice" at it's finest. And I love the South today, for the most part. But what happened in Savannah 20 years ago was not her finest hour.

Just read about it and decide for yourself. I do believe the Georgia Justice System was flawed in this case, and an innocent man has just been put to death. I trust he is with his Savior and grieve for and with his loved ones. At least they can choose to see him again, down the road apiece.

Kingofthenet| 9.24.11 @ 6:08PM

I looked into the Davis case, and while there is SOME ambiguity, I certainly wouldn't go to the mat for his innocence. Here is my problem, what you are saying is that the REAL killer(Coles,In your opinion) did was shortly after shooting the cop, the murder set up his friend by going to the police.If I just killed a cop, I wouldn't be looking to 'set up' someone else, I'd be looking to RUN. Now that case in Texas about the guy executed for killing his kids in what most likely was an accidental fire, CRYING SHAME!

Tina B| 9.26.11 @ 8:04AM

Now K of the N,
Though I don't agree with your political view I know you are no street punk, like Coles, and you would never do what he did.

Having taught a lot of wanna be street punks and current as well as future street punks, I have learned they all believe that they can get away with anything and everything. That they can sweet talk or b.s. their way out of it all. The will lie to your face about something you just saw, and believe they can convince you it never happened by their awesome power of persuasion.

Coles knew any of his homies who saw, or think they saw, what happened, all had many good reasons to go along with the story Coles told, with his crook lawyer, and said what the cops wanted to hear, which was "we got the right guy." These "witnesses", at least those who recanted, all had former dealings with the Georgia justice system and they knew what was good for them. Go along to get along.

Troy Davis was no friend to Coles, he was no street criminal. He was the perfect patsy. No one feared reprisal from him, he had no power whatsoever.

Once the prosecutors won their first case, with all nine witnesses finished with their (mostly) lying testimonies, the system steamrolled along like it often does. Black man, white cop, Georgia Criminal "Justice", one newspaper town, a jury willing to go along to get along, and Supreme Court Justices who traditionally don't rock the justice boat.

I still believe the American Justice System is the best the world has, but in some states, counties, whatever, some races did not get a fair shake in the recent past. I still believe Troy Davis was a victim. God rest his everlasting soul.

Margie| 9.24.11 @ 7:13PM

FLASH!!!
Drudge Reporting Herman Cain wins FL. straw poll!
Go Herman!

http://www.washingtontimes.com.....traw-poll/

Southern_Comment| 9.24.11 @ 8:03PM

That is FANTASTIC!

POST American| 9.24.11 @ 11:43PM

-----------------BOTTOMLESS LINE-------------------

"ALLLL the tainted, weaponized vaccines,
ALLLL of the meds generally, and of the processed,
and now GMO food and contaminated
water. They could NEVER admit what they've done now.
It's too awesome. Tooo horrible.
They could NEVER admit what they've
done and what they're doing. NEVER."
-ALAN WATT
(essential online coverage)

D Roamer | 9.26.11 @ 12:01AM

Here in California we have about 600 awaiting the execution. The victims kin would like to see the sentence carried out as well as the good citizens who voted for the death penalty. Those awaiting closure and attempt to go on with their lives, might be dead and buried before the sentence is carried out. My beloved California is so screwed up in many ways these days, but this travesty frosts me no end.

Tina B| 9.26.11 @ 8:15AM

I grew up in Cali, hell bent on becoming a lib. But then I woke up.

The death penalty is not really the debate here. Fairly administered it is both deterrant and just, in the most heinous of murders or even most cop killings. Yet it must not be admin if there is no evidence, and in this case the evidence was made up of flimsy details and outright lies.

Unfortunately, when liars lie, they cannot be believed if they try to get the story straight and recant their lies. This was enough to allow the travesty to go on to its terrible conclusion.

I believe in a God who will make sure that every last penny will be paid, and for His children, the price has already been paid by His Son, Our Savior, the One Lord, Jesus Christ. I also read that Troy Davis believed this too. He is secure. I just pray that his family can also rest in that knowledge.

r o brown| 9.26.11 @ 9:18AM

" .... the benign indifference of the universe."
how i wish i had really undestood him when i first read this and other work in 1960..
thankyou

Latest Headlines

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord|31 comments

Lerner’s Plea

Ray V. Hartwell, III|28 comments

Eugenic Abortion 2.0

Daniel Allott|14 comments

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey|10 comments

What Are the Risks of Syria Involvement?

Christopher Orlet|8 comments

Obama’s Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.|18 comments

Obama’s Drone War

Jed Babbin|7 comments

Catholic Culture In America

G. Tracy Mehan, III|6 comments

The Spectacle Blog

I Agree With Andy McCarthy: No Special Counsel

Ross Kaminsky | 9:16AM

Sorry, You Can’t Delegate Responsibility

Ray V. Hartwell, III | 9:10AM

Issa Recovers

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again

Aaron Goldstein | 5.22.13

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5.22.13

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.22.13

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.22.13

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?