The sniper's been caught. Now what?

Remove all ads!

Very good points there my learned European friend. Very good indeed.

I don't believe a single Western European country retain the death penalty at all in peacetime now, though I may be wrong.

 

I remember reading, a long time ago now and from a source I can't recall, an international study that showed a decrease in conviction rates in areas that had adopted capital punishment, as well as conversely an increase in conviction rates in areas that had eliminated it. I'm not sure now if this was valid- I am suspicious of the objectivity of research relating to a heated political issue- but it definitely made me think about how capital punishment affects juries and everyone else involved in the criminal justice system. I'm of the opinion that some people prove by their actions that they are not fully human, that they have chosen to behave like rabid dogs and therefore ought to be destroyed. On the other hand, as a result of reflecting on the research mentioned above, I don't think it's fair to a society to make taxpayers participate in killing. Nor do I think that it is likely to increase the society's general willingness to value human life, so I think the overall effect is probably the opposite of a deterrent. So overall, I am opposed to it because of how it indirectly affects the innocent members of the society that adopts the practice.

I don't suppose that this is what Turandil had in mind when he said he didn't believe in prisons, but... hmm, wouldn't it be satisfying, after a fair trial of course, to drop them off scot-free - at a publically announced time, and in a well-armed neighbourhood in an area they'd terrorised?

 

I think the problem with the American justice system is the idea of corrective sentencing. For instance, in a gang murder in my town a few years ago, a man was convicted, and got the maximum sentence. What was this maximum sentence? 25 years to life. Think about that. 25 years in exchange for killing someone (he'll get that, or less, if he demonstrates "good behavior" while imprisoned)? Absolutely unacceptable. Increasing prison sentences to, say, life in prison for murder, without exception, would be a very good start. We can work from there.

 

Another interesting aspect of death penalty is how punishment of criminals is dealt with generally:

Generally criminals are punished for their dangerous and anti-social behavior.

Back to killing people: It is often overlooked that - at least in Germany - the majority of killings result from extreme relationship problems and a highly problematic family background. These cases happen in the actual situation, where circumstances are exceptional and the phsychological stress for both victim and the eventual killer is extreme.
Of course these people deserve punishment - but how to punish them properly? Execute them anyway? Or lock them away forever?! Why? Beyond the situation of an escalating family crisis they aren't dangerous. Here a "time"-sentence even for killing a human beeing makes sense since it is unlikely that the same sitution will repeat itself.

The adequancy of punishment is a higly interesting question:

In a country where people starve you can punish food-theft with hanging - but that will hardly stop the people from stealing. Same for the renowned "3-strikes and you're off" (for life) law (that iirc exists somewhere in the US) - IMO one of the most questionable punishment rules currently in existence - you can end up in jail to the end of your life by repeatedly stealing things valueing a total of ... $ 10,-- ??! ... is that adequate, fair and just? Is a notorious pizza-thief, to take it to an extreme, so dangerous and antisocial to justify a life sentence?

Eventually that ignores the principle that every criminal expects not to be caught - so the degree of punishment is pretty irrelevant to him in the moment of crime. And when he realizes that he will end up on the electric chair anyway - why should he take any care about his victim? If he kills the victim it's more "advantageous" for him - one less witness to worry about. Insofar capitol punishment increases risk for the victims, ironically they are the people the deterrence of law should actually protect.

And you cannot equal killing and killing since there is murder in cold blood (as in the sniper's case) and manslaugher (like the family cases). Eventually, even in the US there is a difference in punishment for both deeds. Guess why ... And when someone drives a car and suddenly some wild child jumps on the street - only to be overrun? Is that murder? Is it a more criminal act because it was a child? Would there be a difference in case it had been a 90-year old granny? Hardly, the death of the victim would have been unavoidable for the driver anyway, the driver has no guilt. Or in a case of self-defence: A citizen shoots an attacker in his house - that's as well killing a human beeing - but it's justified.

The punishment for killing a human beeing can range from zero to death penalty or life sentece. The actual punishment for killing a human beeing is a highly individual thing, the individual guilt should be the basis for the later punishment but it cannot be generalized like "Killers should be killed".

[ November 01, 2002, 13:54: Message edited by: Ragusa ]