In the news today: What justifies the death penalty?
So interestingly enough there was a decision today on whether or not someone could receive the death penalty in Louisiana for raping a child. This is obviously quite a contentious subject and not easily argued against but it is certainly a interesting article and has some good information on which states have what kind of punishment. I would maintain my protest at the death penalty on all counts but the debate on what is worthy of such a price is certainly a interesting debate. Does killing someone else justify killing them and is the rape of a child not as bad as murder.
I would go as far as to say that this is almost a more heinous crime in my mind (of course circumstances need to be taken into account on all factors) but in generality this is a crime that to anyone but especially a new parent this seems to be a horrendous act that deserves equal punishment to murder. Of course i believe they should both be punished without killing them.
Here is the whole article: court rejects death penalty for raping children
June 25, 2008 at 5:18 pm
im not entirely sure where i stand on the death penalty. but among my primary issues with the subject are these notions of some crimes being worse than others. ive witnessed a man being sentanced to what essentially amounted to life in prison for drug possession (he got 25yrs, and was 40+ at the time). granted, his sentence was as long as it was due to past convictions and the amount of drugs he had in his possession. but everyone essentially agreed that he was dealt a pretty bad hand in this situation. So I think of him in comparison to a child rapist, or even someone convicted of premediated murder, and i have a real difficulty thinking they should recieve the “same” punishment (the remainder of their life in prison).
there is a fine balance within the prison system, these values of should the primary concern be rehabilitation or punishment? or do might these values shift depending on the crime. if i had a child who was raped, you better believe i would want that person destroyed, (not simply executed, but destroyed – humiliated, pained, etc, etc etc). really the same goes if a loved one of mine was murdered. its a bit “an eye for an eye” but its also a little bit just pure revenge. it doesnt really solve any suffering, but you feel like it will.
i understand our social and consitutional commitments to “just punishment”, but can we really purport to have such a system if the maximum punishment is life in prison, and that can be doled out to such a wide spectrum of crimes?
June 25, 2008 at 5:47 pm
I would agree that the penal system needs to have a more suitable level of punishment according to the crime. I often here of minor crimes being punished harshly and of course serious crime getting basically unpunished. There are obvious flaws and in the United States due to its massive rate of incarceration (higher per capita then anywhere in the world) this needs to be seriously addressed. I still think we should harness prison inmates for work and i think serious crime should be dealt with in extreme ways. I would almost think solitary confinement in a tiny cell for the rest of your life may well be worse than death.
An eye for an eye never works and it perpetuates a cycle of violence that is evident in American culture already. Its time to show that a stance of non violence is the best way to show Americas domestic policy which may help it on its foreign status.
June 25, 2008 at 8:35 pm
where might you stand on the “three strikes, you’re out” type rule? that system acknowleges the failure of the person to rehabilitate, and increases the punishment substantially due to the repetitive nature of the acts. in my own understanding, both a three-strikes approach and the death penalty stem from the idea that this person is beyond hope for rehabilitation. its been mentioned before here, but who are christians to try and judge others? jesus implored that we turn the other cheek. so i certainly understand the inconsistency of placing value on human life (the pro-pentaly yet pro-life position).
but at the same time, we’ve implemented this system that acknowledges: “this person has committed wrongs against society that we deem unforgiveable. this person has proven to be beyond rehabilitation” by simply waiting for them to die in a state of constant judgment and consternation for their actions, is that not more cruel and unjust than doling out an immediate and single punishment? i wont go so far as some might to say we’re rewarding these people by letting them live in prison at the taxpayers expense (time in prison is never a reward). but these are tax dollars going to keep someone alive who we have essentially said doesnt deserve to be alive. it would be one thing if we could forgive them or aide rehabilitation, but we dont. we are simply waiting for them to die, and that for me is simply as inconsistant a position on the sanctity of life as an immediate death would be.
June 25, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Well i do like the three strikes type of system, of course the problem is with all systems they have to have some degree of flexibility as i am sure in some cases people get caught by the system in a manner in which it was not intended. I would agree to some extent that the idea of locking someone up for “life” and by that i actually mean there entire life is perhaps in some respects more of a punishment than death. In some ways i believe this is why it is more of a justice than death.
I guess from a spiritual point of view the time in prison could give the perpetrator the time to repent spiritually and that is why the life in jail would be the just thing to do. I guess they can either find internal peace or many years of torment. The idea that we can just kill someone is deplorable to me. It is just like hitting your kids when the hit each other. I would like to mention that from a personal emotional situation i believe i too would want to have someone killed for inflicting the kind of violence on others BUT it is the job of our leaders and government to show a just and moral system for us all to live by.
As far as the prison system goes i believe there must be a way to harness the inmates to be a benefit or at least not a hindrance to society in terms of financial cost. We used to make them work in farms or factories. I mean lets have this work force make cheap clothing for charity or food for the starving. I do not know the real logistics of this but i know it could be instilled, slowly but we need to be moving forward and the death penalty is incredibly backward!
June 26, 2008 at 6:32 am
I personally oppose the death penalty across the board, but I think it is also important to emphasize the systematic problems that the imposition of a death penalty in child rape cases would cause. As Justice Kennedy pointed out in the Court’s opinion, both death penalty cases and crimes in which children are the victim raise very specialized concerns. Death penalty cases by nature are subject to ongoing appeals. Prosecution of the case in the lower court and the subsequent appeals would rely heavily on the testimony of the victim, the child. Essentially, the victim would be reliving, or at least retelling, the crime over and over again. The victim becomes a central participant in the prosecution. As many child rape cases involve a parent or relative, the child is burdened with the responsibility of testifying against a family member which may ultimately result in their death. This is a tremendous responsibility for an adult, let alone for a child who may not have the psychological maturity to deal with the weight of the situation. It should also be noted that many children recant their testimony as adults. Children tend to be more open to coercion by outside forces, which then brings about issues of faulty prosecutions. Child rape is undeniably a heinous crime and should be severely punished, but not through the death penalty.
As to the three strikes policy, in my opinion it is deeply flawed. Three strikes legislation essentially mandates life imprisonment regardless of the severity of the crime. An individual convicted of three drug possession charges for instance faces the same sentence as an individual convicted of three violent crimes. The legislation has essentially rendered the role Judges in these cases obsolete. Their discretion as to sentencing in invalidate because they are bound to impose life imprisonment regardless of the circumstances underlying each individual case. Although I do not always necessarily agree with a Judge’s ruling, sentencing should not become formulaic. Sentencing should not be done within a vacuum.
June 26, 2008 at 4:06 pm
i agree with the idea of “putting prisoners to work”. i think it could work both to support the prison systems, and potentially provide rehabilitation services (demonstrating the value of being a prodcutive member of society). however, couldn’t such a requirement run afoul of prohibitions against slavery? would the funds contribute to the operation of the prison? what would be done with any overages? would all proceeds minus operating costs for the prison be taxed at a 100% rate – and perhaps directed to community crime prevention or education? would this affect the prisoner’s other income (do prisoners pay taxes on income generated while in prison? i have no idea)
as far as giving individuals the time to repent, if staring death in the face isnt enough to cause an individual to recant, what else would be? i dont mean to sound too harsh, simply pragmatic.
as far as the testimony of children, courts cannot compel children to testify in the same way as adults, especially in light of the supposed “unreliabilty” of thier testimony. other evidence of physical abuse or traces of dna may be enough to convict in many cases. my own inclination to weigh rape and child rape so heavily in terms of severity stem directly from the lasting emotional and psychological damage it is likely cause.
as far as sentencing goes, acutally sentencing is fairly formulaic, at least in the federal court system. this is to prevent the whims of judges from entering the process. each type of crime is given a specific sentencing range given the convicted’s prior history and severity of the crime. these sentencing guidelines are largely praised for the consistency and predictability they have introduced into the system. there are multiple factors a judge may consider, but one certain findings of fact are made, the framework is pretty much set.
hope im not coming off too contrary or argumentative. im a law student, so i like to debate. im also admittedly undecided on this issue (among many others). i find it always helps to think “outloud.”
June 27, 2008 at 1:22 am
I agree with Paul that the first thing you have to decide in this debate is what the primary purpose of prison is. Maybe it is to protect society from people who could cause harm or injury…not just physical, but emotional or economical.
I think its obvious that its primary purpose is not to be a deterrent to committing crime. If it were, we would not have so many people populating them.
Another major deficiency in our legal system is the inequity of treatment for the same crime. In general, rich people get off better than poor people for the same crime. Here’s another example: a celebrity and a college student in two different parts of the country have both had too much to drink on a particular night. They both get behind the wheels of their cars and drive home. On the way, the celebrity crashes into a car, but nobody is hurt. The college student hits a jogger on the side of the road, who is killed. The celebrity spends 48 hours in jail, in a secluded cell with special meals and unlimiited visitation. The college student spends 4 years in jail, in general population. They had the exact same behavior, but the victim of the college student’s accident died. Maybe they shouldn’t have gotten the same penalty, but they obviously should have been much more similar.
Right now I lean toward not supporting the death penalty. but it is hard to say how you would feel if it were your own child, parent, sibling, frienc etc who was the victim.
June 27, 2008 at 8:50 am
as to sentencing, if memory serves me correctly, the Supreme Court’s 2005 ruling essentially made the sentencing guidelines advisory rather than mandatory. generally, i think it is a good thing that most sentencing falls within the framework of the guidelines, but i also think that affording Judges some leeway regarding sentences based on the severity of the crime is a good thing. my main critique of the three strikes system is that the criteria used to had out sentencing is one based on quantifying a person past criminal behavior, but does not factor in the types of crimes committed. i don’t take the idea of life in prison lightly, the least we can do is examine the merits of each case individualy before a sentence of such severity is handed down. just my humble opinion.
good luck in law school. as i was once told, the law… learn it, live it, love it.