Big Lizards:Blog:Entry “Killing Us With Kindness to the Unkind, Decency to the Indecent”

« Iowa Caucuses... Lizardly Predictions Part II | Main | Wait - Watch Which Watcher, Wretch? »

January 4, 2008

Killing Us With Kindness to the Unkind, Decency to the Indecent

Hatched by Dafydd

A "shibboleth" is a word used as a test: The pronunciation determines whether one is an "insider" or "outsider" (part of the tribe or a spy from some other tribe). More generally, it can mean a phrase or even a custom whose precise execution tells us to which tribe the actor belongs.

In this case, here is the shibboleth I'm thinking of, from an AP story on a death-penalty case before the U.S. Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether a state can execute someone convicted of raping a child, one of the few remaining crimes that does not require the death of the victim to result in capital punishment.

Patrick Kennedy, 43, was sentenced to death for the rape of his 8-year-old stepdaughter in Louisiana. He is one of two people in the United States, both in Louisiana, who have been condemned to death for a rape that was not also accompanied by a killing.

The Supreme Court banned executions for rape in 1977 in a case in which the victim was an adult woman.

Kennedy's lawyers say the death penalty for child rape violates the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

In my tribe, "cruel and unusual" evidently means something very different than it does to defense lawyers... or at least different from what they argue (I don't care what they believe in their heart of hearts; they are attempting to enshrine into common law the idea that nothing, nothing, nothing can legitimately draw a sentence of death but cold-blooded murder with special circumstances; many even argue against that).

Who composes the other tribe, those who fight every death sentence? Well, some members are simply anti-punishment; these are the ones who agitate not only for the abolition of the death penalty but also to reduce all sentences for all crimes.

Other members are simply driven mad with fear that an innocent person might be wrongly executed by accident (or maliciousness). In fact, I'm certain that many already have been: In this country alone, we have had capital punishment since -- well, since this country sprang into existence. And for much of our history, many locales were none too scrupulous about whom they punished, even via the ultimate sanction. *

For both groups, we note many bizarre customs that differ, I believe, from the tribe to which most Americans belong:

In their tribe, the pain that might be felt for a few moments by those being executed by lethal injection is more important than the pain that will be felt for the rest of the lives of the victims or their families.

In their tribe, you cannot execute a serial killer, because he is by definition suffering from a mental illness; you cannot execute a stupid killer, because he is by definition mentally retarded; you cannot execute a 17 year old killer, because he is by definition a "child" with no well-formed sense of right and wrong... nor a 19 year old killer because he was (by definition) a "child" when he killed.

In their tribe, no appeal from a death sentence is ever the "final appeal."

In their tribe, capital punishment may be constitutional -- but every possible method of carrying it out is unconstitutional.

And in their tribe, the "right" of a raper of children to kindness and decency is of more weight than the horrific, lifelong trauma he inflicts on his victims... which might be alleviated by the knowledge that he paid the ultimate penalty for his depraved indifference to human life.

I have said for years (and gotten in trouble for saying it) that I agree with the liberals on one point: All human life has value; but sometimes, that value is a negative number. I don't restrict that condemnation only to serial killers and cannibals; I apply it to any person who has that "depraved indifference" to the lives of other human beings, and who criminally uses them as his playthings. I think it especially apt for those who hurt the most vulnerable among us -- children -- simply for the criminal's own sick pleasure. And I, personally, would execute every one of such vile, amoral subhumans.

If you kill a person who doesn't need killing (as determined by a court), you should have no guaranteed that you will get to keep your own life. (On the other hand, I have a fairly generous definition of which persons might "need killing.") Similarly, no rapist who steals the life and innocence of a child, even if he leaves the child alive, should receive any guarantee of being allowed to live. And the same for those who commit treason: No guarantees, no "right to life."

The death penalty should never be mandated; that's an invitation to kill all the witnesses, as well as (obviously) the victim himself. There should be discretion allowed the judge for tough cases, such as when a person overreacts in a tense situation and kills an innocent... or even a criminal, but one who is not egregious enough to "need killing."

For example, a father who premeditatedly kills a 20-something year old sleazebag for having "consensual" sex with the father's 14 year old daughter should not be executed; a life sentence, or even a long term short of life, would be more reasonable. (I put "consensual" in quotes because legally, a minor cannot consent to sex; but there is a huge difference between statutory and forcible rape, in my opinion.) Same with a neighbor who burns down an occupied crack house that has been selling drugs to local children.

I don't believe in "zero tolerance" laws, and I would not demand death in every case of murder. Nevertheless, I believe we should have twenty to thirty times as many executions per year as we actually have. At the very least, we should clean out Death Row, executing all those prisoners awaiting a death sentence who have had several reasonable chances to bob for the apple of appeal. We should be executing at a rate faster than we're sentencing to death, otherwise we'll never catch up... and most of the capital sentences will end up being de facto LWOPs (life without parole) instead.

As I said, I would always make exception for those who kill people who need killing; and I have a much more expansive definition of that then does, e.g., Dennis Prager or Patterico (I think). For example, I believe "He was in the act of robbing me" should be a legitimate (affirmative) defense to the charge of unpremeditated homicide, even if the robber had no weapon, if there were no other reasonable way to stop the robbery. I despise thieves, especially those who burgle and rob with impunity, knowing that if they're caught, they'll simply be let off with time served.

If I'm on a jury deciding a case where the facts show than the old lady on trial for murder shot and killed a mugger in the subway, even one who just punched her and took her purse (no threat of death) and was on his way out the door... well, at the very least, she gets a hung jury, because I would not vote to convict without some extraordinary circumstance. When a thug undertakes to terrorize and violently assault someone, he assumes the risk of getting shot himself.

In any event, I do not consider death for a child rapist either cruel or unusual; in fact, I consider it cruel and unusual to society, to the parents, and especially to the child victim to let such a person live... especially considering that so long as he is alive, some soft-hearted, soft-headed judge, parole board, or governor can always decide to set him loose on the world again.

* I can even give you a probable name: Caryl Chessman, executed for being the "Red Light Bandit," was likely innocent of those rapes, I believe. My father was a 3-L in law school at the time, and he attended some of Chessman's final appeals in 1960. My father's impression was that the court never seriously considered Chessman's central argument: That the trial transcript was fundamentally flawed; they simply responded that the transcript in question didn't show any serious irregularities.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, January 4, 2008, at the time of 10:40 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/2687

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Patrick Chester

Another problem appears to be a confusion in conjunctions. AND is not the same as OR.

Some people should be forced to watch certain Schoolhouse Rock shorts until the appropriate songs are stuck in their heads.

The above hissed in response by: Patrick Chester at January 5, 2008 12:03 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

If I'm on a jury deciding a case where the facts show than the old lady on trial for murder shot and killed a mugger in the subway

Compare that with England where a little old lady went to jail for scaring away some muggers with a cap pistol

Gun Control's Twisted Outcome

? In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal.

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman at January 5, 2008 2:08 AM

The following hissed in response by: hunter

Excellent take down on the scum who let killers and vile criminals get away with it.

The above hissed in response by: hunter at January 5, 2008 8:12 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Dafydd-

Ah, but we all know that the death penalty as currently administered is cruel and unusual -- after all, it hurts (so they say). And punishment should never hurt.

I guess, like the Mikado’s Lord High Executioner, you’ve got a little list. His wasn’t very short either.

One of my pet peeves is the constant complaint that death penalty cases didn’t get adequate counsel at trial. Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t, but why does that make death cases so different from assault or robbery? Wrongful convictions can occur there too -- and any punishment, once imposed, cannot truly be reversed. So where’s the “innocence project” for all the rest of the convicted felons?

And what ever happened to “justice delayed is justice denied”?

The above hissed in response by: Dick E at January 5, 2008 10:06 AM

The following hissed in response by: Seaberry

In any event, I do not consider death for a child rapist either cruel or unusual; in fact, I consider it cruel and unusual to society, to the parents, and especially to the child victim to let such a person live... especially considering that so long as he is alive, some soft-hearted, soft-headed judge, parole board, or governor can always decide to set him loose on the world again.

Anyone wanting to spend the rest of their life in prison is insane, and are in need of a 'Mercy Killing', IMO.

Prison Statistics

Sexual assault among young victims (1991 through 1996) - Sixty-seven percent of all victims of sexual assault reported to the participating law enforcement agencies were juveniles (under the age of 18); 34% of all victims were under age 12.

Sex offenders - On a given day in 1994 there were approximately 234,000 offenders convicted of rape or sexual assault under the care, custody, or control of corrections agencies; nearly 60% of these sex offenders are under conditional supervision in the community…The median age of the victims of imprisoned sexual assaulters was less than 13 years old; the median age of rape victims was about 22 years.

Child victimizers - Approximately 4,300 child molesters were released from prisons in 15 States in 1994. An estimated 3.3% of these 4,300 were rearrested for another sex crime against a child within 3 years of release from prison…Among child molesters released from prison in 1994, 60% had been in prison for molesting a child 13 years old or younger.

The above hissed in response by: Seaberry at January 5, 2008 1:54 PM

The following hissed in response by: Consul-At-Arms

I have cited as the "quote of the day" at my web log for the following:

"All human life has value; but sometimes, that value is a negative number."

The above hissed in response by: Consul-At-Arms at January 5, 2008 9:38 PM

The following hissed in response by: Eilish

Anyone who has been or has loved a survivor of child sexual violence knows that, no matter how well a victim recovers, it is still a lifelong sentence that has extremely far-reaching (and often tragic) consequences. The thought that perpetrators of those crimes are not deserving of a life-long or ultimate sentence is hard for me to understand. Those in the other tribe must not consider the victims of these crimes at all.

The above hissed in response by: Eilish at January 5, 2008 9:57 PM

The following hissed in response by: nk

This is a horrific case, but the 1977 case of Coker v. Georgia, which denied the death penalty in the kidanpping and rape of a 16-year year was just as horrific. Coker was serving three consecutive life sentences for murder and two prior rapes when he escaped from prison and robbed, raped and kidnapped the 16-year old victim. For that animal, what use was prison? Yet the Supreme Court held 5-4 that the death penalty was too grossly disproportionate a punishment. I suspect that's what's going to happen in Kennedy v. Louisiana, too. Don't blame the "tribe" which opposes the death penalty. Blame the tribe which made our Constitution the opinion of five old lawyers.

The above hissed in response by: nk at January 6, 2008 6:36 AM

The following hissed in response by: AMR

Justifiable homicide would have more categories if I had a say in it. Texas has moved in that direction and it is catching heck for it. Unfortunately, the real civil rights excesses of sheriffs in the past put an end to the not so friendly, “you are on notice; I know you did it but I can’t prove it, but watch what you do from now on” statements of the past. The criminal does not fear the system and certainly not the general population except may be in some of the “liberal” CCW states.

And I agree that some people have a negative value. I do regret that the old fashioned act of challenging someone to a duel is illegal. I have a few Democrats in mind, such as Senator Durbin. I suggested that to the senator after his comments about our soldiers in Gitmo; he didn’t reply.

I have more respect for old fashioned cannibals than serial killers by a long shot. Many who practiced cannibalism did so out of respect for their enemy and did so to gain his strength from the act of cannibalism; in particular by eating the enemy's heart. Life was so much simpler then.

The above hissed in response by: AMR at January 7, 2008 12:22 PM