I was at a friend's house today and he asked me, "Did you hear about the Supreme Court ruling?" He then informed me that the Court ruled 5-4 that child rapists can't be executed; they limited the death penalty to murder cases. He then went off about how stupid the decision is, ultimately concluding by saying it wouldn't matter what the Court says, because if anyone hurt his child like that, he would apply his own capital punishment.
And how many of us would blame him, vilify him?
Well, I would. There is no place for vigilantism in our justice system - it would fall apart. I know, I don't have kids, so I don't "understand", but it would still be wrong. Just as I think the state executing them would be wrong. The punishment would not befit the crime. As abhorrent as it is, it's not a crime which causes death. It's the ruination of life, and that generally deserves the ruination of the criminal's life, e.g. lengthy imprisonment and sex offender status. I also believe in rehabilitation, even for these most heinous criminals, because I know that repentance is a crucial element of gospel of Christ. That's not to say that some people won't be mentally ill for their entire lives, and would always be a danger to others. But how can we ever say that they'll never be cured, whether through therapy or miracle?
Some may respond with an argument that the death penalty is needed to help the prison system. There are massively better legislative changes that would improve the prison system (legalizing marijuana, for one). When people become a problem or an expense we're not justified in KILLING them.
It's hard for me to get worked up about this, since these crimes sicken me so much, but justice has to apply across the board.
The biggest problem I have with the death penalty is this. Death is irreversible, irrevocable, permanent - as far as the State is concerned. Whether or not you think the State has the right to dole out executions at all, at least I think we can all agree it should only be done in the most extreme circumstances - and those circumstances, I believe, are limited to unrepentant killers.
Why is it that we liberals are always defending the world's crappiest people?
this leaves a foul taste
Posted by Unknown on 6/25/2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Mike, I agree with you - the death penalty is a disproportional punishment for the crime committed, no matter how heinous and revolting it was. Score another one for the Supreme Court!
I would like to see a higher standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt" put in place if the sentence is to be capital punishment, perhaps "beyond the shadow of a doubt". No matter how vicious a suspected killer, we have to be absolutely sure before the government kills someone. If there are thousands of wrongful convictions every year, chances are good that someone has been executed that shouldn't have been.
Mike, I disagree with you - the death penalty could be well in line with the atrocity of the crime committed. My conservative Justices got this one wrong (well, one of them did...)
Yeah, Mike!!! you sid vigilantism - that is the word of the day. Aaaahhhh!!!!!. Anyways, I agree. I think the death penalty is abhorrant. I am really liking all things Supreme Court lately.
I've been trying to think of what to say to this one. I'll just start with this for now.
I do have children, and I personally, as a Christian and a human being, cannot imagine myself feeling "satisfied" or "better" that the person who had [hypothetically] hurt my child, either by rape, abuse, murder, whatever - had been executed for their crime. What would it accomplish? How would it help? It would make me feel worse, I think. Of course, I've never been in this situation but I am the sick kind of person who applies movies, news events, etc to my own life and often thinks about how *I* would respond in a similar situation. (Just one reason why I can never watch 21 Grams again...)
In addition to the possibility of erroneous execution (which, really - can you discard that? If every life is precious...), there is the argument that our prisons are too full, etc. How many people are executed every year? When a person is put on Death Row, they languish there for years and years anyway, because they (rightfully) go through the appeals process and we want to be "sure" that they do indeed, "deserve" the death penalty. And really, the argument that some people should be executed because we don't have room for them in our prisons makes me violently ill. That is not a human thought.
I am against the death penalty, I guess. I'll leave it at that. I've thought about this for years, really, and this is the conclusion that I have come to. *I* cannot in good conscience believe anything else.
And an excellent point, Mike, about defending the dregs of society. ;) I hate this argument, but...Jesus spent a lot of his time doing the same thing. "The least of these my brethren" and all that. Makes me feel a tiny bit better.
Well, surprise surprise: I support the death penalty.
Mind you, I don't think we should hand it out to every Tom, Dick, and Harry, but I do think that it serves a purpose.
Timothy McVeigh deserved to die. If the hijackers on 9/11 hadn't gone down with their planes I would have fully supported hunting them down and having them suffer a similar fate.
I think that it is better to suffer physical death than spiritual death.
As far as child molesters---that is a tough one. I wasn't molested as a child and as far as I know my child has not been molested either. I can understand why people would be so angry and upset that they would want the person who harmed their baby to be off the face of the earth....but at the same time, there is something sweet about the idea of repentance and forgiveness. Makes me think of the Quakers who forgave the man who killed and wounded 10 girls.
Definitely a tough subject. Good job on the post Mike!
Rick, How is it that you are pro-abortion and anti-death penalty?
just wondering.
matt, do I really have to rehash that?
I was for the death penalty until recently. I read through the scriptures trying to find insight into politics (oh yes, Rick, I do!), and I found D&C 134. This verse in particular changed my mind:
10 We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, aaccording to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.
Granted, it is specifically referring to religious societies, and actually differentiating between religious and civil societies, but I just don't know if I feel good about supporting the death penalty after reading that.
Unlike Mike, I do NOT believe in rehabilitation of child molesters. I think they should be locked up and the key thrown away. I think that our society gives too many chances to the perpetrators and not enough protection to potential victims. Each time a child is missing, the first place the cops go is to all the registered sex offenders. Doesn't that show that the likelihood of them committing a crime again is higher than the average citizen? Why are we okay with risking our children to protect the "freedom" of child sex offenders? I think they gave up that freedom when they violated children.
Stephanie, how do you view the instances in the B.O.M. where the death penalty is commanded? Like Nephi and King Laban? Just wondering.
I am for the death penalty in extreme cases and like Dave said, "without a shadow of a doubt". It's not something you can undo.
I agree with the ruling that the death penalty in this case is unconstitutional although I'm sure I would feel like Mike friend and want to enforce it myself if my child was a victim.
Matt, I don't think Nephi and Laban is a fair comparison. The death penalty comes about after a group of people hear the evidence and make a decision. Nephi killed Laban after he was commanded to by the Lord. It wasn't a punishment - it was a case of the Lord accomplishing his purposes. Murder is a sin, but in Nephi's case, he obeyed the Lord.
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other examples in the BofM - if you can think of some, let me know. I'd like to look it up. I admit my opinions are not always static - I like to make them based on the best available information.
When Nephi obeyed and slayed Laban, he was instructed that it was for the greater good of society. "Better that one man perish, than for a nation to dwindle in unbelief." So, for me the question becomes does this one person's death expedite a greater good for society.
I was very grateful the Amish people were able to forgive the murderer of their little girls. It seems it was for the greater good of their society - their religious group. One does not want to teach ones children to hate. It was an excellent example to the world of forgiveness. And in a perfect world, after the forgiveness, all could return to normal. We are not in a perfect world however. I noted that the Amish tore down the school house where the murders took place. Things did not return to normal - changes were made. If the murder had not committed suicide (by doing so he took justice into his own hands) the civil government would have taken him and tried him according to the laws of the greater society. He would have been punished, held accountable for his crime, even though the Amish forgave him.
Forgiveness is for the good of the forgiver, more so than for the good of the forgiven. The forgiven may never acknowledge the forgiveness.
Earlier this week, I just happened to turn to the scripture Stephanie sited. I was impressed, at that time, by the different responsibilities the two societies are accountable for. A religion is not responsible for the harsher punishments - just the removal of that person from their society. The civil society is responsible for the harsher punishments. The scripture does not say punishment is not to take place. The scripture assigns who is responsible for the punishments for the greater good of society.
I think this is a protection for the criminal, as well as the society, because it makes the punishment a matter of civil law and not that of the raw emotion that can overwhelm a close smaller society. It removes the criminal to a more neutral arena.
The Amish society is just one part of the world society. The Muslim society is just one part of the world society. The LDS, the Jews, etc. are all just part of a larger society, that for the greater good of that larger society should be governed by laws. If I happen to live in a Muslim neighborhood I would prefer to be judged by the civil laws and not the laws that govern my immediate society. I think that would be for my greater good!
So is the execution of a murderer or a rapist for the greater good of society? What is my individual responsibility in this matter? My responsibility is found in Doctrine and Covenants 98:9-11, "Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn. Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil. And I give unto you a commandment, that ye shall forsake all evil and cleave unto all good, that ye shall live by every word which proceedeth forth out of the mouth of God."
Do the Supreme Court Justices that made the decision to not apply the death penalty to child rapist meet this criteria? Good question. It is one I am going to answer by voting for political candidates that most closely follow the constitution. For "that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind (the greater society), and is justifiable before me." Doctrine and Covenants 98:5.
For now, I find I am a person who mourns, for I have seen too many rape victims dwindle in unbelief, even as their rapist continues to rape.
--
Vicki
Hi Mike,
I'm a first time poster at this blog and I was grateful to find it. With that said, please allow me to take this opportunity to disagree with a couple of points that you made.
I recognize your concerns about the death penalty but there haven't been any studies that I have seen indicating that sex offenders can be rehabilitated. With that said, housing them for the rest of their lives seems like an onerous burden on the taxpayers.
In addition, child molesters have violated something that is tantamount to virtue. The fact is that they have killed even if it isn't the end of the child's life. When this type of abuse takes place, they have killed something in the child that can never be restored. Being willing to have the state execute these people is very just in my view.
The larger argument for this erroneous decision actually is due to the federalist system upon which our country is founded. The SCOTUS overstepped their authority and it is pretty evident from the dissenters that this is where the division takes place. The strict constructionists understood the role of the court and those who seek to make law jumped in and over ruled the peoples' decision.
The people of the state of LA made the decision through a legal process. Because of the state's right to punish these crimes as they see fit the SCOTUS actually overstepped its authority to insert itself and then impose its own judgment on the people of LA.
One of the best arguments that I heard about this was that the issue at hand was cruel AND unusual. Not cruel OR unusual. You made the argument that the punishment was not befitting the crime. I can only say that your argument is made from a personal opinion and not one that I saw had much support for it. If you have more support for that opinion I would be interested.
I know it sounds like I am wearing out my welcome on my first post so please forgive me. From what I read in the comments this is a place for a lively debate so I hope to be welcomed back.
jab, yes, please come back!
I think someone should blog about this: http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2008/06/30/6
Why has the church, which always claims to remain outside of politics, chosen to have its bishops read a letter asking members to devote time and money to abolish equal marriage rights in California?
I have read the letter, it is disturbing in its intolerance, and in the fact that I have never seen the church get this political before. What do y'all think?
(Sorry for going off topic.)
Oh, and as for the death penalty, I'm opposed to it in general for several reasons:
1. It is often hard to prove beyond a doubt that the person at trial actually committed the crime in question. Sometimes with emotional issues, like child abuse, an innocent person is convicted.
2. The death penalty is very costly, because a dying person will appeal his conviction and sentencing to the very end. The litigation and other costs involved in administering the death penalty cost more than simply imprisoning someone for life. It's a waste of resources.
jackson, it looks like you wrote that comment during the many hours I spent writing and re-writing my post (the formatting is killing me).
I just might change my mind back about the death penalty. As compassionate as I try to be, I am not sure that some people deserve to stay alive.
Post a Comment