What is the O'ist view on the death penalty?

[RationalBiker]

There are a couple side issues I'd like to address as well.

The death penalty as a deterrent. I think it is, but perhaps not in any sense that can be easily quantified. We can look at crime stats all day. We can look at how one state has a lower or higher murder rate and compare it to whether or not they have capital punishment. I think this is a misleading reference. Many factors go into murder rates, not the least of which is how the police classify crime. I hate to break the news to you folks, but uniform crime reporting is questionably uniform. In an ideal world where politics can be separated from crime issues, there may not be political pressure to play with the classification of crimes. I won't say anything more than, we aren't in that ideal world. This doesn't address other issues that affect murder rates that have nothing to do with the death penalty.

It is my assertion that the only way to find out accurately how many murders or deaths were actually deterred by the death penalty is to be able to interview all the criminals who were in situations where they could have murdered or killed someone and ask them why the didn't do so. Then, we would also have to rely on honest answers.

I would also assert that the opinion that it is not a deterrent is partly based on the opposite. When a caught and convicted murderer is asked why did he/she murder someone knowing they could receive the death penalty, they probably answer, "I didn't care" or "I didn't think about it." That is far easier to quantify than the opposite although it leaves out the ones that got away. Also, the number of people who actually murder someone are drastically smaller than the number of people who have the opportunity and choose not to.

And while investigating lesser crimes against people, such as robbery, rape, home invasion, investigators usually don't ask, "Well why didn't you kill anybody?" And theres even less cause to ask that question in property crimes where innocents suddenly become involved, such as a burglary where a burglar finds out someone is indeed home. I submit that in many of these instances, criminals choose the types of crimes they commit, or choose not to kill someone for fear that they will be subject to capital punishment.

Next, is the principle of the criminal creating the situation upon which harm or death is caused by errors of the police. Since in many parts of this thread we have made the distinction between the Objectivist ideal, and the real world as it is now, I will do that here. The Objectivist principle is not completely in play in the real world. Police officers and / or departments are often held accountable for their errors, and that burden is not placed on the criminal. Check out this guy:

http://www.freep.com/news/locway/sbio17_20000517.htm

Now he is clearly a special case. The fact that he has been involved in 9 shootings is extraordinary in and of itself. And in 5 years no less. Most police officers never have to fire their weapon in the line of duty during the length of their entire career.

Here is a much less questionable case ( I direct you to the instance called "Where the victim has sued the police and won):

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/police.htm

I won't even get into the subject of police vehicle pursuits of criminals.

VES

[DavidV]

However, why would the 100% certainty be acceptable if it still results in the potential loss of innocent life, when as you say, the option is always open for life imprisonment?

As long as human beings are involved, it is possible and in fact likely that innocent men will be put to death in even the most rational society. Furthermore, while our forensic abilities are better than ever, the American justice system is more non-objective than ever, and often metes out very different sentences for the same crime.

Nevertheless, I believe that the death penalty is a superior alternative to life imprisonment in many, if not most cases, and should be advocated today. I have a theory on this, and will present it in detail before long. Before I do so, I would like to present a question to “test the waters:”

What standard should be used to determine the proper punishment for a crime? I am asking for the specific method of calculating the punishment. After I get a few responses, I’ll present my views and why I believe the death penalty is both morally and practically justified.

[Objectivist]

If you showed me, GC, that you can justify an innocent individual's life being sacrificed so that the guilty can get what they deserve, it would be an acheivement greater than Galt's speech and motor combined.

You would be tampering with some fundamentals of Objectivism. I will await your revolutionary theory.

[RationalBiker]

For those interested in what I mentioned before about manipulating the classification of crimes, here's some more info:

But most importantly, UCR data are unreliable. Studies of the police reporting of crime have demonstrated that these statistics are subject to political manipulation. For example, Richard Nixon, while President, instituted a crime control experiment in Washington, D.C. to demonstrate the effectiveness of his crime control proposals for the nation. The Nixon administration wanted the crime rate to go down in order to claim success. The crime rate did indeed go down, but not because of any diminution in crime, but rather because the District of Columbia police simply began listing the value of stolen property at less that $50, thereby removing a vast number of Part I Index Crimes and thus "reducing" the crime rate (Seidman and Couzens, 1974: 469). Additionally, a study of crime reporting practices over a thirty year period in Indianapolis found that local police officials could make the crime rate rise or fall, depending upon political exigencies, virtually at will (Selke and Pepinsky, 1984).

Recently, serious questions have been raised about whether crime data reported to the FBI for inclusion in the UCR are routinely falsified by the reporting departments. During the 1980s the FBI had to drop reports from the entire states of Florida and Kentucky because of unreliability and sloppy reporting (Sherman, 1998). In the last several years police departments in Philadelphia, New York, Atlanta and Boca Raton, Florida have all been caught falsely reporting crime statistics. The city of Philadelphia had to withdraw its crime reports for 1996, 1997 and 1998. Philadelphia police officials systematically devalued rape, assault and robbery offenses reclassifying them as "hospital cases," "threats," and "investigations of persons." About 10% of Philadelphia's Index crimes were tampered with (Cox, 1998). In Boca Raton, the police department systematically downgraded property crimes resulting in an 11 percent reduction in reported felonies in 1997 (Butterfield, 1998).

Source: http://www.policestudies.eku.edu/POTTER/lecture2.htm

This is one of many reasons why the DOJ developed the IBR (Incident Based Reporting) system so that the reporting of crime stats would be presumably more uniform. It is still not free from manipulation, but it does offer a more standardized approach to reporting crime. And it still doesn't address unreported crime.

http://www.jrsa.org/ibrrc/index.htm

VES

[DavidV]

If you showed me, GC, that you can justify an innocent individual's life being sacrificed so that the guilty can get what they deserve, it would be an acheivement greater than Galt's speech and motor combined.

For the n-th and last time, no one is advocating “sacrificing” anyone’s life. The question is what severity of punishment is justified at a particular level of certainty. Such an evaluation must be made regardless of whether the death penalty is involved. Your gross misrepresentation of my position is very annoying to say the least.

[Spano]

If I was unsucessful or too late to defend them, can I use retaliatory force to make right the value this criminal has taken from me? - RationalCop

How can killing a criminal reclaim any lost value? It is my understanding that the role of the government is to protect individuals' existing values, not somehow reclaim those stolen by a criminal. I can't see how revenge, while it may ease the pain of loss, has any real value, since killing the criminal accomplishes nothing in addition to imprisoning him for life.

If the end sought is the protection of individual rights, and we have two equally capable means of achieving it, i.e. life imprisonment or capital punishment, why choose the the means that potentially takes the life of an innocent individual?

As far as capital punishment's value as a deterrent, I think it would be fair to say that every criminal act in history, and therefore every murder, was unsuccessfully deterred (obviously). Since capital punishment has existed alongside these criminal acts, it is therefore at best only a partial deterrent. The question then becomes, how can the marginal success of capital punishment as a a deterrent possibly justify the potential of sending an innocent man to death, keeping in mind that a perfectly acceptable alternative is available? (By perfectly acceptable I assume it accomplishes the goal of preventing further rights violations by the criminal, which is the only thing you can do after the fact of the initial crime.)

[Objectivist]

For the n-th and last time, no one is advocating “sacrificing” anyone’s life.

What are you talking about GC?

Nevertheless, I believe that the death penalty is a superior alternative to life imprisonment in many, if not most cases, and should be advocated today.

Then...

As long as human beings are involved, it is possible and in fact likely that innocent men will be put to death in even the most rational society.

You said that it is likely that an innocent man will be put to death, but then you say that It should be advocated regardless. Now how are you not advocating his sacrifice? I misunderstand, do I? How?

sac·ri·fice ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skr-fs)

n.

1.

1. The act of offering something to a deity in propitiation or homage, especially the ritual slaughter of an animal or a person.

2. A victim offered in this way.

2.

1. Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim.

2. Something so forfeited.

3.

1. Relinquishment of something at less than its presumed value.

2. Something so relinquished.

3. A loss so sustained.

the American justice system is more non-objective than ever,

You still support it. So how have I misunderstood? I think it is you who has misunderstood. Don't think I am trying to be rude, I am not. I respect your right to this forum, I mearly disagree with you.

Your gross misrepresentation of my position is very annoying to say the least.

It may annoy you but you are the one who isn't getting it. You have not shown me one way that I am wrong, only you state that I am wrong, and you expect me to "understand"

[RationalBiker]

I can't see how revenge, while it may ease the pain of loss, has any real value, 

So are you saying that since you can't see or appreciate value from that, then no one else could either?

Edited:

while it may ease the pain of loss, has any real value

That may be of real value to some people even if not to you.

If the end sought is the protection of individual rights, and we have two equally capable means of achieving it, i.e. life imprisonment or capital punishment

There is an absolute assurance after the death penalty has been applied that the person won't commit a crime again. There is no absolute assurance for a person in prison for life. For instance, suppose the life imprisonment guy kills someone inside prison. Suppose that person he kills in prison was an innocent man waiting for appeal. Capital punishment and life imprisonment are not equal protections. I won't even discuss the remote possibility of escaping.

As far as capital punishment's value as a deterrent, I think it would be fair to say that every criminal act in history, and therefore every murder, was unsuccessfully deterred (obviously).

You aren't counting all the crimes or murders that were deterred, that never happened. Crimes are committed despite the existence of any law. Therefore, no law must be a deterrent according to that logic. We could evalutate the deterrence factor of laws and capital punishment best by suspending all laws for a couple of years and see what happens. (no, I'm not supporting doing that, but I hope you see my point) The value of deterrence can't be weighed by what crime IS committed, it's value is in what crime was averted, which is a difficult stat to capture.

it is therefore at best only a partial deterrent.

Explain the difference between a deterrent and a "partial deterrent". How much crime must be deterred before it's actually achieves full deterrent status in your opinion? Is not a "partial deterrent" still an amount of deterrence?

VES

[RationalBiker]

How many "individual instances" of such a tragic injustice would it take to change your mind? Is it really a matter of number, or a matter of principle?

Stephen,

As promised, I have considered this question, and I will attempt to answer it.

As you may have expected, there is no way for me to come up with an "acceptable" number of errors. This is in part because there is also no way to predict the number of errors that can be generated using our current system. For my number to have any meaning, it would have to be comparable to the predictable number of errors generated by the system. Even in the best most objective system that could be devised, one could not predict it's fallability with numbers. One would still have to look at the numbers after the fact. Clearly, if this fallability number were predictable, the only acceptable number would be "0". We would in that instance actually have an issue of "sacrifice" as Objectivist puts it. We would actively know when someone was being wrongfully convicted and we would be ignoring it.

The best we can do now, and indeed the best we could do even with a more objective system is look at how many errors "should" be generated. My answer is our system shouldn't produce any errors. But obviously we find out after the fact that it does. That is why I consider it "risk" as opposed to "sacrifice". There is no objective knowledge (though there may be a presumption on the part of some people) going into any given trial that the defendant will be wrongfully convicted of a crime (or for that matter set free improperly) for which he/she is actually innocent. If there were, I would suggest that the judge and/or jury be held accountable. So our objective is to find out not only that the system has failed, but why it has failed, and how can it be improved, thus further reducing the likelihood of repeating an error.

Most of the errors that have been uncovered to date have been errors in the system which I would argue was less precise than it is now. We all agree that the system as it is now is not perfect. I think you have identified that perhaps the weakest part is the level of whim a jury is capable of.

Here is the interesting dilemna, at least in my mind. Our court system offers two choices to the defendant. Trial by jury, and trial by judge. The general consensus among lawyers is, if the defendant's case has stronger emotional appeal, go with a jury trial. Conversely, if the defendant's case has stronger technical or legal merit, then go with a judge trial. This actually presents a potential for whim to exist on the part of the defendant affecting the outcome of his/her own case. I believe most people (non-lawyers) think that they are better off with jury trials. In the case you mentioned before, OJ Simpson, there's not doubt in my mind that he choose a jury trial just for that very reason. His case had strong emotional appeal.

Now, I propose the same question to you. If we had the more improved objective standard of trial, where whim is eliminated and objective laws and standards are applied, what number would be acceptable to you? I realize I'm assuming that since CP is morally justified, and we had such a system, that you would then advocate it's use. If you would never advocate it's use, please clarify for me.

VES

[stephen_speicher]

Thanks for your continued assistance.

First let me clarify, at least so that you understand me manner of thinking, I'm going to draw a distinction between "going around dispensing justice" and the scenario of which I spoke.  That distinction is that I do not, nor would, habitually or even occasionally go around supplanting my view of justice over law.  Quite in reverse as a matter of fact when I have to deal with drug cases, which are admittedly rare for me.

However, the dynamic involved in the scenario I present, in which with what I would consider to be objective certainty that a person has murdered my wife and son, it would truly test my ability to remain objective and consider the law first.  I am a husband and father before I am a policeman.  I cannot honestly answer which path I would choose in that situation, but I do believe that I would submit myself to be held accountable in the aftermath if I chose vigilantism.  I say this in all sincerity that perhaps you would be a better moral man than me in that situation.

Well, your penultimate sentence certainly shines a different light on your prior remarks. Leaving aside the issue of whether or not your retribution is rationally justifiable, the fact that you would voluntarily submit to the authorities and be held accountable to the law, places the issue in a different category than a policeman who wants to dispense justice absent of accountability.

One need only look at the papers from time to time to see criminal misconduct on the part of the police.

I am aware of police misconduct and, as bad as that is, it is still different from the the original scenario to which I responded. The thought of a policeman choosing to execute someone as a form of dispensing justice, is much more horrible.

I would submit to you that in some of those instances, the officer(s) were acting under the color of what they perceived justice to be.  For instance, robbing drug dealers.  While you may look at it as simply a criminal act,

Yes, indeed, I do look at that as a criminal act. Don't you?

I would submit that the officer(s) involved consider that the drug dealer "had it coming to him."  The fact that there is personal gain for the officer is a separate issue.  That in their minds is "dispensing justice".

In your description "dispensing justice" looks to me more as a rationalization for "personal gain." In either case, people such as these should never wear a badge. Don't you agree?

This is where I think I'm having a "disconnect".  I understand the reluctance to apply capital punishment in context of today's political sense.  I understand at least one person ...

I will defend the views I myself have expressed, but I do not want to explain or defend the views of others in this thread.

The question is then, what makes capital punishment morally justifiable?  The reason I question this is because even if we establish a totally objective process and eliminate whim, there remains the possibility of error, and thus eliminating an innocent life.  I therefore think that absolute certainty can never be attained, and as such the death penalty could never be instituted without that risk.  If my view is representative of reality, how can one morally justify something that cannot in reality be acheived?  Once the criminal has left the scene, and time separates us from the event, we can only look back on it with imperfect glasses.

The moral is always the practical, but the practical is not some out-of-context absolute. It is morally justifiable that an individual man should forfeit his life for the one he took, but the wider context is how the action of taking the murderer's life might affect other men. It is by giving due consideration to the possibility of an innocent man irrevocably losing life, that the legal question regarding capital punishment arises.

[RationalBiker]

The thought of a policeman choosing to execute someone as a form of dispensing justice, is much more horrible.

Most definitely. I was just introducing a broader context of "dispensing justice". I was trying to demonstrate that what you only saw or TV or in the movies has actually occurred. This has even risen to the point of executing a person. Certainly not with the frequency of the TV or the movies though.

Yes, indeed, I do look at that as a criminal act. Don't you?

Again, most definitely. What I was trying to point out is that it MORE than simply a criminal act. Many of these criminal acts are ALSO acts of "dispensing justice".

In your description "dispensing justice" looks to me more as a rationalization for "personal gain." In either case, people such as these should never wear a badge. Don't you agree?

While it's certainly open to interpretation, I do believe that these can be legitimately described as instances the corrupt officer is supplanting his personal view of justice over the law, regardless of personal gain, at least in some cases. And no, I don't think they should be wearing a badge, and unfortunately the hiring systems cannot prevent this.

What leads you to question why I think they should carry a badge? Other than the scenario regarding my son and wife, have I said something that has lead you to question my integrity? If so, please allow me to clarify any misconceptions you may have. Are you taking my recognition and factual discussion of these problems to mean I approve of this problems? I can't see where I have implied any approval.

VES

[stephen_speicher]

The death penalty as a deterrent.  I think it is, but ...

I can appreciate your interest in this issue but whether or not capital punishment is a deterrent is irrelevant to the arguments I made and those made in the quote I gave from The Objectivist Newsletter. The moral justification is one of justice.

Next, is the principle of the criminal creating the situation upon which harm or death is caused by errors of the police.

I previously pointed out that a consequence of the proper action of an officer is not an error. For an error the officer is held morally and legally responsible. There is always an assumed risk in society, a necessary consequence for dealing with the criminal element that initiates force. But it is the criminal, not the officer, who created the circumstances and who is held morally responsible for any consequences of proper actions taken by the police to apprehend him.

[stephen_speicher]

Stephen,

As promised, I have considered this question, and I will attempt to answer it.

I meant it more as a rhetorical question, posed to illustrate a point.

Now, I propose the same question to you. If we had the more improved objective standard of trial, where whim is eliminated and objective laws and standards are applied, what number would be acceptable to you?  I realize I'm assuming that since CP is morally justified, and we had such a system, that you would then advocate it's use.  If you would never advocate it's use, please clarify for me.

I am not a philosopher of law and I am operating from my own limited perspective of knowledge, but the fundamental issue to me goes beyond improved trial standards and laws, both of which I am strongly in favor of. My concern is for the case where all of the available evidence goes to conviction, and yet innocence is determined later. The loss of that life is tragically irrevocable, which is why I, based on the admittedly limited knowledge I have of the philosophy of law, would opt for life imprisonment instead.

[stephen_speicher]

What leads you to question why I think they should carry a badge? Other than the scenario regarding my son and wife, have I said something that has lead you to question my integrity? If so, please allow me to clarify any misconceptions you may have. Are you taking my recognition and factual discussion of these problems to mean I approve of this problems? I can't see where I have implied any approval.

VES

When you play devil's advocate it is usually a good idea to state so explicitly. In lieu of that, my question "Don't you agree" asked for clarification. Afterall, as it turned out, you were not simply playing devil's advocate in regard to your notion of executing the murderer of your son and wife. How can I know for sure if you do not tell me up front, or I do not ask?

[RationalBiker]

I can appreciate your interest in this issue but whether or not capital punishment is a deterrent is irrelevant to the arguments I made

This was not specifically directed at you. Other posters have brought up the relevance of deterrence. Perhaps I could have been more clear in who I was addressing.

I previously pointed out that a consequence of the proper action of an officer is not an error. For an error the officer is held morally and legally responsible. There is always an assumed risk in society, a necessary consequence for dealing with the criminal element that initiates force. But it is the criminal, not the officer, who created the circumstances and who is held morally responsible for any consequences of proper actions taken by the police to apprehend him.

I understood your position. I was pointing out that the current reality of our society does not necessarily hold that position. In many instances, the criminals are neither held accountable morally or legally for the circumstances they create which also involve officers making errors. I agree wholeheartedly with the principal of what you are saying here. It is the current practice that is different.

VES

[RationalBiker]

When you play devil's advocate it is usually a good idea to state so explicitly. In lieu of that, my question "Don't you agree" asked for clarification. Afterall, as it turned out, you were not simply playing devil's advocate in regard to your notion of executing the murderer of your son and wife. How can I know for sure if you do not tell me up front, or I do not ask?

When questioned my integrity, you already knew I wasn't playing devil's advocate in the wife/son scenario, hence the reason I said, aside from that situation.... And when I factually discussed that there is crime and corruption in police departments, I was definitely not playing devil's advocate, nor could it be logically construed that I was.

However, since it has come into question, I will clarify. I DO NOT condone or promote police corruption or police officers commiting crime. I DO NOT condone or promote the idea of police officers "dispensing justice". As a supervisor of police officers, I have taken action up to and including actions which resulted in the termination of police officers who were either corrupt or otherwise unfit to do the job. I will continue to do so when I am exposed to that kind of behavior.

I hope that if I discuss factual occurrences of police misconduct in the future, it will not lead to anyone presuming that I condone the factual events I discussed. Perhaps I will need to state so explicitly each time. (I'm long-winded enough without having to continually add disclaimers. )

And I'll take your advice in the future if I do play devil's advocate in clarifying that's what I'm doing.

VES

[RationalBiker]

I meant it more as a rhetorical question, posed to illustrate a point.

Nevertheless, I promised I would respond so I did.

VES

[Betsy]

The death penalty as a deterrent.  I think it is, but perhaps not in any sense that can be easily quantified.

I would be for punishing criminals even if it INCREASED crime.

The purpose of punishing a criminal is because HE did something wrong and any effect on anyone else is beside the point.

[Spano]

That may be of real value to some people even if not to you.

RationalCop, I'm curious, exactly what sort of value (in the Objectivist sense) could revenge be to someone? Provided the criminal is locked away in solitary confinement for life, to avoid him killing other inmates, what additional value could be added to one's life by seeing this man die? The emotional and psychological appeal is obvious, but how is his death of real value to you(or any individual)?

Explain the difference between a deterrent and a "partial deterrent".

A "full" deterrent, if you will, is the case in which the existence of a law prevents all crimes which it prohibits. Any law that is less than 100% successful is only partially successful at deterring crime. So, in a society with capital punishment, it would be fair to say that each case of murder is one in which the criminal failed to a) think about CP deterring him or plan on getting caught, and so even though he knew about the law, he ignored it.

We both agree that crimes occur every day in the face of laws, each case of which is an instance of the partial failure of law as a deterrent. Also, it would seem that crimes are averted every day by the partial success of law as a deterrent. I'm not weighing these two against each other, but instead noting that to support CP as a deterrent is to weigh the loss of innocent life against a number of deterred crimes, which is unacceptable.

[RationalBiker]

The emotional and psychological appeal is obvious, but how is his death of real value to you(or any individual)?

Well, apparently you don't consider emotional and psychological value as real value, but others do. Aside from that, there is value to me knowing that the murderer will ABSOLUTELY not be able to murder anyone else. Aside from that, there is value in the knowledge that the murderer has been punished in proportion to his crime, which I don't believe life imprisonment is in every case.

What is real value to you?

A "full" deterrent, if you will, is the case in which the existence of a law prevents all crimes which it prohibits.

So no law represents a "full" deterrent then. I would assume considering whether a law or punishment has or doesn't have deterrence value in considering it's usefullness is therefore moot.

So, in a society with capital punishment, it would be fair to say that each case of murder is one in which the criminal failed to a) think about CP deterring him or plan on getting caught, and so even though he knew about the law, he ignored it.

And this proves???? You are using the failure instances SOLELY to determine the value. You are not using the success cases (which are difficult to quantify) which are also part of determining overall effectiveness. What you can legitimately assert is that in those cases where there has been a murder, it has been a 100% failure. But that doesn't represent the whole picture.

but instead noting that to support CP as a deterrent is to weigh the loss of innocent life against a number of deterred crimes, which is unacceptable.

That is NOT the only reason I support capital punishment for one. However, how many innocent lives are saved by the deterred crime? When you only refer to deterred crime, you are leaving out that innocent lives are being spared in the process in the case of crimes that carry capital punishment.

I won't even get into weighing the relative values of the lives saved by deterrence vs. the lives lost by wrongful sentencing. You have essentially helped establish ( at least to me) why deterrence success or failure shouldn't even be considered in determining punishment or law.

It's punishment that matters. Punishment in proportion to the crime.

VES

[oldsalt]

objectivist, I would be verrry careful about taking on Betsy, if I were you!

I said that with a smile (if there were an icon with two feet stuffed in a big mouth, I'd have used that), but I'm not smiling at your gross presumptuousness and utter disrespect. Insults do not an argument make. If you have a point, make it. If you have an opinion about the subject at hand, state it and give your reasons. All the rest is a display of bad manners and a childish inability to hold your tongue. Such behavior will only get you ignored, or worse, banned.

Betsy?

[DavidV]

Somehow, I don't think he'll be bothering us any longer

[oldsalt]

I understand, and sympathize, with Stephen's points. As a matter of simple justice, I'm concerned with mistakes being made.

When I think about the death penalty, I think about Charles Manson. In his case, he wasn't executed, though he was given the death penalty, because the law was repealed. Now we get to hear from him on a regular basis. There are several web sites devoted to his "art," which he is allowed to profit from. Others like him, who cheated justice, profit from books, etc. It isn't just that such people are locked away and are unable to perpetrate further murders on the outside (what is their punishment when they murder while in prison? If you're already serving life, what's the difference?), they are allowed to continue living, while their victims are dead and buried. People like Manson are more comfortable in prison than on the outside; Manson has said so repeatedly. They have little trouble adjusting to prison life and they have all of their basic needs taken care of without any effort on their part. That I have to pay to support Manson's life grates on me more than I can tell you. That he is able to profit from his infamy is a gross injustice. And he is just one of many. Stuff like this makes me a staunch supporter of the death penalty.

THEN I consider the practice of plea-bargaining and the corruption of justice that this entails. We've seen mass murderers, such as mafia hitmen, not just get a pass for their crimes, but actually be put in witness protection, in order to go after a bigger fish. Felonies are regularly knocked down to misdemeanors in order to clear the case. I understand the thinking behind this practice, but I don't think that it justifies it. When the state acts in such a manner, I don't trust it to objectively apply the law and view its use of the death penalty with suspicion.

I know my philosophical stance on this matter. Like others on this thread, I think justice is served when one who has taken a life forfiets their own, but I worry about an innocent being put to death. I find myself flip-flopping when I see specific cases, though. Is there any question about the DC snipers, for instance?

To RationalCop: Thank you for doing a very difficult job. It's nice to know there are genuine good-guys out there protecting me and mine.

As for Osama, mentioned waaaaay back in the thread, there's no question in my mind at all. Fry his sorry ass.

[RationalBiker]

To RationalCop:  Thank you for doing a very difficult job.  It's nice to know there are genuine good-guys out there protecting me and mine.

Thanks very much oldsalt for your kind words!

I have to say that this thread has caused me to think more on the topic than I ever have before. I'm not quite to the flip-flopping stage myself, but I certainly understand and share the concern for the loss of innocent life.

The reality of this job has exposed me to some of the worst in human behavior. I say this not for sympathy, as I chose my profession knowingly and willingly. I say this simply as a matter of understanding.

I've been to too many homicide scenes, and seen too many grotesquely damaged human bodies in my life. It would be nice if I could view these sights through purely objective eyes.

I've dealt with some of the men who committed these acts. Some show remorse, others do not. Most, lie through their teeth to save their ass. Many have established that their continual contribution to other men would be that of stealing, beating and robbing them before they reach the most deadly of crimes. Most try to pass themselves off as regular people just like you and me. In many respects, perhaps they are. But in one very important respect, they are not. They were willing to cross a line. That line is the line of exercising fatal dominion over another person's life for malicious purposes and / or personal gain.

I know all this reeks of the emotive, but what can I say? Try telling a mother, father, brother or sister (or all at once) that they can't approach the body of their loved one, that they need to try to calm down if they want to help the situation. Or better yet, try to find a way to avoid telling them that even though they are being loaded into a paramedic unit, their loved one is still dead. (This is done for two reasons, 1) policemen are not doctors so we can't pronounce anyone dead, and 2) you can't have people freaking out worse than they already are when you trying to maintain and preserve an already chaotic scene.) And in even more difficult circumstances, personally speaking, look over the body of someone you once worked beside.

When I read Ayn Rand's words, which I put as my sig line, they rang so true. Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent.

But yes, I do have to realize that there is a different side. Since I haven't been exposed to it, I can only imagine the horror of an innocent man being imprisoned, awaiting death, and being killed. I have to consciously insert this distant reality into the ever present reality to which I am regularly exposed.

But the most difficult and sad part of this job is that it has become easy to me. It is commonplace to me. Just last week I went on the scene of two young males lying on the sidewalk. The one shot in the eye was already died. I never looked closely enough to see where the other guy was wounded, but he was not expected to make it. Did I have time to really care? No. You have to tell the younger guys to calm down but hurry up, get that crime scene tape up, hold on to those witness, look for evidence, stop those family members, watch for retaliation, etc. etc.

Okay, I'm rambling now. Time to stop. It helps me from time to time to be able to explain this to people outside of police circles. And trust me when I say, there are few people outside of police circles that I really care discussing things with. Many of you have demonstrated that regardless of disagreement, you are decent folks as well, and I appreciate that.

VES

[Objectivist]

MODERATORS!!! LET THIS LAST POST THROUGH

Almost all of you are pseudo-objectivists. You think about as mush as the average christian. To everything you say you attach this label, "rational" You think that by putting that word along with any absurd comment it makes it rational. You should re-examine yourselves. You have accepted Ayn Rand's philosophy on blind faith as it shines through whenever you discuss a topic that was not discussed by Rand herself.

RationalCop thinks that he's right about the death penalty, with no reason at all, but he attaches the word rational and therefore thinks it's so. We can't both be right, that's what you people don't understand.

Betsy said that she thinks we should have the death penalty regarless of the consequences. This sounds like a statement from the Dark Ages. How can one be more foolish. See? Unsupported assertions. The worst is that they don't think that they need to be supported as long as they think it's their self-interest, with the word rational thrown in front of it with no desire or need to justify the word's presence. although justification is the only reason the word should be there.

Betsy THAT was simply a ridiculous unsupported assertion.

As for GC who moderates this board with an iron fist, I respect your right to do this as you own the board. However, I do have a question. How do you obtain "board-pull" like some others have? I DON"T say anything offensive I get warned. (by the way, I am asking this to you here because you failed to address it in the PM) Others have called me a "12 year old little SHIT" and a "F-ing idiot" the worst I had done was simply state that elle didn't understand the transition between morality and politics, which was not meant to be rude or anything like it.

I you want to kick me off of this site, of course you can, because you own it. But I will not give you "the sanction of the victim"