Execution of Tookie Williams

[fuddam]

Rehabilitative treatment? Forgiveness? Incarceration? Incarceration /= punishment.

As far as I'm concerned, nothing is gained by intentionally inflicting suffering on another human being. There is no 'great balancing force' that makes the world a better place if that happens.

um..........clearly not a parent

forgiveness is irrelevant in this case. You're confusing issues here. When people do something wrong, they deserve to be punished. And an essential part of any legal system is the threat of punishment - it's what keeps many people from committing crimes in the first place. For example, why don't more people speed? They don't want to lose points etc.

Further, punishment can take many forms: mental, physical, emotional - ever had your girlfriend give you the cold shoulder because you were inconsiderate / selfish?

Your idea of intentionally inflicting suffering seems to be caught up in the notion of personal vengeance. That is not the case here. The legal system in any country is there to enforce social control, and ALSO to make people accept responsibility for their actions.

I am not in favour of an eye for an eye, personally. For the record, I'm against the death penalty too. But punishment is an ESSENTIAL part of any legal system, as is justice, and rehabilitation.

[Xaneden]

Regardless of his conviction etc, it seems phenomonal to me at least, that a man who only 2 years ago was the Terminator, this year is allowed to decide on the life of a man. Plus, hes hardly the most consciencious person is he? (AKA. http://forums.hexus.net/showthread.php?t=61173)

[Rave]

um..........clearly not a parent

Oh right, because parenthood automatically confers on one Ultimate Moral Authority.

forgiveness is irrelevant in this case. You're confusing issues here. When people do something wrong, they deserve to be punished.

Why? I say again- what fundamental law of the universe makes this so?

And an essential part of any legal system is the threat of punishment - it's what keeps many people from committing crimes in the first place.

Where is your evidence for this? Personally I don't commit crimes against others because I have morals. I would never steal, or start fights etc. because I would feel guilty about inflicting suffering on my victims. The law is largely irrelevant to me- I've commited plenty of 'victimless crimes' (e.g. smoking cannabis) and not felt the slightest bit of guilt or worry.

For example, why don't more people speed? They don't want to lose points etc.

I personally drive at what I consider to be a safe speed- that's often above the speed limit. I've had my driving licence for nearly 9 years and have had no points (and one 5mph bump which caused no damage to the other driver's car- not caused by speeding).

Your idea of intentionally inflicting suffering seems to be caught up in the notion of personal vengeance. That is not the case here. The legal system in any country is there to enforce social control, and ALSO to make people accept responsibility for their actions.

I have no problem at all with the notion of the legal system. What I have a problem with is the idea that 'punishment' is in and of itself is a valid concept. As far as I'm concerned, incarceration should serve only two purposes- a) to prevent people who are in danger of reoffending from doing so by keeping them off the streets and b) to try and rehabilitate people so that they don't commit more crimes after their release. I genuinely have almost no faith in the idea that prison is a deterrent.

I am not in favour of an eye for an eye, personally. For the record, I'm against the death penalty too. But punishment is an ESSENTIAL part of any legal system, as is justice, and rehabilitation.

What is your definition of justice then? I have been a victim of crime on many occasions, and my initial reaction was to feel anger and to wish suffering on the people who had wronged me. In the sober light of day though I genuinely would take no pleasure in seeing them suffer. As far as I'm concerned all I really want is for the people who burgled my house/stole my bike/whatever to become moral upstanding citizens who can contribute something to society. I genuinely feel that to derive satisfaction from the sufering of others impoverishes us morally.

Of course, I'm human, and as such, I'm a hypocrite. I would be a liar if I tried to claim that I derived no satisfaction from (say) David Blunkett's resignation. However, I'm not proud of indulging in schadenfreud, I just accept that I can't fight human nature.

I was genuinely moved and humbled recently when I read that Anthony Walker's mother had forgiven his murderers. She's a Christian, I'm an atheist- but I hope that if I'm ever in a similar position I will have similar strength of character.

[fuddam]

Oh right, because parenthood automatically confers on one Ultimate Moral Authority.:.

Nope, but because you'd realise your nice ideas don't work too well in the real world. The reason most people tend to behave themselves as adults is due to the conditioning they receive as children, that if they do bad unto others, they'll receive in kind etc. Children do NOT behave well solely due to some nice morality instructed to them by the parents.

Why? I say again- what fundamental law of the universe makes this so?:.

I never mentioned fundamental laws of the universe, but being purely practical, there has to be a consequence for bad behaviour. If you were a parent, you'd appreciate the logic more. Possibly not, but quite likely.

Also, you're implying that your morality is suitable for others, that your morality in itself is worth more than someone else's, which is in turn implying some universality. And if not, you're drowning in a sea of relativism, which means that you have no leg to stand on in criticising the morality of others, eg that of Arnold.

Where is your evidence for this? Personally I don't commit crimes against others because I have morals. :.

We'll, it's called, in legal circles, Secondary Social Control, and is accepted as an effective form of social control, literally for when the policeman is not around.
It's the same logic that goes behind having an army - the threat of violence / punishment is usually enough to avoid conflict. Usually.

I personally drive at what I consider to be a safe speed

and if we all did that? lol Been to Germany? Tried those speeds on these UK roads? A lot of people would like to........

I genuinely feel that to derive satisfaction from the suffering of others impoverishes us morally.

Again, you're making it personal. The law does not get satisfaction from sentencing someone to death, even if some of the victims do.

I was genuinely moved and humbled recently when I read that Anthony Walker's mother had forgiven his murderers. She's a Christian, I'm an atheist- but I hope that if I'm ever in a similar position I will have similar strength of character.

agreed. But that is a PERSONAL issue. She never said they shouldn't accept punishment for their actions, ie accept responsibility for their actions, that they would have to face harsh consequences. Where I come from, it's very common for people to be murdered, raped, kidnapped etc. Daily. So even if I forgive people for committing those crimes against (me), that does not suddenly remove the consequences for them promised by the law.

[badass]

Rave, you seem to be forgetting that many people, potential criminals especially aren't like you. There are some people who dont care at all about otehrs and will not feel guilt for say burgling their house, however the fear of being caught and punished prevents them from doing this.
Based on what you suggest, if they could convince the judge that there is no chance of them reoffending they would simply be let out.
Prison is about punishment, protection of the public (though this seems to be ignored these days) and rehabilitation, and I agree with that.

[RVF500]

There is no fundamental law of the universe that pertains to any social law that I can think of. Sorry rave but that sounds like trying to apply the laws of physics to social law. Laws are made by societies to attempt to benefit the good of the majority. Not perfect but by and large works most of the time.

Parenthood gives you experience. I get somewhat short with childless people who preach on how to reason with a 2 year old. I've had that personal 'joy' 3 times. You may be able to do it once or twice but try it day in day out as the child realises that all it has to do to avoid punishment is to smile sweetly and promise to try to behave. You'd better have something to back up your reasoning if it doesn't take hold. Something unpleasant for the 2 year old.

Thing is some adults think the same way. So unless you back up your reasonable approach then all you will get is soft soap and a spiralling crime rate.

As for Tookie. There was a bit of a loose plank there. He maintains he was innocent of the crimes he was convicted of. So why should he express remorse for his part in them? Unfortunately that was the reason he didn't get clemency. Perhaps the case should have been revisited before killing him. He must have held a strong conviction not to have expressed remorse with the threat of the death sentance hanging over him. On the other side of the argument this guy was the co-founder of the most violent and widespread criminal gang in US history. You don't get that high up the ladder in such an organisation and stay there unless you get your hands dirty. 20 years has lapsed since then so attitudes have changed towards this guy. No problem getting a bunch of Hollywood luvvies (who may or may not have been born at the time) to fight your corner. They seem to fall over themselves to back controversial themes. No such thing as bad publicity. Pardon my cynicism. Then again if he held out on the innocence angle he may have felt he had a better chance of raising doubt and getting a reduction in sentance at least while the case was revisited. Don't know if this was already done while he was on death row though.

Ultimately I don't believe that the death penalty solves anything. Fear of capture is a higher deterrent. If we had a say 90% capture and conviction rate then less people of looser morals would be inclined to step over the line in to criminality. There will always be those too stupid or thinking themselves too clever who will. As well as the temporarily unstable. But without punishment to back up the capture then that too would be no deterrent at all. Have varying sentances depending on circumstance ranging from fairly mild to draconian. And clear guidlines on how sentancing should be delivered. I think our system is too easy to manipulate by poor judgement.

[Rave]

A lot of people have made a lot of assumptions about my opinions in this thread. For goodness sake, I am not saying that we should stop imprisoning people etc., I am merely saying that I think that punishment for its own sake is a bogus concept. The idea that somebody who has comitted a crime must automatically be punished is IMO a load of cobblers.

Rave, you seem to be forgetting that many people, potential criminals especially aren't like you.

No, as I said, you seem to be making assumptions about what I think.

There are some people who dont care at all about otehrs and will not feel guilt for say burgling their house, however the fear of being caught and punished prevents them from doing this.
Based on what you suggest, if they could convince the judge that there is no chance of them reoffending they would simply be let out.

I'm not quite sure what your point is. As I understand it we have little in the way of mandatory sentencing in this country, and a judge can, at his or her discretion, give a convicted criminal a conditional discharge if they don't think the public interest will be served by a harsher penalty (fines/community service/imprisonment etc.). However, in the case of the amoral person in your example, if they were to be released and then go on to commit another crime, they would have a great deal more difficulty convincing the judge the next time round.

This leads us to another interesting point: I have little faith in the deterrent effect of prison. However, I have read studies which suggest that schemes which give criminals lighter sentences as long as they meet their victim and apologise to them are effective at reducing recidivism. Being confronted with the consequences of their actions does seem to make some young people start 'caring' enough about others not to reoffend.

I never mentioned fundamental laws of the universe, but being purely practical, there has to be a consequence for bad behaviour. If you were a parent, you'd appreciate the logic more. Possibly not, but quite likely.

Don't insult my intelligence please. I am perfectly aware that a judicial system backed up by the threat of punishment is necessary to maintain social order. Being a parent has precisely sod all to do with how well one understands this concept.

Also, you're implying that your morality is suitable for others, that your morality in itself is worth more than someone else's, which is in turn implying some universality.

Alright, I'll bite- I am saying that, yes. My morality is based entirely on logic (or as entirely as an imperfect human brain can manage).

[autopilot]

Rave, i would love to live in the same world as you. A beautiful place of pixies and rainbows.

[Rave]

Dom, I would love it if you had enough intelligence to understand what I'm saying.

[autopilot]

Dom, I would love it if you had enough intelligence to understand what I'm saying.

ooooo! Handbags at dawn!!!

[RVF500]

However, in the case of the amoral person in your example, if they were to be released and then go on to commit another crime, they would have a great deal more difficulty convincing the judge the next time round.

I don't want to be jumping on a bash Rave bandwagon here but I do have an issue with that statement. My line of thinking here is that for a 'next time' there has to be another victim. Why should someone who has shown a propensity for commiting a crime be given such a chance to create another victim. I'm fully aware that you have been a victim on more than one occasion. As have I and many others. But I'm sure you would have preferred not to be. A structured mandatory sentancing system would work, imho, better than some judgements that get handed down presently. That would take away the character of the judge from any trial too. A combination of education, effective policing and strict penalties for crimes might just lower the recividism rate. Then you and I might not become multiple victims.

From my own pov I think society needs to see 'justice being done'. This is twofold. Firstly so that there is some deterrent effect. Secondly to assuage the victims. If victims are constantly seen given the brush off then this can lead to frustration, a feeling of gross unfairness, anger and ultimately viglantiism. Bernhard Goetz the New York subway vigilante for example. So yes, revenge is part of the process but not from a judicial viewpoint. Not sure what triggered the riots in Sydney recently but you can bet that 5000 people didn't go on a rampage on the spur of the moment. There had to be some underlying resentment that triggered that. Especially in Australians who in my experience are very laid back and tolerant people.

The death penalty doesn't work. One problem here in Malaysia is snatch theft by passing motorcylists. Last week 2 women died as a result of such thefts when they were knocked to the ground. These are now automatically murder cases. Already 3 people have been arrested. If guilty they will hang. It doesn't stop the profligacy of these thefts. Mainly because the thieves are uneducated and don't realise what faces them until they end up in court for their lives. That and I'm sure that they mostly think 'it won't happen to me'. What has led to a reduction is effective policing in areas where these people operate.

Another thing is that POSSESSION of an illegal firearm here carries the death penalty. Though gun crime is rare; it happens and when a suspect is caught will often shoot it out with the police as he has nothing to lose. He'll hang anyway. Having said that most gun crime ends in the death of the criminal anyway as the police often 'kill them in the ensuing gun battle' mainly because the end result is known to everyone so why go to the cost of a trial? Neither situation is what you would call ideal. It doesn't stop armed criminals. It just makes them more desperate.

[RVF500]

Have a look at this thread http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/300/300lect10.htm it has some interesting views on the place and reason of the vigilante. Also the social perceptions of punishment and justice as two seperate entities. Some points that I think are relevant to this discussion.

For those who don't want to read through the whole thing I grabbed these paragraphs:

Vigilantes regard the criminals and people they target as living outside the social bonds and communal ties that hold our society together.

The target must also be punished, and punished outside the law. Any and all legal matters on the subject are seen as unnecessary intrusions

Vigilantes do not care to wait for the police to finish their investigation, and they care less about any court's determination of proof. What they do care about is justice -- quick, final, cost-effective justice.

These are all romantic notions that feed an appetite for punishment more than an appetite for vengeance.

Punishment is the foundational matter of justice, and those who deserve punishment also deserve to pay (lex salica) or receive some kind of harm equal to the harm they have done (lex talionis).

That is the reason we have a system of laws and courts -- to sort out the particulars and differences between a criminal who deliberately commits a crime and one who accidentally commits a crime.

Nor is vengeance satisfying. Almost anyone who's ever thought about it knows than vengeance is an un-tempered emotion like fear, lust, and anger. Justice and punishment should NOT be guided by banal, primitive, un-tempered emotions.

[badass]

A lot of people have made a lot of assumptions about my opinions in this thread. For goodness sake, I am not saying that we should stop imprisoning people etc., I am merely saying that I think that punishment for its own sake is a bogus concept. The idea that somebody who has comitted a crime must automatically be punished is IMO a load of cobblers.

Can you think of any examples where someone commits a serious crime where punishment should not be used at all?

[Oresa]

Euthanasia, and by that I mean 'assisted suicide', not 'mercy killing'. Say somebody has a terminal illness, and every day simply causes more suffering. They want to die, but are incapable of ending their life on their own. Enter loved-one / sympathetic medical professional, who understands the situation, and wants to help. One large dose of morphine or paracetamol later, and this third party is officially a murderer. This is punishable by life imprisonment. Punishment for their compassion. Punishment for the sake of punishment.

[badass]

Euthanasia, and by that I mean 'assisted suicide', not 'mercy killing'. Say somebody has a terminal illness, and every day simply causes more suffering. They want to die, but are incapable of ending their life on their own. Enter loved-one / sympathetic medical professional, who understands the situation, and wants to help. One large dose of morphine or paracetamol later, and this third party is officially a murderer. This is punishable by life imprisonment. Punishment for their compassion. Punishment for the sake of punishment.

Not just punishment for compassion. If the person injects the drug themselves then they have murdered the sufferer. A "sympathetic medical professional" has jalso just done something very unprofessional and should not be allowed near patients if that is what they'll do. They have no right to kill that person, even if that person wants to be killed. However if they simply provide the means for teh person to commit suicide, then they are only guilty of serious medical miscondict, not murder.
Its like the difference between stabbing someone that asks you to do so, or simply handing them the knife and letting them do what they want to do. One is murder, and for playing god punishment should certainly be considered. The other is legal, however as a medical proctitioner it is serious misconduct.
Compassion is not IMHO an excuse for murder as quite often compassion can drive someone to do the very wrong thing for the person they feel compassion for.
Imagine this: Someone gets hit by a car. They look a mess and beg for someone to end their life as they are in so much pain and are convinced they will die anyway, albeit slowly. The compassionate person murders them. The post mortem reveals they were suffering from lots of lacerations and a couple of broken limbs and ribs. They would have survived and lived without any ill effects after 6 weeks in the hospital.
Should the compassionate person be let off completely as they thought they were doing the right thing?
If you say yes, then you must also believe that there is no sich thing as criminal negligence. Something very important for protecting us from idiots in charge.

[Oresa]

They have no right to kill that person, even if that person wants to be killed

You're talking about the right to kill, i'm talking about the right to die. The two concepts are not the same.

Its like the difference between stabbing someone that asks you to do so, or simply handing them the knife and letting them do what they want to do

You're assuming that the person who wants to die is actually still capable of holding a knife in their hand, and moving it with enough force to cause lethal wounding. Wanna try this when you're paralysed from the neck down??

One is murder, and for playing god punishment should certainly be considered. The other is legal, however as a medical practitioner it is serious misconduct

I'm aware of the current legality of euthanasia. I'm not debating what happens to a person found guilty of it now, I'm debating what should happen. Forget what the law says today, what's your own moral viewpoint on the situation? Your answer seems to be largely based on the fact that euthanasia is against the law, not that it's morally dubious. Why is this??

Imagine this: Someone gets hit by a car. <snip> They would have survived and lived without any ill effects after 6 weeks in the hospital.

I like this example, but the way i'm looking at it, it's an argument for control and proper legislation, rather than against euthanasia. Much like the idea of legalising heroin in order to control it and make it safe, legalisation of euthanasia would allow the potential for a structured system that would prevent the sorts of occurences we see in your scenario.

Should the compassionate person be let off completely as they thought they were doing the right thing?

No, because they're operating without all the information they require to do so. I'm assuming your 'compassionate person' is a doctor, in which case, mistaking lacerations and a few fractures for life-threatening injuries is a pretty big mistake. As for criminal negligence, I have to say i think it's incredibly important to have a system of accountability in place, particularly in a sphere of operation such as medicine.

Something very important for protecting us from idiots in charge.

Absolutely.