Discussion
I once had an argument about the death penalty in college and my opponent said "What about a monster like John Wayne Gacy?" and indeed I have no feelings about such a man.
But, in killing John Wayne Gacy we also made him silent. He was a monster who killed many kids and young men. He took advantage of the friendless and frightened.
But, to this day people wonder if he acted alone.
Were he still alive we might ask.
Keep even the worst alive, it is preserving evidence.
@futurebird Not a question in a civilised society.
@futurebird This is largely my thinking. Honestly, it’s somewhat solidified from the Gandalf quote, “Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.”
But if I had to make a deal with political death penalty proponents, I wouldn’t lose sleep on this.
@futurebird My feeling on the death penalty is that there are two separate questions to ask. Did John Wayne Gacy deserve to die? Probably. Did others deserve to have to kill him? I don't think so.
I think there's a moral injury inflicted on the state, the people, and their agent (the executioner) when we execute a prisoner with premeditation.
@futurebird > "What about a monster like John Wayne Gacy?"
This question is only asked by people who are more concerned with "Guilty people must suffer" than they are with, "Innocent people must never suffer."
Because the answer is, "Keeping Gacy alive and allowing people to try to exonerate him gives every citizen hope that if they are wrongly convicted, there will be paths to overturn the injustice."
"Don't you think that someone like that should just... die?"
I mean, yes. I suppose I do. Even though I know it won't bring all those boys back. But, that anger and disgust can get in the way of keeping everyone safe.
Some people struggle to imagine anyone could be wrongly accused. That's disturbing. But if they can't imagine that horror what about how it's simply less effective? That it makes it harder to find out who was really responsible or what really happened.
@futurebird
There is no place for death penalty. If only for one important reason:
as long as an innocent man is in the prison alive there is a chance the real perpetrator of the crime can be caught.
The people who roll their eyes and take comfort in the notion that often a person who is accused of murder may be a criminal in other ways... or just the kind of person who isn't like them and so not important may think 'maybe it's not so bad that the state killed the wrong person, they were still involved' never seem to pick up on this.
You never found the real killer. The divine vengeance, the hardline "justice" is a joke if the criminal is walking free.
@futurebird
> 'maybe it's not so bad that the state killed the wrong person they were still involved'
That is why I always riposte this with 'It is always a right person' Right person to cover for the real perpetrator who is 100% a privileged and rich person if they managed the system to find the 'proper' bad person to be killed for the real perpetrator impunity and right person to make YOU a willing idiot to come with such an absurd excuse'.
Not always it worked, but I'd say I had like 90% conversion rate. The ones that couldn't see and feel it are ones that got booted off my circle for good.
@futurebird I have mixed feelings, but I usually settle on, "as long as there's a chance of an innocent person being put to death, it's just state sanctioned murder.
I do not think that there's much value to letting "actual monsters" live. Charlie Manson is a good example. And what in the world could someone want to hear a Trump or Steven Miller say in twenty years (treason is still a punishable crime, in theory).
But yeah...for me it comes down to the innocence bit. As long as innocent people are in danger of being caught in the gears of justice I don't think it's a good idea.
In the end I just don't think any state is wise enough, well-regulated enough, or cautious enough to exercise such power in a case where there is a reasonable alternative.
And it's easy for me to imagine this power being abused in the future in so many ways it seems better to do whatever is possible to curtail it.
The state had a mechanism to deport people for reasons of little urgency and we've watched how that has been abused.
Call me a libertarian(derogatory) give the state fewer mechanisms to move, strike and kill people.
Sometimes the very worst criminals who find their way to death row may bring relief not to the families of the victims when they die, but to the others who were never discovered to be involved.
Let them stay in prison so such people can never rest easy.
@futurebird To paraphrase He Who Fights With Monsters (I don't remember the exact quote off the top of my head): killing is sometimes necessary, but killing never makes the world a better place, at best it removes something that makes the world worse. If we can remove their capability to make the world worse without killing them, then all the better. It's not about what someone deserves but what kind of people we would become by killing them. It's not justice, it's vengeance.
@futurebird I'n my own lifetime, three men have been exonerated of murder convictions that landed them in prison for life. In two of those cases, the right-leaning press called for the death penalty to be reintroduced just to execute the wrong man.
No nation can rest easy that it has executed the wrong man. It's just that some nations shrug and think a wrongful conviction could only happen to the wrong people.
That is the greatest horror, but I also think that some people like the way that killing someone brings and end to questions and investigations.
But such people don't always seem to need the death penalty to make this happen, but it is one more tool that they might use.
I think we should keep asking questions forever.
@futurebird My experience is from Canada. I don't follow American justice news, but I certainly remember the Central Park Five and how America's president campaigned to have them murdered by the state.
They were innocent and he has never apologized.
I suppose to allow for such a possibility is to admit to the failings and shortcoming of our justice system. And to support the state killing people in the name of justice is to have incautious and uninformed confidence in a system we all know can be flawed, corrupted by the powerful and wealthy or bent to serve the petty prejudices of the public.
Maybe that is what the argument is really about.
@futurebird People try to argue for the death penalty like the only person involved is the person on death row. What I try to get across when I go against it is that I don't actually really care all that much about the criminals.
I don't think a government should have a path it can follow to kill its citizens. Even if it had a 100% accuracy rate, that point holds very strong, to me. That's really the beginning and end of it.
@futurebird What happens though. when someone turns up years later. who has really committed the murder? Or it is found that new evidence makes it impossible for the person to have committed the murder? I'm thinking the UK case of Stefan Kiszko here.
For those with the desire to have faith in the state using such power? I guess they try to see such things as freak anomalies. They must feel that the "justice" of seeing the most wicked people killed is somehow outweighed by such horrors.
Personally, I think such "anomalies" may be much more common than we know. But even if exceptional I think it would be better to avoid them. And we could do that. We choose not to.
@futurebird It is much easier if you feel you can trust the cops every single time they say "this man is a John Wayne Gacy".
John Wayne Gacy was great friends with a large number of people in law enforcement. Pillar of the community, or so everyone thought.
It is so strange how that seems to keep happening, isn't it?
Install Fedizen
Get the full app experience
@futurebird Christians probably believe they send evil people to hell by executing them. But what if the atheists are right, there is no afterlife, you simply cease to exist when you die? In that case, death is far too good for monsters like that. They should be kept alive for as long as possible, but in a tiny box all alone.