Equating Morality with the Checkbook
Delaware Politics and Sussex County Angel have posts up (it is actually the same post by blogger Angel Clark) arguing for the morality of the death penalty in Delaware. But Angel Clark does not argue morality. She argues the fiscal aspect of the death penalty.
Despite its controversy, the death penalty is still legal in Delaware. [..] Since 1991 there have been 14 legal executions in Delaware including the last hanging in the state (1996). The youngest of these was 27 at the time of death and each committed at least one murder. One particularly gruesome case was Brian Steckel. Steckel was executed in 2005 (the most recent legal execution in Delaware) on three counts of first degree murder. He raped and killed Sandra Lee Long and then set her on fire. After this he wrote letters to her mother gloating about his deeds. It cost approximately $66 a day to incarcerate this creature (I will not call him a man). That’s $24,090 a year. Despite the “immorality” people claim are associated with legal executions, I consider it to be more immoral to the mother of Sandra Lee Long to force her to pay to keep Steckel alive.
Um, what? One would expect a post on the morality of the use of the death penalty, whether here in Delaware, or elsewhere throughout the country, that we at least talk about the morality of death penalty itself. Is it right for society to kill, when it is quite clear in both the new and the old Testament that killing is a sin and immoral. Is it right for society to stoop to the level of the barbaric criminal and act in the same fashion (and Angel does talk about this, saying lethal injection is clearly not as barbaric as bludgeoning someone to death, and that is true, but both have the same end result, which is the real issue).
I am agnostic when it comes to the death penalty. I think killing is wrong, whether the state or a criminal does it. But there are just some crimes for which no other punishment is appropriate. For example, serial killers and terrorists quilty of mass murder, like Osama bin Laden. But what I don’t think about is the cost of incarcerating the criminal, whether they are awaiting their punishment on death row or spending their life in prison. To base a decision to kill someone on financial considerations is what is immoral. Indeed, Angel overpays her hand here by saying the mother of the victim is being forced to pay to keep the killer of her daughter alive. Um, no she is not. Not out of her own pocket anyway. It is not like the State of Delaware has presented an invoice to the mother demanding payment. And if we start arguing that people should not have their tax dollars go to pay for things that they disagree with, well we will have a problem on our hands, because many people have a problem with paying for war, and still others have a problem with their money funding faith based organizations, and I could go on and on.
I’m all for trying to look at every possible aspect of an issue, but I’m not sure this is the right one to stress. Although capital cases can get very expensive when you factor in the cost of all the appeals that usually follow, yes, it probably is cheaper just to kill them. But then by that logic, everybody who is sitting in prison on a life sentence with no chance at parole, regardless of their offense, should be put down, too. There are a lot of very valid issues to debate in regards to capital punishment, but I don’t think money should be one of them.
That is not the only aspect that she discussed. The main focus was that the heinious nature of the crimes demanded a penalty that matched. She claimed that it is immoral to force the family of those who had a loved one killed to be forced to keep up the living expenses of the killer.
Murder is wrong. Killing may not be. An example is self defense. You have a right to defend yourself even if it means killing an assailent. You have the same right collectively. If your nation is threatened and acts to secure itself, that is justified. If society acts to execute a person who has taken a life or in my view severely damaged multiple lives (like repeat child rapists), it is the self defense of its members.
The only way that you can seriously argue the costs of capital cases is if you are also willing to compensate the families of the innocent who get executed too.
Don’t know that this has happened in Delaware, but this is not an unusual circumstance. And one of the biggest reasons why I am against it. And again, behold the hypocrisy of people who will tell you that the government can’t do anything right, but have every confidence in the world that the government can determine capital guilt with 100% accuracy.
If society acts to execute a person who has taken a life or in my view severely damaged multiple lives (like repeat child rapists), it is the self defense of its members.
Wrong. Keeping the offenders locked up for the rest of their lives does just fine in protecting the vast majority of civilized nations. Capital punishment is about one thing and one thing alone — revenge. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not absolutely against it. I just think we should be honest with ourselves as to why we’re doing it.
i go back and forth on the death penalty personally, but if we’re going to argue cost we have to take into account how much more expensive it generally is to have someone on death row.
yes i said MORE expensive.
The irreversible nature of the death penalty means that we have to give them a lengthy appeals process in order to make sure we’re SURE they’re guilty before they’re put to death (which totally doesn’t always work but that’s another story). This lengthy appeals process can go on for decades, and the state is required to provide death row inmates with counsel far longer than inmates sentenced to life. These costs far outweigh the general cost of upkeep for a regular inmate regardless of how long they’re incarcerated.
In this particular State, when Rich White Guys are executed (YES I’m talking about you Tom Capano), I’ll be OK with the death penalty.
I worked 10+ years in a jail. Although I met many inmates who I wouldn’t necessarily consider part of the human race anymore (Harry Turner), oddly enough, most of them didn’t have the death penalty. And here’s the other thing, Dr Earl Bradley won’t get the death penalty either.
Death penalty states spend more on their inmates on death row because of the lengthy appeal process mentioned by V
I’m unequivocally against the death penalty whether it be some random street criminal or Osama or Manson or Capano.
We,as evolving humanity, should isolate the creatures who would have once been given the death penalty.We should give them three meals a day in their isolation cells where they can neither see,hear,smell or touch another human for as long as they live.Once or twice a year they could be removed by guards wearing full body armor and thick gloves to be examined by a doctor or nurse wearing as much protection and cover-up as possible.A hook should be secured in every cell 6’above floor level.Their prison uniform should NOT be rip-proof.
We should not be pulled into the gutter by violent criminals–we should not stoop to their level.
We should incarcerate them an appropriate amount of time (life in some circumstances). We should treat them humanely, not because of how they have behaved as inhumans, but as we wish to live as humans.
I can’t imagine the pain suffered by the families of victims, and I can imagine that in some/many cases, the death of the convicted criminal can reduce the mental anguish. However, I do not feel that this justifies our society resorting to capital punishment. I agree with the post that it is purely revenge (school yard rules), that it has been unsuccessful at ENSURING that only the guilty are so executed, and that is has so far been unsuccessful at being applied in a non-cruel way.
Still waiting for pro-lifers who claim to respect life from conception to natural death to justify their support of capital punishment. And it is more expensive to keep someone on death row than in prison for their natural life.
Despite the thirst for revenge I feel sometimes, I have real problems supporting the death penalty, although I once did.
Too easy, mike. We value the gift of life so much that we believe in protecting it. No one should be subjected to having their life deprived for another’s whim or to take that person’s property. If you are innocent of harming another person, no one has any right to interupt the natural cycle of life.
A person who commits murder has committed such a heinous crime that the land is cursed. The blood of the innocent person cries out for justice to God who is the only One who can meet out the penalty. The only response that society has is to commend the murderer to a higher court, God’s court. Murder is a crime against the individual, humanity, and the Creator. In the Bible, God gave government the authority to send murderers to him.
The great secrets to the universe are the laws of reciprocity and attraction. A person who commits murder will reap what he sows, but if he is allowed to continue in that vain, he will attract more evil. Evil and lawlessness starts to seep into society until the cancer of the murder is removed.
The only way to promote good is to remove evil.
Oh my.
Hey, real deal, who gets executed when an innocent person is murdered by the state? Start with the governor and work your way down to the prosecutors and everyone on the jury? And what about all the innocent people murdered by the state dropping bombs on them?
I think the morality of the case is discussed here
“I wish every …creature… on “Death Row” a shorter wait for their sentences to be carried out. In my opinion Emmitt Taylor deserves his death, and he deserves it as fast as possible so tax payer dollars are not wasted on keeping him alive any longer than necessary. I urge anyone who thinks the death penalty is barbaric to imagine their own children being submitted to the horrific acts those murdered had to go through. I imagine my family being tortured then killed and think lethal injection is too humane. Society is not as bad as its criminals, and these murderers are not victims of society. The families of those murdered and the murdered themselves are the victims and I urge people to remember that.”
I agree with the sentiment expressed by most of the commenters here who have voiced their objections to the death penalty.
To me it is a question of morality over cost and over revenge (see Angel above). The death penalty is not killing, as Republican David would have us believe; it is state sponsored premeditated murder, therefore it is wrong!
I have never understood those who are adamantly pro-life regarding abortion, who then turn around and support the death penalty, and aggressive warfare as well. Their views represent cherry-picked morality, thus there is no consistency whatsoever, therefore unpersuasive to me.
Well said, Perry.
There are no innocent people who get executed. I remember when the IL executions were halted out of that legitimate fear. Not one was innocent. Out of all of the modern cases investigated, not one has been shown to be innocent. Out of thousands of cases in the last 100 years, less than 2 dozen can even be serious argued. The appeals process does a more than adequate job when combined with executive review.
If one did, it would either be an accident or a frame up. If someone framed someone, they should be subjected to the same penalty. When someone dies by accident and without intent or malice, that is a tragedy, but you do not punish people for it.
While I agree that MOST people are clearly guilty, heinous people David. What about this?
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row
Clearly they get to death row, and thank god appeals worked for these folks. But how do we know we didn’t miss any? Especially in the times before forensic evidence.
That would be quite wrong (David’s claim that no one on death row is innocent). And a remarkable window into your own moral deficiencies. Looking for any reason to satisfy your own bloodthirstyness is no reason to rewrite clear history on this thing. 139 people exonerated from Death Row since 1970.
139 people. And even if this number if off there is simply no way to justify killing any citizen when the process can exonerate so many.
That is really despicable, David. Just despicable. The criminal justice system is not perfect enough to be in the business of killing anyone. And here you are — once again — part of the Hypocrisy Parade — claiming that the government can do this one thing — decide whether one of its citizens should die — absolutely perfectly.
You are on notice — no more of your government is trying to take our freedom or liberals rely too much on government bullshit. If you think that your government is in a position to kill its citizens even when they get it wrong — you are the clear and abiding problem with government overreaching.
To David’s credit he used a crafty choice of words, he said no one who is EXECUTED is innocent. So technically he can ignore what both cassandra and I have said. But I still maintain there is no way of knowing for CERTAIN that we have never executed an innocent person or that we won’t in the future. We have a better chance now going forward with the scientific advances, but there’s no way of knowing we’ve never made a mistake.
like i said i go back and forth on DP personally (there’s a visceral part of me that unfortunately reacts to an eye for an eye) but this evidence is the stuff that makes me waiver.
Again, please don’t forget the morality of the death penalty action: It is premeditated murder by the state. Clearly that is wrong. While the possibility of the wrongful murder of an innocent person is a valid issue, the moral issue overrides all others, in my view. Republican David did not respond to this point.
It is not murder, it is justice. The punishment fits the crime. It is the self defense of society. It cleanses evil, deters, and takes vengeance out the mix so you do not have feuds as exist without a system of justice. The death penalty is good and proper. Targeting killing innocent people is wrong.
Cassandra, would many of those people had been exonerated with a life in prison system? No, there is no where near that type of scrutiny. Is it more moral to lock a person in an hell hole for 40 years until they die? Are there not innocent people in prison? In an interesting way, the death penalty makes us more careful to execute justice not less careful.
How very Old Testament of you, David.
Again, I’ll admit there are valid arguments on both sides of this, but the “Societal Self-Defense” stance isn’t one of them. How exactly is this self-defense? Doesn’t locking the violator up for the rest of their life also protect society? Seems to in most civilized countries. And the idea that it “takes vengeance out of the mix” is ludicrous. Capital punishment is nothing BUT vengeance.
Several thoughts come to mind when I read thru a subject that brings me much confliction:
Justice is expensive no matter how you exact it
For a country that thinks they are so “enlightened” against “eye for an eye”–we have no problem fast forwarding to death penalty
How much more cooperation and or testimony has been obtained from defendants when a bartering chip of “death penalty off the table” was used?
Just a few random thoughts on this uncomfortable issue….
Cassandra, would many of those people had been exonerated with a life in prison system?
No one knows how many would have been exonerated, but that is just handwaving on your part. Even if they had been sentenced wrongly at least you have the possibility of restoring them to some sort of life. A thing not possible if you are killing them and pretending that the government always gets this right. And apparently the sanctity of life has no real meaning to you, either.
Imagine being wrongly convicted and executed for a fire that killed your three children:
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2009/aug/25/science/chi-tc-nw-texas-execute-0824-082aug25
Welcome to Texas.